Questions and Observations

It was time for a change, I thought.  The Statue of Liberty is a bit overused, so I thought I’d give the theme a bit of a wash and brush-up, as Group Captain Mandrake would say.  Switch the old columns around, change the typography a bit.  You know, the whole works.

A question about typography, by the way.  Is anyone working on any screen fonts other than Georgia or Verdana that look as good as far as readability at all different sizes goes?  I really don’t like the new ClearType fonts–Calibri, Candara, etc.–because their readibility sucks at anything under 10 points.  As does Arial or Helvetica, for that matter.  They really are best suited as header fonts, not body text.

We really need to find some way of getting out font preferences over the web to the readers in some way.  Right now, Verdana and Georgia really are the only two fonts that have 98%+ penetration for both PC and Mac Users, and look really good on screen for pretty much everybody.  What we really need is a way to embed whatever fonts we want to use into the site in some sort of lightweight fashion that can be transmitted to the users, in much the same way that the CSS styles are, and provide nice readability.

Somebody needs to be working on this.  I’d love to Book Antiqua this mother.

The just released CBO scoring for the Senate bill and reconciliation package comes in at $940 billion over ten years.

A reminder: the benefits (i.e. spending) don’t begin until 2014. The taxation (revenue collection) begins immediately.

A true number? The CBO says the cost over the first 4 years would be $17 billion. The last 6 would equal $923 billion. So isn’t this a better representation of true cost?

$923/6*10 = $1,538 trillion or over 1.5 trillion dollars if the spending is factored evenly over the 10 years like it will be the following 10 years.

And that doesn’t include the $200 billion yearly “doc fix” which was deliberately taken out of the bill to make it seem like less spending.  Add that to their claimed “net” and see what it gets you.  It’s certainly not $794 over 10 years or any deficit reduction.

Note also the chart in the CBO report how the “net cost” is accomplished:

Taxes and penalties. Penalties on individuals and employers. Taxes on “Cadillac” plans. Question – what happens when those all dry up as revenue streams?  The scoring assumes a constant stream.  I think we all know better than that.  Of course the answer is they must find new revenue streams, i.e. new taxes (or “penalties” as they’re sure to deem them).  Additionally full into the spending curve of the plan, we’re looking at around 200 billion a year.  Over 10 years that 2 trillion dollars.

Again, remember – the CBO’s scoring assumes absolutely no changes in the bill, revenue streams or projected spending over those 10 years.  That’s absolute nonsense on a saltine cracker and we all know that.  There is no way those revenue streams remain constant, there’s no way the spending on health care – if this is enacted – won’t be increased as the bill is built upon and despite the CBO’s guess for the following 10 years in which it says it will continue to “save” money, there’s very little to support that premise.  In fact, the most telling line in the whole CBO report is this one:

Our analysis indicates that H.R. 3590, as passed by the Senate, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP).³ The imprecision of that calculation reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to it, compared with CBO’s 10-year budget estimates.

You can believe all this nonsense if you wish, but even the CBO isn’t real keen on its own calculations.  And by the way, this post isn’t a swipe at the CBO – they score what they get and do it according to the statute under which they operate.  But that doesn’t render the GIGO rule invalid.

In the meantime, the House has just passed the “Slaughter Resolution” which would allow it to “deem and pass” this monstrosity.  All 222 who voted yes were Democrats.  That means Democrats badly want cover on this thing and if they can get it, they’ll let it pass.  The House is scheduled to meet at 1pm on Sunday to do so.

If they pass it through “deem and pass”, we’ll essentially have become a Banana Republic.

~McQ

I’ve noted any number of times that government taxes comprise 14% of the national income and government spending is at 25% of the national income.  That’s as high as its been since WWII I believe.

The point, of course is there are three obvious choices here – cut spending to the income level (and beyond, really, if you plan on paying off debt) or increase taxes to the spending level (and beyond, again, if you plan on paying off the debt) or a combination of both.

Watching this current administration, it appears option two is in the works.  Lots of lip service about “unsustainable” spending, etc., but the only movement I’ve seen is legislation that increases that.  And, also, plans to increase taxes.

The health care bill is chock full of new taxes.  If you don’t believe it, review these two listings of the new taxes to be found in there.

Cap-and-trade, and now “Son of Cap-and-Trade” being sponsored by Senators Lindsey Graham and John Kerry significantly raises taxes on utilities (which means everything will cost more for consumers).

