I follow Gallup polls pretty closely as they are usually the best indicator of where people are at on various issues. This one on energy and the environment caught my eye for its apparent dichotomy.
Americans Split on Energy vs. Environment Trade-Off
So, while 47 percent say that energy production should be prioritized, 44 percent say that environmental protection should be prioritized. Basically, we want to have both. This is a closer margin than last year when it was 50-41 for energy production. Both of these numbers mark a shift from the early 2000s when it was flipped in favor of environmental protection.
The good news is that most Americans (by a margin of 59-35 percent) favor alternative energy to oil and coal. So why aren't our leaders taking us there?
Friday, April 06, 2012
Thursday, April 05, 2012
More Like This, Please
I'm hoping that the media runs more stories like this as the election kicks into high gear this year. While I know that nearly all of the base will always believe whatever their leaders tell them, the swing voters need to see the facts and make a more informed decision. The first example is precisely what I am talking about.
ROMNEY: "The president's attention, it was elsewhere, like a government takeover of health care and apologizing for America abroad."
THE FACTS: Obama's law keeps the private insurance industry at the heart of the health care system and avoids a single-payer government system like Canada's. It seeks to achieve universal coverage by requiring insurers to accept people regardless of medical history, subsidizing costs for many in the middle class as well as the poor, establishing new markets for those who don't get insurance at work and requiring most Americans to obtain coverage, with penalties if they don't.
That's precisely what Romney did, first, as Massachusetts governor.
Romney argues that states have the right to establish an individual insurance mandate and Washington doesn't — a question the Supreme Court is deciding. But whether the federal law is found constitutional or not, it does not add up to a government takeover.
Even when fully implemented, if the court allows that, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 58 percent of working-age Americans and their families will be covered through employer plans — about the same as now.
In his world travels, Obama has said at times that the U.S. acted "contrary to our traditions and ideals" in its treatment of terrorist suspects, that "America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy," that the U.S. "certainly shares blame" for international economic turmoil and has sometimes shown arrogance toward allies.
Obama's statements that America is not beyond reproach in its history usually come balanced with praise, and he is hardly alone among presidents in acknowledging the nation's past imperfections. But these were not apologies, formal or informal.
This last bit I will never understand. President Obama has not gone around the world apologizing for the United States. It's just an absolute lie. I wonder how today's GOP would react to Ronald Reagan formally apologizing to the Japanese-Americans interred during World War II. One more example of how he would be labeled a commie traitor today.
Of course, the president is not above criticism either. As the article notes, SOME Republicans (not all) supported the idea of a mandate. And the president himself was against it as a candidate, although that was because he wanted a public option at the time.
Take note of the contrast here. Romney, a Republican? Out and out lying. The president? Spinning and not telling the full story. This is a great example of what I mean when I say that, while the Democrats are not above fault, they certainly do not engage in absolute fabrication with the intent to magnify hate, anger, and fear.
ROMNEY: "The president's attention, it was elsewhere, like a government takeover of health care and apologizing for America abroad."
THE FACTS: Obama's law keeps the private insurance industry at the heart of the health care system and avoids a single-payer government system like Canada's. It seeks to achieve universal coverage by requiring insurers to accept people regardless of medical history, subsidizing costs for many in the middle class as well as the poor, establishing new markets for those who don't get insurance at work and requiring most Americans to obtain coverage, with penalties if they don't.
That's precisely what Romney did, first, as Massachusetts governor.
Romney argues that states have the right to establish an individual insurance mandate and Washington doesn't — a question the Supreme Court is deciding. But whether the federal law is found constitutional or not, it does not add up to a government takeover.
Even when fully implemented, if the court allows that, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 58 percent of working-age Americans and their families will be covered through employer plans — about the same as now.
In his world travels, Obama has said at times that the U.S. acted "contrary to our traditions and ideals" in its treatment of terrorist suspects, that "America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy," that the U.S. "certainly shares blame" for international economic turmoil and has sometimes shown arrogance toward allies.
Obama's statements that America is not beyond reproach in its history usually come balanced with praise, and he is hardly alone among presidents in acknowledging the nation's past imperfections. But these were not apologies, formal or informal.
This last bit I will never understand. President Obama has not gone around the world apologizing for the United States. It's just an absolute lie. I wonder how today's GOP would react to Ronald Reagan formally apologizing to the Japanese-Americans interred during World War II. One more example of how he would be labeled a commie traitor today.
Of course, the president is not above criticism either. As the article notes, SOME Republicans (not all) supported the idea of a mandate. And the president himself was against it as a candidate, although that was because he wanted a public option at the time.
