“I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government." That's what Obama said in making 15 controversial recess appointments, mostly notably a union lawyer (AFL-CIO and SEIU) Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. All 41 Senate Republicans signed a letter urging Obama not to make a recess appointment of Becker, whom they do not believe will be an honest broker in labor-management disputes that come up before the board. Recess appointments are limited by their very nature, and appointees will only serve through the end of next year. Recess appointments have a bipartisan history, with Clinton appointing nearly 140 and Bush over 170. On one level it seems this is simply more of the same; note, however, that in these cases neither predecessor had 59 or 60 Senators to carry the vote.
The President had misled the nation, promising a departure from politics as usual. Instead, we have one of the most brazenly partisan Presidents in American history whom has spend less time negotiating with the Republicans than with America's adversaries. Laughingly, the mainstream media attempts to turn the argument on its head, claiming that near-unanimous votes against partisan measures proves that the GOP is highly partisan. Say WHAT? The Republicans won 3 consecutive high-profile elections, replacing Democrats whom had held the same seats through multiple cycles; nearly every major poll showed that the public is deeply concerned about the escalating federal debt and remains strongly opposed to the Democratic Party Health Care Bill--and yet Obama goes on, his progressive statist ambitions unfettered and unabashed.
The National Labor Relations Board needs genuine problem solvers, not a political payback from Obama to his special-interest union supporters. Obama could and should have nominated individuals independent of unions; he himself has introduced partisanship in the nomination process, not the Republicans. America deserves better than a White House dominated by Chicago-style politics.
Why the Progressive Dems Settled for the Corrupt Senate Health Care Bill
Charles Krauthammer points out that effectively Obama and his crony progressive Democratic allies have effectively turned the health insurance companies into utilities. If you do not let insurers charge according to risk (e.g., if you require insurers to accept people whom wait until they are already ill to take out a policy, if you do not allow insurers to pass along their costs to policyholders because the rate exceeds a more politically popular smaller rate, etc.), you are no longer in the insurance business: you've become a middleman between the government and providers. And sooner or later you will see EXACTLY the same game that Obama and the other progressive Democrats are playing with respect to student loan or (say) Medicare Advantage.
For example, Obama is misleadingly trying to portray a federal grab for private sector market share for student loans tucked away in the recent budget reconciliation as a "giveaway" to bankers. In essence, about 64% of student loans have been financed by the private sector; the federal government has been able to leverage its resources by assuming the risk of student default and interest rates. Most likely the nature of private-sector lenders will focus on servicing niches (e.g., loan collection or students unable to obtain sufficient federal financing). The idea of the federal government insourcing functionality outside its core competencies, lacking the market experience and expertise, the natural incentive to cost containment, and the efficient utilization of resources is anathema to any conservative; the private sector did not make up the rules for the federal subsidy program. (No doubt the private sector has been able to arbitrage the difference in market interest rates during a sustained period of historically low interest rates, but the issue has more to do with underlying legislation and a related lack of expertise in the sector.) Does anyone seriously believe that if and when Treasury interest rates rise, the government will respond by cutting labor costs and raising student loan rates?
Similarly, Medicare Advantage has been a way for the private sector to participate in the Medicare program; generally speaking, it's more of a managed care concept with supplemental benefits (e.g., low or no-cost preventive care, lower out of pocket costs, simplified administration, etc.), with a subsidy of 12 to 15% over traditional Medicare cost. Obama, once again, oversimplifies the program, seeing the subsidies as a way, for instance, of paying for the doc fix. Nationally, nearly 1 of 5 Medicare enrollees are in an Advantage plan, and it is so popular in states with large retiree populations like Florida, that the infamous "Gator Aid" perk of Senator Nelson (D-FL) attempted to protect 800,000 Advantage enrollees from Obama's Advantage cuts in another states. (Original Senate health care bill deal Gator Aid, like the Cornhusker Kickback, got eliminated in the House budget reconciliation bill.)
So don't be surprised if the progressives suddenly "discover" this health insurance utility is subsidizing health insurers, not unlike it sees student loan companies being subsidized, and hence "cuts costs" by cutting out the middleman--leaving us with a nationalized health care system by default....
Halleluyah! Obama Finally Achieves a Bipartisan Consensus in the House:
Against His Policy on Israel
A bipartisan majority (337 members) signed a letter to President Obama, critical of the administration's high-profile counterproductive kerfuffle with the Israeli administration. No doubt the White House
A Conservative Political Era is Inevitable
I've been looking at a number of polls since the President's victory in ramming a defective partisan health care bill down the nation's throat. Any impartial view of the evidence makes it clear the long-term political future for conservatives is bright--it's basically baked into today's numbers.
