Of ObamaCare he says "Repeal & Replace," which I understand has become some kind of dirty word among some conservatives, who insist, contrary to the evidence, that almost nothing needs to be done in the area of health care.

That's not true. Health care is currently a weird blend of socialism and waste. Costs continue going up 2 or 3 times faster than GDP. There is something screwed up on a fundamental level here.

But the law’s new open-ended entitlement programs are its biggest failure. One has been described as a classic “insurance death spiral,” and the other requires an additional trillion in new federal spending. Both are fiscally unsustainable, and estimates suggest the costs could be much higher than initially projected.

And that ultimately is where PresidentÂ’s health law falls short. If you look at our debt-and-deficits problem, it really is a health-care spending problem. Today, excluding interest, approximately one-fourth of federal spending goes toward government health-care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

By the time my kids are my age, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the share of federal spending going to pay just for health care programs will reach 45 percent.

And the new health law does nothing to address the pressure that escalating health care costs are putting on the federal budget. CBO Director Doug Elmendorf has stated that the new law, “does not substantially diminish that pressure.”

Instead, it doubles down on the flawed design of open-ended, subsidized government health care. The result? A health-care system characterized by overutilization and inefficiency, in which costs are rising at 2 to 3 times the growth rate of GDP.

As any family on a budget can tell you, when one-fourth of your budget is growing three times faster than your income, you are in deep trouble – all other priorities get squeezed as you fall deeper into debt.

That is exactly the situation our government faces today.

There is no serious dispute – on either side of the aisle – that health-care inflation is the primary driver of our unsustainable deficits. As President Obama put it, “If you look at the numbers, Medicare in particular will run out of money, and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up.”

And Democratic officials will even admit that the primary driver of health-care inflation is the current structure of government programs. As HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently testified regarding Medicare’s flawed fee-for-service structure, “I would say that the current fee-for-service system, yes, is unsustainable.”

So the disagreement isnÂ’t really about the problem. ItÂ’s about how best to control costs in government health care programs. And if I could sum up that disagreement in a couple of sentences, I would say this: Our plan is to empower patients. Their plan is to empower bureaucrats.

Obama's plan is very nasty for seniors. Very nasty. This is the most under-reported political story of the decade. While Obama and the Democrats run a Mediscare campaign, it's their own policies that should be scaring the living hell out of seniors.

Just last week, the President rolled out a deficit-reduction plan that doubled down on his bureaucratic approach to controlling Medicare costs, first advanced in his health-care law last year.

The law empowers a board of 15 unelected officials – the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB – to hold the growth of Medicare spending to GDP plus 1 percent by reducing reimbursements to health-care providers. Unless overturned by a supermajority in Congress, the recommended cuts dictated by this board become law.

The PresidentÂ’s latest proposal simply called for letting IPAB cut deeper. This board of bureaucrats will now be tasked with holding MedicareÂ’s growth rate to GDP plus half a percent. To put that in context, Medicare is currently growing at 6.3 percent per year.

MedicareÂ’s non-partisan chief actuary, Richard Foster, has been clear on this point: Going from 6 percent growth down to the PresidentÂ’s targets, using only the blunt tools that his law gives to IPAB, would simply drive Medicare providers out of business, resulting in harsh disruptions and denied care for seniors.

In fact, the deterioration in seniorsÂ’ care that is projected to occur under IPAB would be so untenable, the board is unlikely to yield any savings at all. Future Congresses would be under tremendous pressure to undo the cuts, just as past Congresses have time and again reversed scheduled cuts to physiciansÂ’ pay.

As I keep saying here, "Business as usual" is not even on the table. Neither party actually proposes to keep the current system going. So seniors who want the current system to keep on going -- you lose. No one's even talking about that.

The Republican plan is to reform the system so that costs do not continue to skyrocket.

The Democratic plan is to do no reforms to the system at all, and just cut the amount of money paid to health-service providers -- who, let me be clear, will simply stop treating Medicare patients. Oh, the sort of doctors who can't otherwise attract a clientele will treat them; but the sort of doctors willing to work for the government's cost-controlled cut-rate reimbursements are not, let us say, top shelf.

So both parties propose cutting Medicare spending. Only one party proposes reforms to the system that actually might blunt the impact of reduced spending. That is, if spending goes down, but a reformed system results in lower prices, too, then the actual net effect of that reduced spending is lessened.

The other party just wants to savagely reduce reimbursements for those who actually treat seniors, so they can continue to piss away money on Solyndra and ObamaCare For Everyone (TM).

Those are the choices on the table. "Let's just keeping doing what we've been doing" is not among them.

Thanks to Dave @ Garfield Ridge.

Posted by: Ace at 09:53 AM | Comments (131)
Post contains 993 words, total size 6 kb.

And in Eastasian news...

With President Barack Obama tuning his re-election campaign amid dismal economic conditions and simmering antipathy toward his stimulus spending and associated bailouts, the Ford ad carried the makings of a political liability when Team Obama can least afford yet another one. CanÂ’t have that.

