Posted at 04:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
The White House blog claims that Obamacare will lower the premiums paid by those of us who already have insurance (others differ).
as a result of insurance market reforms that will be in place in the individual market and because of the individual responsibility requirement for coverage, CBO assumes that millions more people will have access to the individual market. According to the CBO, the impact of bringing these new people – many of whom are younger and healthier – into the market will help reduce premiums by 7 to 10 percent in the individual market.
In other words, my premiums will go down because healthy young people who currently get by without insurance will be forced to buy policies they may not even want. (When I was young and healthy, I got by quite happily with a bare bones Blue Cross policy that only covered catastrophic expenses). It's a wealth transfer from the young and uninsured to the old and insured.
But, as an insured old fart, who am I to complain?
Posted at 03:21 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (21)
According to a WSJ poll:
Half of Americans, if they had the choice, would vote to replace every member of Congress, including their own representative, the survey found.
Instead of a Tea party, maybe we need a Clean Slate Party.
Posted at 09:08 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (3)
It was bad enough when the Democrats resorted to sleazy deals to get Obamacare through the Senate (see, e.g., The Louisiana Purchase and The Cornhusker Kickback). Then they had to plan to ram it through via reconciliation.
But now the Dems have gone past tawdry to outright malfeasance. The Washington Post reports that, in order to avoid having her members have to actually vote on the Senate version of the bill, Nancy Pelosi is leaning towards using the "sleight of hand" maneuver known as deem and pass:
The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers "deem" the health-care bill to be passed. The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" -- has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.I think it's instructive that even a left-leaning paper like the Post calls this "a procedural sleight of hand." I also find it instructive that even a left-leaning blogger/law professor like Jack Balkin thinks the Dems can't avoid political accountability:
There have to be two separate bills signed by the President: the first one is the original Senate bill, and the second one is the reconciliation bill. The House must pass the Senate bill and it must also pass the reconciliation bill. The House may do this on a single vote if the special rule that accompanies the reconciliation bill says that by passing the reconciliation bill the House agrees to pass the same text of the same bill that the Senate has passed. That is to say, the language of the special rule that accompanies the reconciliation bill must make the House take political responsibility for passing the same language as the Senate bill. The House must say that the House has consented to accept the text of the Senate bill as its own political act. At that point the President can sign the two bills, and it does not matter that the House has passed both through a special rule. Under Article I, section 5 of the Constitution, the House can determine its own rules for passing legislation. There are plenty of precedents for passing legislation by reference through a special rule. ...Inevitably, some will say "well, the GOP did it too," just as they have with reconciliation. But so what? In the first place, two wrongs don't make a right. What the hell happened to changing the way Washington works?
The structural constitutional reason for this requirement is that members of the House must not able to avoid political accountability for passing the same bill as the Senate. The point of bicameralism and presentment is that all three actors (House, Senate and President) must agree to the legislation, warts and all, so that all three can be held politically accountable for it. They cannot point fingers at the other actors and deny responsibility for the policy choices made. The House cannot say, "oh we didn't pass X; that was the Senate's decision." If the House doesn't accept the same language as its own, even if that language is then immediately changed in an accompanying bill, there is no law.
Speaker Pelosi is trying to give House members a way of saying they did not vote for the Senate bill, but my point is that however much she and they may be trying to do this rhetorically, she and they can't really do this politically and constitutionally. They have to take responsibility for what they are doing and the language of the bill has to say that they are taking responsibility. This is the point of Article I, section 7.
Deem and pass may make some members of the House feel better by providing a sort of fig leaf, but to be constitutional the process cannot rid them of political responsibility for passing the Senate bill. If it did, they would not have created a valid law.
In the second, whatever the GOP may have done via reconciliation or "deem and pass" in the past, they never used them to (a) pass the biggest entitlement program and most important social legislation in decades or (b) to fundamentally reshape the rules of the game for 1/6th of the entire frakking economy.