Take note of the contrast here. Romney, a Republican? Out and out lying. The president? Spinning and not telling the full story. This is a great example of what I mean when I say that, while the Democrats are not above fault, they certainly do not engage in absolute fabrication with the intent to magnify hate, anger, and fear.
Wednesday, April 04, 2012
It's Mitt!
After last nights primaries, it's now very clear that Mitt Romney is going to be the GOP nominee. This means that a conservative will not win the White House in 2012.
All of this makes me wonder how and why people are going to vote for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama. I suppose I would understand if it's purely out of spite or high emotions. Perhaps some have even deluded themselves into thinking that Mitt Romney is actually going to do what he says he is going to do. I had someone tell me the other day (actually, I've had a few people tell me this) that he LOOKS LIKE a president and Barack Obama doesn't. I guess looking the part is of paramount importance.
But these are the only reasons I can think of that would drive people to vote for him. He's not a small government guy at all. More importantly, he's not going to create jobs. His track record shows that he's exactly the type of leader that caused the collapse of 2008. He says he wants less regulation, permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, and trickle down economics. Those policies have been shown to be failures.
Last night, he said that the president doesn't know anything about private sector job growth and has, in fact, been poor at it.
Really?
Sadly, there is no doubt in my mind that this campaign is going to be filled with "inside the bubble" statement and thinking just like this. Take a look at how the president's policies affected job creation with this interactive page.
These are the facts on job growth during the Obama administration. Add in the stock market gains (perhaps RECORD gains) and 3 percent real GDP growth in Q4 of 2011 and Romney's statement is just plain wrong.
So, why would he be a better economic president?
All of this makes me wonder how and why people are going to vote for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama. I suppose I would understand if it's purely out of spite or high emotions. Perhaps some have even deluded themselves into thinking that Mitt Romney is actually going to do what he says he is going to do. I had someone tell me the other day (actually, I've had a few people tell me this) that he LOOKS LIKE a president and Barack Obama doesn't. I guess looking the part is of paramount importance.
But these are the only reasons I can think of that would drive people to vote for him. He's not a small government guy at all. More importantly, he's not going to create jobs. His track record shows that he's exactly the type of leader that caused the collapse of 2008. He says he wants less regulation, permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, and trickle down economics. Those policies have been shown to be failures.
Last night, he said that the president doesn't know anything about private sector job growth and has, in fact, been poor at it.
Really?
Sadly, there is no doubt in my mind that this campaign is going to be filled with "inside the bubble" statement and thinking just like this. Take a look at how the president's policies affected job creation with this interactive page.
These are the facts on job growth during the Obama administration. Add in the stock market gains (perhaps RECORD gains) and 3 percent real GDP growth in Q4 of 2011 and Romney's statement is just plain wrong.
So, why would he be a better economic president?
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
I Agree....With Rush Limbaugh?!!???
Well, not really him but his explanation of the theory is quite insightful:)
Monday, April 02, 2012
Messing with the Constitution for Partisan Gain
Minnesota is one of several states that either has or is enacting voter ID laws, all pushed exclusively by Republicans. These require that you have a current picture ID, such as a driver's license, in order to vote. Some states accept other forms of ID, such as a gun license, but disallow other forms of identification with pictures, such as student IDs.
Proponents of such laws, exclusively Republicans, claim that there's an epidemic of voter fraud. During the Bush administration Karl Rove and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez demanded that US attorneys push the prosecution of these sorts of cases. The episode resulted in both Rove's and Gonzalez's resignations.
In 2010 the house and senate in Minnesota were won by Republicans, but a Democrat was elected governor. To get around a certain veto of voter ID legislation, the Republicans are trying to add a constitutional amendment to require photo IDs at the polling place.
This is a spectacularly stupid idea, as it's always a bad policy to monkey with the constitution for partisan hot-button issues, as well as clutter the constitution with picayune details of law enforcement that will certainly change as technology improves in the future. And it's completely unnecessary, because it's already illegal to commit voter fraud.
The ACLU, which opposes the amendment on the basis that it's a form of poll tax because it would deny poorer citizens the basic right to vote if they don't drive or have a photo ID, challenged proponents of the law to find cases of voter fraud that would have been stopped by picture IDs at the polls. So far none of the submissions have panned out. The supposed strongest case submitted involved a mother who used an absentee ballot to vote in her daughter's name, while the daughter voted at her school. But no IDs are checked when you fill out an absentee ballot--that's the whole point of absentee ballots.