Even the FCC is getting in the act, proposing to helpfully tax the internet – something all governments, state and local, have wanted to do for some time.  Presently 18 states have laws taxing sales on the ‘net.  The feds want to make it 50 (or 57 in Obama’s America) plus a little for Uncle Sugar.  The purported reason for such a tax is to “expand internet access”.  As Kelly Cobb wonders, how in the world do raising taxes and thus the cost of access help expand access.  In answer I offer the one word coda of this administration: redistribution.

The point of this post is to raise awareness that we are too the place where it is critical that the two numbers I’ve cited at the beginning of the post begin to move toward each other, not further away.  It appears to me that the decision has been made by this administration to move the smaller number toward the larger number via taxation.  In other words, your priorities for your income will be secondary to their desire to cover for their inept and inefficient profligacy.  And the profligacy has been committed by both parties.

It is far past time for these people who’ve committed us to this disastrous path to have their priorities reordered.  It is high time that their first priority become cuts in spending to bring that in line with their income.  Until and unless they begin that onerous and necessary job, nothing will change.  The “crisis” they’ve created will remain.  I don’t care who did it, what was “inherited” or why we’re in this shape.  That’s history.  Now is the time to do something about it before it’s too freakin’ late.  And taxing everything that moves isn’t the solution I’m talking about.

This is one of the major reasons the Tea Parties exist, for heaven sake – and any politician who isn’t yet figuring this out deserves to join the unemployment line in November.  Hopefully the anger that is driving the protests won’t abate before November (or after November for that matter) and put people in Congress (and later the White House) who understand and act on the new priority.

Until then, hold on to your wallet, because the taxes are coming and they’re going to be coming hard.

~McQ

Byron York’s count has it at 209 “no”, 204 “yes”, with 18 undecided.   David Dayden at FDL puts the count at 191 “yes”, 206 “no” (205-209 with leaners), with 17 undecided.

As you can imagine, the pressure on the remaining 17 or 18 is going to be enormous. Bart Stupak claims it has been a “living hell”.

Still nothing out of the CBO which means a Saturday vote is unlikely.

Obama’s interview with Brett Baier of Fox is likely to do nothing to change minds about health care, just as his speech in Ohio had little effect. He may as well have gone to Australia as this is shaping up.  But it is clear he and the Democrats want to avoid any talk about “process” and continue to wave it away as something the American people just aren’t concerned with.  Big mistake.

And although he wouldn’t own up to it in the Baier interview, Obama has told others that the fate of his presidency is on the line with this vote.

All it took for Dennis Kucinich to cave was a 45 minute ride on Airforce One.  The liberal Ohio Democrat has found a way to rationalize his change of mind.

If you don’t think this is having an effect throughout the land, just remind yourself of the Scott Brown race, where Brown ran for liberal lion and chief health care reform advocate Teddy Kennedy’s seat as the “41st vote against health care”.  Then cast your eyes west and note that Barbara Boxer, another Senate liberal is vulnerable as well.

Speaking of California Senators, Dianne Feinstein’s “National Insurance Rate Authority” has been dropped from the reconciliation bill.  Since it has nothing to do with budgetary matters, it can’t be included.  If this monstrosity passes, look for her to attempt to add it at another time as an amendment to some other Senate bill.

And Code Red suspects two new “yes” votes for the bill, from California Democratic Reps Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa have to do with announced water allocations for the water starved Central Valley in the state.  Yesterday the Interior Department moved up the March allocation, something never done in the past.  A “back room deal” for their votes?

One of the things Baier did in his interview is question the health of Medicare.  He got the president to admit that the bill doesn’t fix the structural problems of the program.  More and more medical providers are recognizing that problem and opting out of taking Medicare patients because they claim they can’t afford them.  And if Medicare is in bad shape, Medicaid is in worse shape.  As if to emphasize that point, drug store chain Walgreens has announced that after April 16th, it will no longer take new Medicaid patients.

The point, of course, is this “reform” does nothing to address the structural problems of the two government run systems which are at the core of the health care cost problem in the US.

Last, but not least, the Attorney General of Virginia has announced the state’s intention to sue the federal government if the present health care bill is passed under the “deem and pass” rule.  Virginia has already passed a law declaring it illegal for the federal government to require individuals to purchase health insurance.

