An author is a fool who, not content with boring those he lives with, insists on boring future generations.
Charles de Montesquieu
Election Watch
The RCP House count has the GOP House lead (lean/likely/safe) increasing by 3 as two toss ups lean GOP and one lean DEM moving to toss up (222-177). One of the 2 moved to "lean GOP" is NY-23, which I've discussed on multiple occasions in recent posts. I didn't see any new polls posted on NY-23 (the last I saw was Owens ahead by about 5 points), but in recent posts I wasn't aware that even though Hoffman remains on the ballot, Hoffman formally dropped out on October 5 and endorsed Doheny. (I had seen an earlier post-election post saying Hoffman was determined to stay in the race. Given the fact that Hoffman barely lost to Owens, whom subsequently voted for the highly unpopular health care bill, that last poll may not reflect the effect of the Hoffman announcement.)
Well, I finally saw a first ad from Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) trying to rationalize her irresponsible vote for the corrupt Democratic Party Healthcare Law, taking pride in warding off cost-based restrictions on mammograms and ending restrictions on preexisting conditions. Just to reprise points made during the debate: there are multiple studies that indicate certain medical tests, which result in a significant number of traumatic false positives, are often unnecessarily recommended for younger-aged adults (e.g., without relevant family histories) or more frequently administered to at-risk groups than necessary. As for preexisting conditions, that seems to be fair--until you consider that people who wait until they are ill to apply for insurance are no better than those whom wait on flood insurance until a major storm approaches (fortunately, the federal government does not allow a homeowner to socialize their costs at the last minute). In both cases, you have individuals in the interim knowingly pocketing what they should have been spending on insurance premiums and then wanting to dump their expected large medical bills for a fraction of the cost (i.e., an insurance premium). It's a perversion of the very concept of insurance and a moral hazard.
Does that mean conservatives don't have a solution to ensure insurance coverage to high-risk individuals/families at reasonable cost? Of course not. Several states or regions have high risk pools; these offer subsidized coverage (e.g., via taxes on regular premiums and/or government contributions), typically with initially smaller premiums for those whom can show proof of recent coverage. The differences of conservatives with progressives focus on the nature and extent of federal involvement in health care; we need a fair means of spreading the costs of the most serious health risks across the whole US population, but we don't want a federal bureaucracy micromanaging health care costs, politicizing health care mandates or second-guessing decision making by more local medical providers.
I have not seen a single TV ad during the general campaign to date from my favored candidate, Eric Wargotz. Barbara Mikulski, up by 35 in the only recent poll, in the fine tradition of Douglas and Lincoln, is refusing to debate Wargotz, playing a game of prevent defense.
Yesterday's Rally for Kathleen Edward, America's Sweetheart
 |
| Photo Courtesy of Cheyla Wagner, Facebook Group "We Love You, Kathleen" Kathleen Edward's official website |
I have written a couple of segments on Kathleen Edward, the 7-year-old girl dying from Huntington's disease, which also claimed her late mother last year. The beautiful gift from God has been treated to a princess party with a real princess, a visit from the Detroit Tigers' mascot, has been the beneficiary of a pharmacy promotion to help the Edward family with Kathleen's medical bills and was the guest of honor at a huge rally yesterday in the Detroit area.
The Petkov's, the Edward family antagonists, have not fared as well. Jennifer, who has been charged with attempting to run over a neighbor on her way to visit the Edward household, has had custody of her two oldest children temporarily awarded to their father, her prior significant other. Jennifer's current husband Scott, who had parked his truck with a coffin in front of the Edward home, has lost his job.
Jeremy Warner: "Will Someone Please Shut Krugman Up?" TWO THUMBS UP!
The title, in and of itself, is enough to win my "hear, hear". Apparently Paul Krugman, dissatisfied with the fact that the only Western leader listening to him about a quantum leap forward in superspending to jumpstart demand is Barack Obama, is now lecturing to Britain about the foolhardy nature of their newfound fiscal discipline. Mr. Warner, I'm not sure I would agree that the great bulk of Americans are socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I do believe it is true of independents and moderates and a small number of legislators on both sides of the aisle. (It is certainly true of Northeast Republicans, including the recently ousted Mike Castle as the leading candidate for US Senate from Delaware.) Krugman seems to promoting spending for the very sake of spending. He ignores the obvious fact that uncertainties in tax policies (e.g., new health care mandates/penalties, Bush tax cut status, etc.) adversely affect demand.
The fact is that progressive states like California never found time to create rainy day funds like a more conservative state like Texas; they simply kept voting to appease their public employees with unsustainable pension promises allowing many to qualify for 6-digit retirement salaries for life--which the ordinary American will never see in social security, even though they have to wait until 62 or later to file. Projections are that for the first time in decades, California will not gain any new Congressional seats while Texas is gaining four. Texas is continuing to draw more corporate offices with its business-friendly policies.
Mr. Warner overlooks how American progressives try to build up support for their fiscally reckless policies: they don't focus on hard decisions of how to pay for their spending; instead, they'll ask questions like 'don't you think Grandma needs a raise in social security?' or 'are you in favor of a lower teacher-to-student ratio? or more police on the streets?' If you ask Americans if they should go on diets, they'll quickly agree; but if you ask them whether they want a complimentary dessert with their meal, they'll give a contradictory response. That's the problem we American fiscal conservatives have: we want to push fiscal responsibility, but there are 1001 special interest groups fighting any serious cuts.
Political Humor
A couple of originals:
- Harry Reid notes,"It doesn't give [Nevada voters] comfort or solace for me to tell them, you know, but for me we'd be in a worldwide depression." Depression? Why were banks forced to take TARP money they didn't want or need (and quickly paid off when allowed to do so, DESPITE an ongoing housing correction, a tough economy and increasing unemployment--unlike the GSE's and AIG)? Most banks weren't operating in the red; the large majority of their loans (including any mortgage loans) were being paid off. The runs on banks weren't by panicked customers, but by desperate policymakers. The real worldwide depression? The idea that Nevada voters, facing 15% unemployment, might actually send an ineffectual, corrupt deal making, mega tax-and-spender back to the Senate for 6 more years (let's hope Sharon goes into her closet and gives Harry his very own pink slip...) We'll become the Prozac nation.
- Robert Gibbs on last Sunday's Meet the Press said, "I think that, come election night, we'll retain control of both the House and the Senate." It sounds to me that Robert Gibbs has been living in Obama's 57th state: the State of Denial.
The Beatles, "Eleanor Rigby"