Basically, the number of people who commit voter fraud in Minnesota by walking into a polling place and claim to be someone who they're not is zero. Think about it: how many people have the gall to lie to an election judge's face, sign the roster with someone else's signature and face a felony charge? How will they know that the person they're pretending to be hasn't already voted? How can they know that the election judge won't know that person? In most jurisdictions, election judges are older people from the community who've worked at the polls for years if not decades. They pretty much know everyone who votes. If someone's trying to impersonate a dead man, the election judge may well have attended his funeral.
In Minnesota, election judges have the responsibility to challenge suspected fraudulent voters. Under certain circumstances the roster at the polling place will already have a notation requiring that the election judge check the voter's ID. If they don't have ID there's already a form to fill out and several questions to answer and they fill out a provisional ballot instead of a regular one. Similar rules apply to people who register to vote at the polls.
To prevent further skulduggery, critical processes performed by election judges are required to have judges from two different parties. Such activities include initializing voting machines, signing the totals at the end of the day, taking results to city hall, assisting voters who need help filling out their ballots, etc.
Now some of you will say, "Wait a minute. If you've got an inside man at the polling place, you can commit fraud on a massive scale." And, yes, that's true. But photo ID does absolutely nothing to prevent that, and would perhaps make it easier because of the false sense of security that photo ID provides.
Furthermore, any kind of organized and sophisticated voter fraud scheme involving impersonation of individuals wouldn't be slowed down by photo ID; fake IDs are ubiquitous. How could an election judge possibly tell a valid license from a good fake? It's trivial for teenagers to get forged IDs to buy booze and get into clubs. All you really need to forge drivers licenses is a supply of blank cards, a computer, a printer and a laminator. You can do it all in the back of a van outside the polling place.
The current system in Minnesota has worked well for decades, and was improved after the close contest between Franken and Coleman 2008. Suggestions Democrats made in reaction to voter ID would actually provide more security than the ID would. It would put the burden on the state to validate the voter's identity by giving the election judge a picture of the voter with an electronic roster. A person registering at the poll would have their picture taken, which would be a solid deterrent against those attempting fraud. The Republican constitutional end-run around the governor smells like voter suppression and an attempt to avenge Coleman's loss.
To be sure, significant voter fraud has taken place in other states, and I have no doubt that a small amount of voter fraud is taking place in Minnesota. But not by people impersonating others at the polls, and it wouldn't be stopped by the voter ID amendment. Real electoral fraud involves absentee ballots and voting in the wrong jurisdiction or in multiple jurisdictions, most often by people who think they have the right to vote everywhere they own property. People like, say, Ann Coulter, who has had brushes with the law because she voted in Connecticut while being registered to vote in New York.
The biggest potential for voter fraud in Minnesota is not at the polls, but with absentee ballots. These are most often used by the elderly (who move to warmer climes in the fall or are too infirm to vote in person), military personnel, people who travel extensively and students. Because there is no photo ID requirement whatsoever for absentee ballots and no one to check that ID, there's no way to know who filled out an absentee ballot. There's a signature check, but in most jurisdictions that's against the form you filled out to request the absentee ballot in the first place. And who's to say the actual voter filled that form out, or that the people who check those forms actually are competent at comparing signatures?
There are likely hundreds of thousands of elderly Americans who are no longer mentally competent whose children or nursing home attendants are voting two or more times by filling out absentee ballots with their own choices. And there probably thousands of students whose parents are voting twice, and thousands of military personnel whose spouses are voting twice. And thousands of retirees and people who own vacation homes who are voting in multiple jurisdictions.
In short, Republicans are locking a technical solution into the constitution to fix problems that don't exist, wasting taxpayer money and creating needless bureaucratic hurdles for people who don't drive or are too poor to afford a car. They are trying to deny the rights of the poor by pretending to prevent an unlikely crime by a few, all the while blithely ignoring the real potential for rampant fraud by the many with absentee ballots.
To really stop absentee ballot, voter impersonation and dead-man voter fraud, we would need a nationwide computer network that linked all jurisdictions, and we would need to assign a unique voter ID to each person, and we would need to ensure that each person only had one ID, and we would need a national registry of all births and deaths based on that ID. Most Republicans would claim this is government overreach and Big Brotherism at its worst. And then we'd have to ensure that this computer network couldn't be scammed by hackers and fraudsters trying to manipulate election results from the top down.
Because that's the real threat: why commit electoral fraud by impersonating people one at a time, when you can buy elections wholesale by controlling the private companies who run the computers that count the votes?
Proponents of such laws, exclusively Republicans, claim that there's an epidemic of voter fraud. During the Bush administration Karl Rove and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez demanded that US attorneys push the prosecution of these sorts of cases. The episode resulted in both Rove's and Gonzalez's resignations.