Obamacare may yet pass. In my book, however, it will always be the illegitimate offspring of sleaze and procedural sleight of hands. And that leaves me angrier than I can ever remember being about anything in politics during the 30-odd years I've been paying attention.
Posted at 08:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
I am increasingly persuaded that Jeremy Clarkson is the most sensible person in public life. Take, for example, his recent column on the way legislators and regulators allow "the behaviour of one man" to skew "the concept of everyday life for everyone else."
As we know, one man once got on one plane in a pair of exploding hiking boots and as a result everyone else in the entire world is now forced to strip naked at airports and hand over their toiletries to a man in a high-visibility jacket. ...
Last month a Birmingham couple pleaded guilty to starving their supposedly home-schooled daughter to death. Now, of course, there are calls for parents who choose to educate their children at home to be monitored on an hourly basis by people from the “care” industry, and possibly to have their toiletries confiscated. ....
We seem to have lost sight of the fact that throughout history 90% of people have behaved quite normally 90% of the time. Agatha Christie, for instance, was home-schooled and at no point was she forced to eat breadcrumbs from her neighbour’s bird table.
Of course, at the extremes, you have 5% who are goodie-goodies and who become vicars, and 5% who build exploding hiking shoes and starve their children to death.
It’s this oddball 5% that is targeted by the tidal wave of legislation. But making it more difficult to teach your children at home will not stop kids being mistreated.
It just changes the pattern of everyday life for everyone else. This is what drives me mad.
We now think it’s normal behaviour to take off our clothes at an airport. But it isn’t. Nor is it normal to stand outside in the rain to have a cigarette or to do 30mph on a dual carriageway when it’s the middle of the night and everyone else is in bed. It’s stupid.
And last week the stupidity made yet another lunge into the fabric of society with the news that government ministers were considering new laws that would force everyone to take a test before they were allowed to keep a dog.
No, really. Because one dog once ate one child, some hopeless little twerp from the department of dogs had to think of something sincere to say on the steps of the coroner’s court. Inevitably, they will have argued that the current law is “not fit for purpose”, whatever that means, and that “steps must be taken to ensure this never happens again”.
The steps being considered mean that every dog owner in the land will have to fit their pet with a microchip so that its whereabouts can be determined from dog-spotting spy-in-the-sky drones, and that before being allowed to take delivery of a puppy, people will have to sit an exam similar to the driving theory test. The cost could reach £60, and on top of this you will need compulsory third-party insurance in case your spaniel eats the milkman. ...
What good did all the airport legislation achieve? None. It simply means that you and I now must get to the airport six years before the plane is due to leave and arrive at the other end with yellow teeth, smelly armpits and no nail file. Did it prevent a chap from getting on board with exploding underpants? No, it did not.
Happily, however, I have a solution to the problem, a way that normal human behaviour can be preserved. It’s simple. We must start to accept that 5% of the population at any given time is bonkers. There are no steps to be taken to stamp this out and no lessons to be learnt when a man with a beard boards a plane with an exploding dog.
Government officials who are questioned on the steps of coroner’s courts must be reminded of this before they speak. So that instead of saying the current law is “not fit for purpose” and that something must be done, they familiarise themselves with an expression that sums up the situation rather better: “Shit happens.”
Damn straight.
Posted at 04:13 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (4)
The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United continues to reverberate around the corporate blawgosphere. David Post notes that:
So here’s a cute little trademark dispute. Those stalwart defenders of free speech, Citizens United, apparently are not so crazy about being on the receiving end of the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee. The group, which as you know won a huge victory last month in the Supreme Court in its First Amendment challenge against the FEC’s interpretation of the federal election rules, has now apparently threatened, on grounds of trademark infringement, a Wisconsin group who have issued an online petition (and facebook group) named “Citizens United against Citizens United” as a protest against the Court’s decision.
He thinks "It’s unseemly, at best. And probably a loser, too."