I'm not referring to the mid-term elections, although I think we will see some relevant elements surface. It looks as though prospective Senate candidates Rossi (Washington) and Thompson (Wisconsin) have lost their initial leads, races have tightened in Ohio and Pennsylvania, but GOP hopefuls have picked up a bit in California. Obama and health bill support was boosted temporarily by its passage--which I attribute more to closure regarding the health care kerfuffle than acceptance of the bill, but a follow-up Washington Post poll shows virtually the same year-long net-disapproval public split.
[Democrats are still in a state of denial regarding the unpopularity of the health care bill, which they attribute to "distortions" by the opposition. No, it really deals with Americans not believing the phony accounting and worried about unintended consequences of a 2700-page law on their own health care. Nobody really argues with people in need getting access to health care, of families not having to file for bankruptcy over catastrophic health care expenses, and with necessary reforms in dealing with the small business and individual coverage markets. The question has more to do with the cost/benefit trade-off: not to mention that what Obama is doing to fund this bureaucratic power grab as at the expense of the job creator class, which doesn't help with sticky high unemployment rates.]
No, I'm pointing to other things--things that the Democrats can't spin: the fact that credit raters are openly hinting at a downgrading of US Treasury debt (which means that interest payments will have to increase); interest payments are already threatening operational expenditures. Already companies like Berkshire-Hathaway, Procter & Gamble, and Lowe's are selling debt more cheaply than the Treasury. This is a profound development; Treasury notes have long been regarded as the gold standard of debt. In fact, the legendary safety of Treasury debt is considered to be a premium pricing factor.
We have seen unions in California beat down Governor Schwarzenegger's tentative attempts to address the unsustainable public pension problem, where retirees in their mid-50's are promised most of their highest-earned salaries (retirement benefits more than the median actively working household income) for the remainder of their lives. But the Democrats are absolutely breathtaking in disregarding moral hazard and the law of unintended consequences; just like Obama's ludicrous promises to college students: at a time when the existing federal employee base is excessive and hugely expensive, with average pay and benefits far exceeding the average household, Obama is promising generous loan forgiveness terms to those whom join the federal workforce (apparently the higher pay and benefits than comparable work in the private sector aren't enough incentives!) In the meanwhile, the percentage of American households which do not pay a penny of federal government operations costs continues to increase while the Dem-agogues relentlessly push upward income eligibility for various federal programs (e.g., SCHIP and Medicaid). At the same time, they come again and again to rob Peter: increase income/investment taxes on the higher-income earners--higher taxes, lower deductions, etc., utterly clueless of the impact on business investment and growth.
It is inevitable that the Big Government tax and spend bubble will burst. We cannot continue to maintain over $40T in unfunded entitlement mandates, with Obama and the Democrats just adding a new major one. One can predict certain austerity measures; for example, a no-brainer is doing away with replacing pensions with 401K/403B style programs for new government employees; greater cost share of health care costs; deferred retirement eligibility; capped payments; means eligibility; privatization of operations not core to government competencies, etc. A first step of what I believe will be become the first step of what we'll eventually see on a local, state, and national basis is what we have been seeing under New Jersey Governor Chris Christie: he is aiming to reduce the budget 9% year over year and to reduce staffing levels throughout the state--not the usual Congressional Dem games of cutting the rates of increase or gimmicky PAYGO schemes with more holes than Swiss cheese.
Bonus Video: Legendary Investor Warren Buffett Channels His Inner Axl Rose
Political Cartoon
Gary McCoy points out that American voters in competitive districts and states will not accept politicians with preexisting votes for the corrupt Democratic Party Health Care Bill this fall.
Quote of the Day
A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.
John A. Shedd
Musical Interlude: More Tear Songs
Journey, "Who's Crying Now"
The Rolling Stones, "As Tears Go By"
Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, "The Tears of a Clown"
The Spinners, "Living [Just] a Little, Laughing [Just] a Little": click here for a track link
Living A Little Laughing A Little lyrics Laugh everyone at the clown He’s the best one in town, ummm ummm Ride on his merry-go-round Spinning faster than sound Uuuuh huh uuuuh huh Laugh as the funny man cries Though his makeup is smeared Uuuuh huuuh Laugh at his funny pictures As he [paints out the years? ] Uuuuh huh uuuuh huh Livin’ just a little Laughing just a little Ain’t easy, uuuuuh huuuuh Livin’ just a little Laughing just a little Ain’t easy Laugh everyone at the fool with his heart in his hand Uuuuh huuuh Mmmmm, he can’t quite understand that he’s less than a man Uuuuh huuuh uuuuh huuuh there’s an ember of pride Uuuuh huuuh Watch how he tries hard to hide that he’s dying inside Uuuuh huuuh Uuuuh huuuh Livin’ just a little Laughing just a little Ain’t easy, uuuuuh huuuuh Livin’ just a little Laughing just a little Ain’t easy Livin’ just a little Laughing just a little Ain’t easy, uuuuuh huuuuh Livin’ just a little Laughing just a little Ain’t easy