In 2010 the house and senate in Minnesota were won by Republicans, but a Democrat was elected governor. To get around a certain veto of voter ID legislation, the Republicans are trying to add a constitutional amendment to require photo IDs at the polling place.
This is a spectacularly stupid idea, as it's always a bad policy to monkey with the constitution for partisan hot-button issues, as well as clutter the constitution with picayune details of law enforcement that will certainly change as technology improves in the future. And it's completely unnecessary, because it's already illegal to commit voter fraud.
The ACLU, which opposes the amendment on the basis that it's a form of poll tax because it would deny poorer citizens the basic right to vote if they don't drive or have a photo ID, challenged proponents of the law to find cases of voter fraud that would have been stopped by picture IDs at the polls. So far none of the submissions have panned out. The supposed strongest case submitted involved a mother who used an absentee ballot to vote in her daughter's name, while the daughter voted at her school. But no IDs are checked when you fill out an absentee ballot--that's the whole point of absentee ballots.
Basically, the number of people who commit voter fraud in Minnesota by walking into a polling place and claim to be someone who they're not is zero. Think about it: how many people have the gall to lie to an election judge's face, sign the roster with someone else's signature and face a felony charge? How will they know that the person they're pretending to be hasn't already voted? How can they know that the election judge won't know that person? In most jurisdictions, election judges are older people from the community who've worked at the polls for years if not decades. They pretty much know everyone who votes. If someone's trying to impersonate a dead man, the election judge may well have attended his funeral.
In Minnesota, election judges have the responsibility to challenge suspected fraudulent voters. Under certain circumstances the roster at the polling place will already have a notation requiring that the election judge check the voter's ID. If they don't have ID there's already a form to fill out and several questions to answer and they fill out a provisional ballot instead of a regular one. Similar rules apply to people who register to vote at the polls.
To prevent further skulduggery, critical processes performed by election judges are required to have judges from two different parties. Such activities include initializing voting machines, signing the totals at the end of the day, taking results to city hall, assisting voters who need help filling out their ballots, etc.
Now some of you will say, "Wait a minute. If you've got an inside man at the polling place, you can commit fraud on a massive scale." And, yes, that's true. But photo ID does absolutely nothing to prevent that, and would perhaps make it easier because of the false sense of security that photo ID provides.
Furthermore, any kind of organized and sophisticated voter fraud scheme involving impersonation of individuals wouldn't be slowed down by photo ID; fake IDs are ubiquitous. How could an election judge possibly tell a valid license from a good fake? It's trivial for teenagers to get forged IDs to buy booze and get into clubs. All you really need to forge drivers licenses is a supply of blank cards, a computer, a printer and a laminator. You can do it all in the back of a van outside the polling place.
The current system in Minnesota has worked well for decades, and was improved after the close contest between Franken and Coleman 2008. Suggestions Democrats made in reaction to voter ID would actually provide more security than the ID would. It would put the burden on the state to validate the voter's identity by giving the election judge a picture of the voter with an electronic roster. A person registering at the poll would have their picture taken, which would be a solid deterrent against those attempting fraud. The Republican constitutional end-run around the governor smells like voter suppression and an attempt to avenge Coleman's loss.
To be sure, significant voter fraud has taken place in other states, and I have no doubt that a small amount of voter fraud is taking place in Minnesota. But not by people impersonating others at the polls, and it wouldn't be stopped by the voter ID amendment. Real electoral fraud involves absentee ballots and voting in the wrong jurisdiction or in multiple jurisdictions, most often by people who think they have the right to vote everywhere they own property. People like, say, Ann Coulter, who has had brushes with the law because she voted in Connecticut while being registered to vote in New York.
The biggest potential for voter fraud in Minnesota is not at the polls, but with absentee ballots. These are most often used by the elderly (who move to warmer climes in the fall or are too infirm to vote in person), military personnel, people who travel extensively and students. Because there is no photo ID requirement whatsoever for absentee ballots and no one to check that ID, there's no way to know who filled out an absentee ballot. There's a signature check, but in most jurisdictions that's against the form you filled out to request the absentee ballot in the first place. And who's to say the actual voter filled that form out, or that the people who check those forms actually are competent at comparing signatures?
There are likely hundreds of thousands of elderly Americans who are no longer mentally competent whose children or nursing home attendants are voting two or more times by filling out absentee ballots with their own choices. And there probably thousands of students whose parents are voting twice, and thousands of military personnel whose spouses are voting twice. And thousands of retirees and people who own vacation homes who are voting in multiple jurisdictions.