Eugene Volokh points out that unions are the likely winner from Citizens United:
Posted at 04:02 PM in SCOTUS and Con Law | Permalink | Comments (2)
NLJ reports:
The University of Denver Sturm College of Law has created a new associate dean position to promote diversity and inclusiveness within the institution. ... "The main reason we wanted this position was to send a pretty clear message that this is important to us," said Martin Katz, who was appointed as dean of the law school in February. "The way to do that, in my mind, was to put someone in a top position at the law school."
The new associate dean for diversity, Catherine Smith, has been a professor at the school since 2004. ... "Tenure gives her the freedom to get things done, even if that means rocking the boat," Katz said of Smith. "She'll have the ability to twist arms if necessary."
Smith won't begin her new role full time until the fall, but she has already been soliciting suggestions. "I'm amazed at how much of a need there is to have someone in the building who people can go to with issues or concerns about diversity and inclusiveness," she said. "It's important to have a liaison between the administration, the faculty and the students."
By Katz's estimation, slightly fewer than 18% of the students are minorities, but the law school can and should do better. Smith's top priority is to improve the pipeline of diverse students and boost the percentage of minority students admitted. ... Improving faculty diversity is another priority, Katz said. Smith led the school's entry-level faculty hiring efforts this year, and four of the seven candidates selected belong to ethnic minorities. Smith hopes to do a better job of retaining diverse students and professors, she said.
So much for color-blindness in admissions and hiring, I guess. OTOH, no mention is made of intellectual diversity. Nor is there any mention of outreach to groups like, say, The Federalist Society. One might also wonder whether arm-twisting will impact academic freedom and free speech on the part of those who dissent from the politically correct account of diversity.
Posted at 03:37 PM in Law School | Permalink | Comments (0)
Much discussion in the corporate blawgosphere of Selectica, Inc. v. Versata Enterprises, Inc. VC Noble's opinion for the Delaware Chancery Court involved what Steven Davidoff calls "frankly odd" facts:
They arose out of Versata’s acquisition of 5.2 percent of Selectica and Versata’s accompanying offer to acquire Selectica. (Both companies produce business software.) In response, Selectica adopted a low-threshold, net-operating-loss poison pill that would be triggered when someone acquired 4.99 percent of its stock, rather than the more typical 15 percent trigger. Versata was exempted from this threshold to the extent that it did not subsequently acquire Selectica shares.
The net operating loss poison pill is a new development. The lower triggering threshold is adopted to conform with Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code and protect the company’s net operating losses, which can be used to lower future taxes to the extent a company accrues profits. According to Factset Sharkrepellent, 41 companies including Citigroup and Pulte Homes adopted these types of pills last year. Selectica itself is a microcap survivor of the dot.com bubble with $160 million of net operating losses, a market capitalization of about $11 million, little revenue and no profits. It is uncertain whether Selectica will ever return to profitability in order to use these net operating losses, or N.O.L.s, as the court refers to them.
A post by Kevin Brady reviews the facts in much greater detail and also provides a through review of the legal analysis.
How does the NOL pill work? A Wachtell Lipton client memo explains that:
Posted at 12:12 PM in Mergers and Takeovers | Permalink | Comments (0)
Democratic pollsters Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen reflect on polling data about Obamacare and the broader issue of government intrusion into the private sphere:
[A] solid majority of Americans opposes the massive health-reform plan. Four-fifths of those who oppose the plan strongly oppose it, according to Rasmussen polling this week, while only half of those who support the plan do so strongly. Many more Americans believe the legislation will worsen their health care, cost them more personally and add significantly to the national deficit. Never in our experience as pollsters can we recall such self-deluding misconstruction of survey data.
Yet, the Democrats seem bound and determined to ram Obamacare down our throats no matter what the cost.
It's no wonder people are scared of their government. Back to Caddell and Schoen:
[T]he country is moving away from big government, with distrust growing more generally toward the role of government in our lives. Scott Rasmussen asked last month whose decisions people feared more in health care: that of the federal government or of insurance companies. By 51 percent to 39 percent, respondents feared the decisions of federal government more. This is astounding given the generally negative perception of insurance companies.