~McQ

Written by Yosi Klein Halevi, it explores a theme I contended a few days ago – that the recent confrontation was premeditated.  He also briefly points out that another Israeli reporter is wondering the same thing I did:

The administration, according to a report in the Israeli newspaper Yedito Aharonot, is making an even more insidious accusation against Israel. During his visit, wrote Yediot Aharanot, Biden told Israeli leaders that their policies are endangering American lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. The report has been denied in the White House. Whether or not the remark was made, what is clear today in Jerusalem is that Obama’s recklessness is endangering Israeli–and Palestinian–lives.

The last line is indicative of the entire tone of the essay. Halevi is merciless in his denunciation of the Obama administration’s handling of the recent confrontation.  “Recklessness” is not a term a contributing editor at TNR is likely to throw around lightly – especially when applying it to a Democratic president.

Astonishingly, Obama is repeating the key tactical mistake of his failed efforts to restart Middle East peace talks over the last year. Though Obama’s insistence on a settlement freeze to help restart negotiations was legitimate, he went a step too far by including building in East Jerusalem. Every Israeli government over the last four decades has built in the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem; no government, let alone one headed by the Likud, could possibly agree to a freeze there. Obama made resumption of negotiations hostage to a demand that could not be met. The result was that Palestinian leaders were forced to adjust their demands accordingly.

Obama is directly responsible for one of the most absurd turns in the history of Middle East negotiations. Though Palestinian leaders negotiated with Israeli governments that built extensively in the West Bank, they now refused to sit down with the first Israeli government to actually agree to a suspension of building. Obama’s demand for a building freeze in Jerusalem led to a freeze in negotiations.

Finally, after intensive efforts, the administration produced the pathetic achievement of “proximity talks”—setting Palestinian-Israeli negotiations back a generation, to the time when Palestinian leaders refused to sit at the same table with Israelis.

Ignorance? Amateurism? Halevi thinks it’s probably the latter – sort of:

That Obama could be guilty of such amateurishness was perhaps forgivable because he was, after all, an amateur. But he has now taken his failed policy and intensified it. By demanding that Israel stop building in Ramat Shlomo and elsewhere in East Jerusalem—and placing that demand at the center of American-Israeli relations—he’s ensured that the Palestinians won’t show up even to proximity talks. This is no longer amateurishness; it is pique disguised as policy.

While I agree with the assessment that it was “pique disguised as policy”, but I think it was as much ignorance and amateurism. Perhaps your remember Honduras. Halevi lays out the history explaining why the demands of the Obama administration are clueless and have actually set the peace process on it’s rear.

But Halevi isn’t done with the Obama administration – he has more:

In turning an incident into a crisis, Obama has convinced many Israelis that he was merely seeking a pretext to pick a fight with Israel. Netanyahu was inadvertently shabby; Obama, deliberately so.
According to a banner headline in the newspaper Ma’ariv, senior Likud officials believe that Obama’s goal is to topple the Netanyahu government, by encouraging those in the Labor Party who want to quit the coalition.

The popular assumption is that Obama is seeking to prove his resolve as a leader by getting tough with Israel. Given his ineffectiveness against Iran and his tendency to violate his own self-imposed deadlines for sanctions, the Israeli public is not likely to be impressed. Indeed, Israelis’ initial anger at Netanyahu has turned to anger against Obama. According to an Israel Radio poll on March 16, 62 percent of Israelis blame the Obama administration for the crisis, while 20 percent blame Netanyahu. (Another 17 percent blame Shas leader Eli Yishai.)

The “popular assumption” goes directly to what I said a couple of days ago. Despite White House denials, most of Israel is convinced this was a pathetic attempt at muscle flexing. Instead, it probably impressed no one and has instead alienated the Israeli pubic – a citizenry which is, in the majority, for a two-state solution.

Brilliant.  Now the talks are back to square one after Rahm Emanuel bragged that the two-state solution would be realized in Obama’s first term (it better be since hopefully that’s all he’ll get).

As it turns out, this has become a fiasco. Instead of a cool head prevailing and calming the waters, the situation was inflamed and escalated.  Now the Palestinians have used it as a reason to desert the process and the administration is stuck demanding Israel do something it has always refused to even talk about.  It’s interesting that a denunciation of these idiotic demands by the administration isn’t just coming from the right, but from leftist publications such as The New Republic.

Even they could no longer ignore the amateur in the White House.

~McQ

While my patronymic is McQuain (totally Scottish), I am a true Scotch/Irish descendant (and, of course, quite proud of being a true redneck as defined as “Appalachian Scotch/Irish”).  My mother’s maiden name was Mackey – about as Irish as one can get.    So, with my ties to the auld sod established I wish everyone a happy St. Patty’s day (especially you, Pogue). 