In short, Republicans are locking a technical solution into the constitution to fix problems that don't exist, wasting taxpayer money and creating needless bureaucratic hurdles for people who don't drive or are too poor to afford a car. They are trying to deny the rights of the poor by pretending to prevent an unlikely crime by a few, all the while blithely ignoring the real potential for rampant fraud by the many with absentee ballots.
To really stop absentee ballot, voter impersonation and dead-man voter fraud, we would need a nationwide computer network that linked all jurisdictions, and we would need to assign a unique voter ID to each person, and we would need to ensure that each person only had one ID, and we would need a national registry of all births and deaths based on that ID. Most Republicans would claim this is government overreach and Big Brotherism at its worst. And then we'd have to ensure that this computer network couldn't be scammed by hackers and fraudsters trying to manipulate election results from the top down.
Because that's the real threat: why commit electoral fraud by impersonating people one at a time, when you can buy elections wholesale by controlling the private companies who run the computers that count the votes?
A Cheezy Update
It's been a while since I talked about Wisconsin and Scott Walker and, with all the latest news, it's time for an update. The recall election has been set for June 5th with a Democratic primary on May 8th. Tom Barrett, the Milwaukee mayor and Democratic challenger in 2010 whom Walker ultimately defeated, will run again. Kathleen Falk, former Dane County leader, will compete with Barrett in the primary.
Recall that Barrett made national news when, as the mayor of Milwaukee, he intervened in a dispute, at the Wisconsin State Fair, to try to protect a woman being attacked and ended up being beaten by a tire iron while defending her.
I think that Barrett is a much better candidate than Falk who strikes me as too much of a contrast with Walker. Barrett only lost by 124,000 votes and, with nearly 1 million signatures gathered for Walker's recall, seems a better challenger.
The recall election itself is going to be tight because neither side can really claim that Walker has done a good job or a bad job. Take a look at this graphic.
While Scott Walker certainly hasn't lived up to this promise, he hasn't exactly done anything that is deeply disastrous. The Wisconsin jobs reports for March, April and May will have quite the level of scrutiny leading up to the election. If they show any sort of job loss, he's toast. Any job gains and he might squeak it out.
The latest polls show an even 48-48 split on Walker and a Democratic challenger so it may simply come down to turnout. But remember that 2 GOP Senators were recalled last year and Walker isn't the only one being recalled in this election. The Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch and GOP Senators Scott L. Fitzgerald, Van H. Wanggaard, Terry Moulton and Pam Galloway are also being recalled. Fitzgerald is safe but Galloway has already resigned her seat for family health reasons which leaves it totally open. She won by only 3,000 votes in the last election. Wanggaard won by the same margin in 2010 with Moulton winning by a couple thousand more. Any of these three seats could flip which means that even if Walker wins, he won't be able to push through any sort of agenda.
So, it's going to be interesting to see what happens in Wisconsin. Oh yeah, there's a primary there tomorrow. Mitt is going to win and pretty much sew up the nomination.
Recall that Barrett made national news when, as the mayor of Milwaukee, he intervened in a dispute, at the Wisconsin State Fair, to try to protect a woman being attacked and ended up being beaten by a tire iron while defending her.
I think that Barrett is a much better candidate than Falk who strikes me as too much of a contrast with Walker. Barrett only lost by 124,000 votes and, with nearly 1 million signatures gathered for Walker's recall, seems a better challenger.
The recall election itself is going to be tight because neither side can really claim that Walker has done a good job or a bad job. Take a look at this graphic.
While Scott Walker certainly hasn't lived up to this promise, he hasn't exactly done anything that is deeply disastrous. The Wisconsin jobs reports for March, April and May will have quite the level of scrutiny leading up to the election. If they show any sort of job loss, he's toast. Any job gains and he might squeak it out.
The latest polls show an even 48-48 split on Walker and a Democratic challenger so it may simply come down to turnout. But remember that 2 GOP Senators were recalled last year and Walker isn't the only one being recalled in this election. The Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch and GOP Senators Scott L. Fitzgerald, Van H. Wanggaard, Terry Moulton and Pam Galloway are also being recalled. Fitzgerald is safe but Galloway has already resigned her seat for family health reasons which leaves it totally open. She won by only 3,000 votes in the last election. Wanggaard won by the same margin in 2010 with Moulton winning by a couple thousand more. Any of these three seats could flip which means that even if Walker wins, he won't be able to push through any sort of agenda.
So, it's going to be interesting to see what happens in Wisconsin. Oh yeah, there's a primary there tomorrow. Mitt is going to win and pretty much sew up the nomination.
Sunday, April 01, 2012
Saturday, March 31, 2012
A Government Centered Society?