CNN found last month that 56 percent of Americans believe that the government has become so powerful it constitutes an immediate threat to the freedom and rights of citizens. When only 21 percent of Americans say that Washington operates with the consent of the governed, as was also reported last month, we face an alarming crisis.
Posted at 10:49 AM in Punditry | Permalink | Comments (19)
One of the major components of the post-Enron accounting reforms, and laughable so, was a provision requiring that all CEOs sign off on their company’s financial statements. It was supposed to prevent CEOs from willfully looking the other way while subordinates cooked the company books (i.e., deny them plausible deniability) and inculcate in American corporate culture a sense of responsibility. It was laughable then, and, as yesterday’s report on the book-cooking that went on at Lehman Brothers proves, it’s laughable today.
The provision was based on the assumption that when CEOs admitted they didn’t know about accounting “errors” that caused collapses and massive disruptions, that they were telling the truth and that, if they had to be personally responsible, they might look into accounting irregularities and stop mischievous underlings from ruining companies. It’s surprising now to think that Congress was that gullible, or thought the American people were.
In the case of Lehman CEO Richard Fuld, he’s been found “grossly negligent” for certifying accounting statements he made no effort to look into, just as you might think. According to Michael de la Merced and Andrew Sorkin, Lehman shifted $50 billion off its books with fraudulent accounting tricks in the months before its collapse. They’d been engaging in the transaction since 2001, and there wasn’t a thing that the post-Enron regulations did to stop it.
Relatedly, the Lehman Bros. episode is yet another
Posted at 10:26 AM in Securities Regulation | Permalink | Comments (4)
I can't remember the last time I was as consumed by "I gotta have it" fever as I am for the iPad. Maybe the GI Joe with Kung Fu grip? Anyway, I'm going to buy an iPad. Not the very first one, I'm going to wait for the 3G model to come out later in the month. But I can pre-order the 3G model for delivery upon release. What to do? The WSJ Smart Money blog says wait:
Price drops
Putting off your purchase a few months could cut your bill substantially. When Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007, it slashed the 8GB version’s $599 price tag to $399 just 10 weeks later. (Outraged early adopters received a $100 credit.) That swift of a drop on the iPad is unlikely, but the price could come down in as few as six months, says Michael Carnell, the founder of Charleston, S.C., information technology firm Palmettobug Digital. “The run-of-the-mill consumer can wait that long,” he says.
In particular, consumers could see prices drop on the Wi-Fi/3G version. “The extra charge for 3G in the device doesn’t make much sense,” Enderle says. Apple stands to profit from the $15 to $30 monthly 3G subscriptions.
Bugs
“This is version one — there’s a lot that has to be worked out,” says Aaron Ray-Crichton, an independent technology consultant and the founder of ARC Systems Consulting in Brooklyn, N.Y. Apple originally anticipated an iPad release in late March, and analyst reports have pointed to possible production problems.
App availability
Currently, the iPad has very few apps of its own. Most are iPhone apps, Carnell says. Displayed on a 9.7-inch screen instead of a 3.5-inch one, they may appear too jagged and low resolution to be useful, he says. If you’re looking at the iPad for the apps, hold off a month or two until developers can catch up.
Connectivity
A Wi-Fi-only device is fine if you plan to use it at home or other areas with Wi-Fi hotspots. But 3G connectivity – available in iPad models set to launch later this spring — is basic for consumers who want their iPad to work while traveling in the car or in other locations where Wi-Fi is scarce. “Otherwise, you’re going to have limited access to that rich Internet content,” Ray-Crichton says. 3G subscription costs will set you back an extra $180 to $360 a year. Given that cost, an iPhone may be a more cost-effective choice for some users, he says.
All of which makes total sense, but for one thing. I really, really suck at waiting.
Posted at 11:44 AM in Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (5)
Here at PB.com, we are devoted Anglophiles. Besides our regularly expressed admiration for Top Gear, we dote, inter alia, on Winston Churchill and Stephen Fry, admittedly an odd pairing, but which brings us to this amusing anecdote:
Posted at 06:49 PM in Television | Permalink | Comments (1)
Recent Comments