Monday, August 12, 2013

Cruising the Web

Are the Venezuelans proud that they have a wacky president who likes sleeping in the tomb of his predecessor?

MoDo seems quite disgruntled with The One and very unexcited about the return of Saint Hillary.

The Chicago Tribune calls out Dick Durbin for the obnoxious hypocrite that he is.

Mary Katharine Ham perfectly captures Obama's attitude toward defending his signature program:P "Promise the impossible, confess impotence, point fingers, repeat."
Every time he talks about Obamacare, he assures everyone they’ll like it because it’s going to work. But the reason people don’t like it is they’ve had three years to show people it’s working, and it has brought nearly nothing but headaches and apprehension to a majority of Americans while breaking every single major promise the president made. Americans were skeptical of the law from the beginning, throughout its passage, and it is experience not misinformation or lack of salesmanship that has made them more skeptical.
And when asked about his unilateral decision to delay the employer mandate, he defends it by saying he talked to a lot of businessmen so that makes it fine and dandy. He then defends his unilateral approach by saying Congress is just too political to handle such a "tweak" of the law. However, he threatened to veto the bill that the House passed to delay the employer mandate even though that was the very thing he defended doing without Congress's blessing. And most Democrats voted against that legislation. Got that? He just doesn't seem to understand how laws are made.

Of course, if you remember how Obamacare got pushed through Congress, the form that was passed was never supposed to be the one that became law. It was meant to be fixed in conference, but the sloppy Senate bill had to be the one adopted because the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority with the election of Scott Brown and so the House had to pass the exact same bill and not change anything.

MKH pushes back against the liberal defense of Obamacare that tries to point through the parts that are popular while ignoring the parts that are unpopular.
Yes, the liberal war cry through the pains of implementation has always been to refer to the two or three things people do like in the bill and then brush their shoulders off triumphantly. Problem is, they didn’t pass two or three things people liked and that they could reasonably handle implementing. They passed a gargantuan, systemic change to 1/6 of the economy, waited three years to bother even beginning to implement most of it to protect Obama’s reelection, ran into a Charlie Foxtrot of a situation of their own making, and then decided to tell Americans how much they’re benefitting from this Charlie Foxtrot. I’m not sure telling people who, in huge numbers even in Obama constituencies, think this law is making them worse off that they’re just big dummies who can’t understand how great it is is a wise political strategy. The 85 percent of people he references do not feel like they’re benefitting, and many are petrified about the major promise this law broke— “If you like your plan, you can keep it.” The president saying “everything’s already great,” does not answer their very real concerns and doesn’t jibe with their experiences. The press will never nail him for being “out of touch” the way they would another politician whistling this loudly past the graveyard, but that’s what this is.
Peter Suderman explains why many of those now forced to buy insurance are not going to be happy about being forced to buy more expensive, elaborate plans than they would ordinarily. Many young people are content buying a plan that provides catastrophic coverage instead of paying a lot for coverage they don't need.
Obama also claimed that when the health law opens for enrollment, it will offer individuals who currently do no carry insurance the opportunity to buy plans “at a significantly cheaper rate than what they can get right now on the individual market.” That will likely be the case for some number of older and sicker individuals, but it is certainly not true for everyone who might buy insurance through the exchanges. In many states, younger, healthier individuals will end up either paying a penalty or buying plans that are more expensive than the cheapest plans they can buy on the market today. Obamacare’s defenders sometimes note that, thanks to the law’s benefits rules, plans bought on the exchanges will be more robust than many inexpensive plans are now. For anyone who might be concerned about cost—which, thanks to the mandate requiring people to purchase insurance, could be millions of people—misses the point. More expansive, more expensive coverage is still more expensive.
But they're captive to the needs of insurance companies to get young, healthy people buying coverage to subsidize the costs of providing coverage for others who aren't as healthy.

The federal government is funding actions by labor activists to try to get around labor laws in organizing workers at restaurants.

Even liberal Democrats aren't impressed with the demands of the BART employees for a 15% pay raise over three years instead of the proposed 9% raise. And their refusal to contribute to their own pensions is just anachronistic in this day of bankrupt cities having to cut present-day workers to pay the pensions of retirees.

Governor McDonnell is not alone. Apparently, there is quite a history of Virginia's governors receiving all sorts of expensive gifts from donors.

Besides ridiculing Matt Damon's hypocrisy on sending his kids to private schools, we can also ridicule the lameness of his excuse that he just couldn't find progressive public schools in Los Angeles. As Andrew Rotherham explains in Time Magazine, there are plenty of charter schools that would offer Damon progressive options. He's either amazingly ignorant or he's just lying to justify making the private school choice. Anyone can make that choice for his own children, but spare us the sanctimonious excuses.

Jennifer Rubin explains why Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Rick Santorum will never win the nomination in 2016. I tend to agree with all of her arguments. But that doesn't mean that they couldn't have an impact shaping the discussion in the GOP primaries.

The plight of Chicago exposes how the promised pensions for government workers is interfering with liberal priorities.

Stephen Moore explains how the sequestration has worked.

Rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline wouldn't have any impact on reducing American greenhouse gas emissions.

Eliana Johnson explains one law that Lois Lerner might be taking the Fifth to prevent her breaking of it from coming to light.

So which news organizations serve the President and Democrats most obsequiously? Tom Blumer has three nominees.