At a campaign stop yesterday in Appleton, Wisconsin, likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney said that President Obama wanted to create a "government centered society."
How is that exactly?
The stock market just had its best first quarter in 14 years. The surge has sent Wall Street analysts, some of whose forecasts seemed too sunny three months ago, scrambling to raise their estimates for the year. "That it's up isn't surprising. It's the magnitude," says Robert Doll, the chief equity investment manager at BlackRock, the world's biggest money manager.
Doll says stocks could rise 10 percent more before the end of the year. That would be enough to push the Dow Jones industrial average to an all-time high and the Standard & Poor's 500 close to a record.
Funny. I thought that President Obama was destroying free enterprise. Ah well, I guess it's back to tapping into the ol' inner rage, ignoring facts, and making things up again.
Get ready for the gun grabbing Obamabots!!
How is that exactly?
The stock market just had its best first quarter in 14 years. The surge has sent Wall Street analysts, some of whose forecasts seemed too sunny three months ago, scrambling to raise their estimates for the year. "That it's up isn't surprising. It's the magnitude," says Robert Doll, the chief equity investment manager at BlackRock, the world's biggest money manager.
Doll says stocks could rise 10 percent more before the end of the year. That would be enough to push the Dow Jones industrial average to an all-time high and the Standard & Poor's 500 close to a record.
Funny. I thought that President Obama was destroying free enterprise. Ah well, I guess it's back to tapping into the ol' inner rage, ignoring facts, and making things up again.
Get ready for the gun grabbing Obamabots!!
Now I Know Why I've Been Hearing Crickets
"Is there a criminal activity? Perhaps not," Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa told POLITICO after last Tuesday’s showdown with Energy Secretary Steven Chu. "Is there a political influence and connections? Perhaps not. Did they bend the rules for an agenda, an agenda not covered within the statute? Absolutely."
And with this admission, a spear of reality has penetrated the Bubble and the dreams of many dashed.
Perhaps the disheartened can spend some time trying to find a solution to the very much real problem of China burying our solar energy sector with billions of dollars of grants to their businesses.
You know, actually solving a problem....
And with this admission, a spear of reality has penetrated the Bubble and the dreams of many dashed.
Perhaps the disheartened can spend some time trying to find a solution to the very much real problem of China burying our solar energy sector with billions of dollars of grants to their businesses.
You know, actually solving a problem....
Friday, March 30, 2012
Fox Friday!
Boy oh boy, has Fox News changed lately. The right has become increasingly frustrated with its move to at least attempt to be more fair and balanced. Many are moving towards CNN where the likes of Erick Erickson and Ari Fleischer wax poetic on a daily basis.
But this recent column really takes the cake!
5 reasons ObamaCare is already good for you
Fox Fucking News...Whoda thunk it? Here's my favorite of her five points because it addresses some most unwelcome childish dishonesty that has inserted its shriveled penis into the lexicon.
4. The Congressional Budget Office recently cut health care reform’s cost estimates.
Conservatives have relied on apples-to-oranges accounting gimmicks to suggest the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently doubled the cost estimates for the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the CBO adjusted its estimates to say the Affordable Care Act will cost less than originally projected. Moreover, the CBO has said that repealing the Affordable Care Act would increase the deficit by $210 billion.
So much for being concerned about the deficit...as long as they WIN!!!
But this recent column really takes the cake!
5 reasons ObamaCare is already good for you
Fox Fucking News...Whoda thunk it? Here's my favorite of her five points because it addresses some most unwelcome childish dishonesty that has inserted its shriveled penis into the lexicon.
4. The Congressional Budget Office recently cut health care reform’s cost estimates.
Conservatives have relied on apples-to-oranges accounting gimmicks to suggest the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently doubled the cost estimates for the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the CBO adjusted its estimates to say the Affordable Care Act will cost less than originally projected. Moreover, the CBO has said that repealing the Affordable Care Act would increase the deficit by $210 billion.
So much for being concerned about the deficit...as long as they WIN!!!
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
OMG!
Did you hear the big news? Obamacare is DEAD! After facing some questions on par with the Spanish inquisition, solicitor Donald Verrilli completely blew it, it's all over, and let's get ready for our new president, Mitt Romney.
Well, at least that's what the "liberal" media said yesterday (even though the actual decision won't be handed down until June). Since when are they all in the tank for the opponents of the law? They keep saying that people are being forced to buy health care. That's not true at all. You don't have to buy it at all. If you don't, you pay a tax, which is very, very Constitutionally valid.