Of course none of that really matters today, since this is the one day of the year that everyone is Irish.

I’ll be having a Guiness, or two, later in the day to celebrate everyone’s elevation for the day.

Enjoy.

~McQ

Ezra Klein says he’s been looking for polling data concerning Medicare prior to its passage to determine how popular it was at the time.  If it wasn’t particularly popular, his obvious intent is to use that to make the argument that Democrats have a good chance of surviving a vote on this monstrosity by saying “but people love Medicare now”.

He finds that Greg Sargent has beaten him too the punch:

In a last-minute effort to stiffen Dem spines, senior Dem leadership aides are circulating among House Dems some polling numbers from the 1960s that underscore how controversial Medicare was in the months leading up to its historic passage.

Dem leadership staff is highlighting a series of numbers from 1962 on President John F. Kennedy’s proposal. In July of that year, a Gallup poll found 28% in favor, 24% viewing it unfavorably, and a sizable 33% with no opinion on it — showing an evenly divided public.

A month later, after JFK’s proposal went down, an Opinion Research Corporation poll found 44 percent said it should have been passed, while 37% supported its defeat — also showing an evenly divided public.

Also in that poll, a majority, 54%, said it was a serious problem that “government medical insurance for the aged would be a big step toward socialized medicine.”

After Lyndon Johnson was elected, a Harris poll found only a minority, 46%, supported a Federal plan to extend health care to the aged. Today, of course, Medicare is overwhelmingly popular.

That brings me to the most important question: is Medicare “overwhelmingly popular” or is Medicare “popular” because it is what seniors are stuck with? There’s a big difference there. Is Medicare what seniors would have if they had a choice? Of course there’s no way to determine that, but the popularity (and, as many claim, the necessity) of “Medigap” insurance to cover the obvious holes in coverage speak to a clientel which may be less enamored with the mandatory system than we think.

Much has been made of seniors concerned about losing their coverage – government coverage, for heaven sake!  Supporters of the travesty now in Congress claim that senior’s fear of losing their coverage is driven by their satisfaction with it. Logically that’s a leap. When you have no choice in the matter and what you have is being threatened, you’re likely to want to at least keep that. That doesn’t necessarily mean you love it or you’re satisfied with it or you’d wish it on anyone else.  At most, it just means it beats the unknown.

~McQ

E21 points out the innate ignorance, or if you prefer, cognative dissonance, in the belief that government is the answer when private sector outlays get smaller in the areas of health care and pensions.  Their example is a recent column by EJ Dionne:

In a recent essay in the Washington Post, EJ Dionne argued that we had no choice but to accept that government would grow larger in the future “because the private economy will not offer the same security it once did through employer-provided health and pension plans.” It’s a viewpoint that is often repeated by others on the left of the political spectrum, who complain about corporations curtailing the benefits on which households had come to rely. Without businesses financing health care and retirement, Dionne believes the choice is between a larger government to fill that role or widespread illness and poverty.

The interesting aspect of this theory – which is hardly unique to Dionne – is the view that the government is some entirely disconnected entity that is able to finance obligations too weighty for households. If one assumes that government’s budget capacity comes entirely from the taxes it imposes on households – Dionne’s framework is unintelligible. If outlays are too great for the household sector to bear, how could these outlays be any more affordable for an entity entirely financed by the same households? The cash flow out to support households’ pension and health care expenditures has to be matched with an equal and opposite cash flow in from household taxes (including corporate taxes, which reduce the cash flow of households that are shareholders, employees, and consumers).

Where does this belief come from that government has the means to finance what the private sector can’t and that it must step up and do so when it comes to health and financial security? 

Government revenue, as I noted once before, is about 14% of the national income.  Government spending is about 25% (and rising).  How is government the answer then?  And if it were to raise taxes the commensurate 11% to equal spending, wouldn’t it be impoverishing the very households it plans on helping?  All the money we’re talking about government spending comes from the same place.  The other alternative involving government is massive borrowing which, at some point, has to be repaid.  By whom?  Well the same entity borrowing the money.  And from where does that entity’s money come?  The same place it always does – from the taxes it collects from its citizens.