Even the actual liberal media is behaving irrationally (see: hysterical old ladies). They seemed to completely ignore the tough questions that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy asked of Paul Clement and Michael Carvin, who are challenging the law. For example, Roberts told Carvin that he was not addressing the government's point, "which is that they are not creating commerce in health care. It's already there, and we are all going to need some kind of health care; most of us will at some point."
And Roberts accepted the fact that the mandate was not an order but a tax. This is important to note because on Monday in response to questioning from Justice Elena Kagan, Verrilli noted that under the law, a person who chooses to pay the tax penalty rather than comply with the mandate will not be considered in violation of the law. So it’s a choice — not a unilateral command. If even one of the conservative justices agrees, he could vote to uphold the law on unexpected grounds. It's entirely possible that you would have four votes to uphold the law under the Commerce clause and two votes to uphold it under taxing power.
Kennedy said the government might be right that the interwoven markets of health insurance and health care are unique. "The young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries," Kennedy said. "That's my concern in the case." I also thought it was interesting that Clement acknowledged here that a system of national health care is likely constitutional even though the individual mandate was not.
This brings us to what may happen if the mandate portion is struck down. Robert Reich has an interesting take on this.
If the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate in the new health law, private insurers will swarm Capitol Hill demanding that the law be amended to remove the requirement that they cover people with pre-existing conditions. When this happens, Obama and the Democrats should say they’re willing to remove that requirement – but only if Medicare is available to all, financed by payroll taxes. If they did this the public will be behind them — as will the Supreme Court.
But how could this happen?
Americans don’t mind mandates in the form of payroll taxes for Social Security or Medicare. In fact, both programs are so popular even conservative Republicans were heard to shout “don’t take away my Medicare!” at rallies opposed to the new health care law. There’s no question payroll taxes are constitutional, because there’s no doubt that the federal government can tax people in order to finance particular public benefits. But requiring citizens to buy something from a private company is different because private companies aren’t directly accountable to the public. They’re accountable to their owners and their purpose is to maximize profits. What if they monopolize the market and charge humongous premiums? (Some already seem to be doing this.)
All of this makes me wonder if this is the president's back up plan. Not only is he a constitutional scholar but he's a very smart and pragmatic guy. His opponents are being terribly naive if they are assuming that he fast tracked this case without having multiple contingency plans.
The other way to look at all of this is political. If parts of the law are struck down, that takes a galvanizing principle out of the campaign. In fact, if the law is upheld, the base is going to be very motivated to get out and vote for repeal (even though we all know that Romney isn't going to do that if he wins).
So, I guess I'm not really worried either way it turns out. It's too bad that some liberal folks are so worried that they have all but given up because I don't think they are really considering all of the possibilities here. And that's why I'm truly going to enjoy the "winning the argument/proved them wrong" victory dance that the right will do if the mandate is struck down.
Enjoy it while it lasts, folks!
Well, at least that's what the "liberal" media said yesterday (even though the actual decision won't be handed down until June). Since when are they all in the tank for the opponents of the law? They keep saying that people are being forced to buy health care. That's not true at all. You don't have to buy it at all. If you don't, you pay a tax, which is very, very Constitutionally valid.
Even the actual liberal media is behaving irrationally (see: hysterical old ladies). They seemed to completely ignore the tough questions that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy asked of Paul Clement and Michael Carvin, who are challenging the law. For example, Roberts told Carvin that he was not addressing the government's point, "which is that they are not creating commerce in health care. It's already there, and we are all going to need some kind of health care; most of us will at some point."
And Roberts accepted the fact that the mandate was not an order but a tax. This is important to note because on Monday in response to questioning from Justice Elena Kagan, Verrilli noted that under the law, a person who chooses to pay the tax penalty rather than comply with the mandate will not be considered in violation of the law. So it’s a choice — not a unilateral command. If even one of the conservative justices agrees, he could vote to uphold the law on unexpected grounds. It's entirely possible that you would have four votes to uphold the law under the Commerce clause and two votes to uphold it under taxing power.
Kennedy said the government might be right that the interwoven markets of health insurance and health care are unique. "The young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries," Kennedy said. "That's my concern in the case." I also thought it was interesting that Clement acknowledged here that a system of national health care is likely constitutional even though the individual mandate was not.
This brings us to what may happen if the mandate portion is struck down. Robert Reich has an interesting take on this.
If the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate in the new health law, private insurers will swarm Capitol Hill demanding that the law be amended to remove the requirement that they cover people with pre-existing conditions. When this happens, Obama and the Democrats should say they’re willing to remove that requirement – but only if Medicare is available to all, financed by payroll taxes. If they did this the public will be behind them — as will the Supreme Court.
But how could this happen?
Americans don’t mind mandates in the form of payroll taxes for Social Security or Medicare. In fact, both programs are so popular even conservative Republicans were heard to shout “don’t take away my Medicare!” at rallies opposed to the new health care law. There’s no question payroll taxes are constitutional, because there’s no doubt that the federal government can tax people in order to finance particular public benefits. But requiring citizens to buy something from a private company is different because private companies aren’t directly accountable to the public. They’re accountable to their owners and their purpose is to maximize profits. What if they monopolize the market and charge humongous premiums? (Some already seem to be doing this.)
All of this makes me wonder if this is the president's back up plan. Not only is he a constitutional scholar but he's a very smart and pragmatic guy. His opponents are being terribly naive if they are assuming that he fast tracked this case without having multiple contingency plans.
The other way to look at all of this is political. If parts of the law are struck down, that takes a galvanizing principle out of the campaign. In fact, if the law is upheld, the base is going to be very motivated to get out and vote for repeal (even though we all know that Romney isn't going to do that if he wins).
So, I guess I'm not really worried either way it turns out. It's too bad that some liberal folks are so worried that they have all but given up because I don't think they are really considering all of the possibilities here. And that's why I'm truly going to enjoy the "winning the argument/proved them wrong" victory dance that the right will do if the mandate is struck down.
Enjoy it while it lasts, folks!
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
PPACA A GO GO
With the second day of oral arguments being heard in the Supreme Court regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I thought it would be timely to put up a post with my various thoughts on the issue.
First of all, today is the key day as they are discussing the issue of the mandate. I'm wondering the team that is arguing to uphold the law as is will look to this bill, enacted in 1798 by the 5th Congress and signed by founding father John Adams, as an example of how the government can more or less force people to get health care. An Act For The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen would never pass muster with the Republicans of today. Clearly they would label it as "government overreach" and "something our founding fathers would never do"...even though our founding fathers did just that!
The type of question that each justice asks is usually indicative of how they are going to vote. I think it's safe to say that Thomas and Alito will be voting to strike down the mandate. Scalia is likely to vote that way as well, although there is some early indication that he doesn't like to mess around with bills that Congress have already passed. With Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Breyer likely to support the bill, that leaves Roberts and Kennedy and I think it's very possible that each will support to uphold the law as is given the other precedents that are being introduced.
PolitiFact has a page up that lists all the misconceptions about the health care law which have, no doubt, helped drive up its disapproval rating to around 47 percent. Here's the one that most people believe but is, in fact, a "Pants on Fire" lie.
Chris Christie slams health care reform as “a government takeover of health care”
While the reform gives the federal government a larger role in the health insurance industry, it doesn’t eliminate the private market. In fact, the reform is projected to increase the number of citizens with private health insurance. We know Christie doesn’t like the national health care reform, but he should know better than to call it a "government takeover." That’s been proven wrong over and over again, making his claim simply ridiculous.
Yeah, well, never touch a man's paranoia. It's a sacred thing.
The outcome of their ruling is going to be very interesting. How much will it affect the president's chances of re-election?
First of all, today is the key day as they are discussing the issue of the mandate. I'm wondering the team that is arguing to uphold the law as is will look to this bill, enacted in 1798 by the 5th Congress and signed by founding father John Adams, as an example of how the government can more or less force people to get health care. An Act For The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen would never pass muster with the Republicans of today. Clearly they would label it as "government overreach" and "something our founding fathers would never do"...even though our founding fathers did just that!
The type of question that each justice asks is usually indicative of how they are going to vote. I think it's safe to say that Thomas and Alito will be voting to strike down the mandate. Scalia is likely to vote that way as well, although there is some early indication that he doesn't like to mess around with bills that Congress have already passed. With Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Breyer likely to support the bill, that leaves Roberts and Kennedy and I think it's very possible that each will support to uphold the law as is given the other precedents that are being introduced.
PolitiFact has a page up that lists all the misconceptions about the health care law which have, no doubt, helped drive up its disapproval rating to around 47 percent. Here's the one that most people believe but is, in fact, a "Pants on Fire" lie.
Chris Christie slams health care reform as “a government takeover of health care”
While the reform gives the federal government a larger role in the health insurance industry, it doesn’t eliminate the private market. In fact, the reform is projected to increase the number of citizens with private health insurance. We know Christie doesn’t like the national health care reform, but he should know better than to call it a "government takeover." That’s been proven wrong over and over again, making his claim simply ridiculous.
Yeah, well, never touch a man's paranoia. It's a sacred thing.
The outcome of their ruling is going to be very interesting. How much will it affect the president's chances of re-election?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)