Let’s get specific:

The idea of government as an entity entirely separate from the households that fund it is not only silly, but also exceedingly harmful, because it distracts from the serious business of confronting trade-offs and establishing realistic expectations. President Obama’s health care reform initiative depends, in part, on this fallacy. It expects people to believe that the interposition of government will allow for the same quality of care to be provided to a much expanded universe of beneficiaries at lower average cost for households. The problem is that households will end up paying for health care irrespective of the intermediary; the only way the government could reduce costs is if it does a better job rationing households’ access to care than private insurers and their anemic profit margins (The Obama Administration actually takes this fallacy a step further by claiming that it would “shrink the deficit by providing the world’s most expensive health care to 31 million additional people”).

What you’re seeing in the public opposition to this monstrosity of a health care bill is a realization and rejection of the counter-intuitive claims made by politicians (and not just the Obama administration) that there is such a thing as a free lunch.  The public recognizes the fallacy being presented as fact and is rejecting it outright.  That’s because unlike EJ Dionne and his ilk, they recognize a basic truth:

If something is too expensive for American households, it is too expensive for the government whose budget is financed by those same households.

It’s not rocket science.  However it is “smoke and mirrors” the way the administration is presenting it, and the public recognizes it as such.  The relatively simple concept above contained in that single sentence is reality.  The public lives in that world.  It’s time the politicians joined us.

~McQ

If Democrats want to have a vote on the bill this week, after a promised 72 hours availability on-line before the final vote, they have until tomorrow afternoon if they plan on voting Saturday. But Congressional Quarterly is reporting:

House Democratic leaders are still struggling to produce a final health care overhaul bill at an acceptable official cost estimate, but Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer said Tuesday they continue to plan a final vote this week. House leaders were to huddle late Tuesday afternoon, following a noon session of the full Democratic Caucus. There were reports they are having trouble drafting a bill that meets their budgetary targets….

Rank-and-file Democrats did not talk about the details, but said that the CBO scores had come up short. “They were less than expected” in terms of deficit reduction, said Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, who plans to vote for the bill.

In reality it isn’t the Congressional Budget Office that is coming up short, but the cost of the bill they’re proposing as a fix. As the American Spectator reports:

There are several things that Democrats are up against when it comes to the CBO score. The most important is that, based on reconciliation instructions, the “fix” bill must be shown to reduce the deficit by at least $1 billion. The challenge is, that’s after assuming that the Senate bill is law. In other words, the reconciliation bill can’t claim any of the deficit reduction from the Senate bill, but rather it must reduce the deficit relative to the Senate bill. Yet the changes that are being talked about will cost a lot of money. This includes eliminating the “Cornhusker kickback” and offering enhanced Medicaid subsidies to all states, increasing subsidies for the purchase of insurance, eliminating the so-called “donut hole” on Medicare prescription drug benefits, and whatever else they put in the bill. At the same time, delaying until 2018 the enactment of the “Cadillac tax” would be scored as a reduction in revenue, and thus add further to the deficit. They’d have to make up the gap through tax increases as well as try to siphon “savings” away from the student loan bill.

Yes, the rumors about the inclusion of a full takeover of the student loan program by government appear to be true and it has been included in health care reform. Look, if they’re going to trash the Constitution and the legislative process this badly, they may as well go all-in. Their problem is going all-in has apparently cost them much more than they thought it would and thus they still don’t have an acceptable bill.

Most likely they’re going to tinker with this until they get what they want in a score. Again keep in mind that this is reform which collects taxes for 10 years but only spends for 6 (benefits in full don’t kick in until 2014) thereby giving the appearance of bending the cost curve down within the 10 year window the CBO is statutorily limited to look at (and shooting the cost curve up after that). I have every confidence that House Democrats can come up with the same sorts of accounting tricks and nonsense that are in the original bill to get the score they want from CBO. But can they do it this week?

Everyday this is delayed means House Democrats are one day closer to the mid-terms and more and more Democrats are saying “no” to the original bill.

~McQ

Just kidding. Actually, the headline is:

Pelosi Calls All Female Democratic Members Into Meeting

Naturally, if my headline had been the real one, back when Hastert was speaker, the media would have done their best to hound him out of his office for being a misogynist.

I’m guessing that the media won’t really have much to say about Pelosi’s meeting, though.

Personally, I don’t care what kind of meetings they have as long as they don’t try to pass bills without voting for them, don’t pass unconstitutional individual mandates to buy health insurance, and avoid similar shenanigans. It’s just the pervasive double standard of the left-leaning media that gets on my nerves.

(Via Instapundit)