The nature of the complaint was that Ford's CEO had (supposedly) supported the bailout policy.

But, like, so what? Why does that complaint get an ad pulled, as opposed to Obama's team just making that statement?

As the ad is pulled, it's not available on YouTube. But the below clip features it (covered by FoxNews) starting at 1:20. more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:54 AM | Comments (251)
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

Is this something? It certainly is SCOAMF-y.

Posted by: Ace at 08:43 AM | Comments (90)
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

But I don't expect Obama to randomly call on him at a campaign event anytime soon.

I have great empathy for middle class or lower middle class America. My horizons as a young adult were not expansive. I was programmed to be a produce department manager at a grocery store in my neighborhood. That was my dadÂ’s aspiration for me. I would have been proud to work hard to become a leader in a grocery store and I bet I would have been good at it, too. By luck and hard work, my career took a different path.

I say this as I read all of the rhetoric about Class Warfare, the rift that is being created between economic middle and lower class and as the President said “those millionaires and billionaires.”

The real rift in philosophy though is do you want the Government to create jobs and stimulate the economy or do you want AmericaÂ’s small business to be the engine of growth?

Economic Success has somehow become the new boogie man; some in the Democratic party are now casting about for enemies and business leaders and anyone who has achieved success in terms of rank or fiscal success is being cast as a bad guy in a black hat. This is counter to the American Dream and is really turning off so many people that love American and basically carry our country on their back by paying taxes and by employing people and creating GDP.

This is a bad move all designed by some pollster who said this is the way to get votes during the re-election. It should be stopped. We should be healing and creating teams NOT dividing and pitting people against one another.

I know the President isn’t speaking to me specifically when he talks but many times I hear stuff and I cringe personally. As a friend told me the other day who lives in China, “Every time your President talks of late, it costs us billions in market cap and in confidence in your country and your economy.” Why do we devalue success in the US when the rest of the world is trying to emulate what we have created as an economic system?

Full post here. He maxed out his donations to Obama in 2008 and is being asked to do so again.

He's not rushing to sign any checks.

Meanwhile, Herman Cain calls the president a liar on his claim that he isn't engaging in class warfare. (Duh, of course he is; it's what the pollsters told him to do.)

That's not going to lose Cain a lot of votes.

Posted by: Ace at 08:09 AM | Comments (117)
Post contains 457 words, total size 3 kb.

And it winds up being a good moment for Obama, as he tries to make sure the ejected Anti-Christ shouter is reunited with his lost jacket. He also agrees that "Jesus Christ is Lord," so no damage there.

No political take here. People just believe all sorts of things, and sometimes they shout them.

Oh, There Is a Political Take: The left had just tried to get this "Republicans Have Apocalypse Fever" meme going, to scare people, which many on the right had been goofing on.

But this guy does help that meme along. So, they've got that going for them.

Posted by: Ace at 07:39 AM | Comments (145)
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

[NOTE: I'm kind of under the weather, so I'm afraid that today all you get is a link dump. Clever commentary is quite beyond me at the moment.]

The sad history of the income tax.

For a black-hearted killer of the poor and the old, Paul Ryan is actually a pretty nice guy.

Six weeks to save the Eurozone.

A German judge throws a monkey wrench into the EurozoneÂ’s EFSF machinery.

The myth of the macroeconomy.

When wages are stagnant, larding on more debt is B-A-D.

What are the side costs of trade with China?

Private-sector GDP is “bottom bouncing”.

Stimulus and the Depression: the untold story.

The housing market is great! ...if youÂ’re rich.

The Eurocrats try to think up new ways to fail.

The UK spreads the gospel of austerity.

“The savings of millions of people are going to vanish.”

Mitch Daniels: America is facing a “survival level threat”.

A day without some Milton Friedman wisdom is like a day without sunshine.

Well...Obama did say that he wanted to create lots of new jobs.

You know you're boned when it costs you $2 million just to fire two public-sector employees. (From Andy.)
more...

Posted by: Monty at 04:38 AM | Comments (205)
Post contains 208 words, total size 4 kb.

Goonies never say die!

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:40 AM | Comments (153)
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

Okay a sudden business trip to Germany came up so I've had zero time for the ONT. So that means you get the minimal lo-cal lo-res skeletonesque ONT. Enjoy.

Oh and I'll be traveling for a while so this'll be my last ONT for about two weeks or so. See ya in a few.

And on a completely unrelated note....

10 Things You DidnÂ’t Know About the Witness Protection Program
Contrary to rampant speculation not all well known but anonymous blogger-types are members of the WPP.

Obama: Above Carter But Below the Mendoza Line

Sarah Dutton of CBS News crunched the numbers from the latest CBS/New York Times poll and found that of the last 6 presidents, only Jimmy Carter had worse CBS/NYT polling numbers at this point in his presidency. His approval is 7 points below his disapproval numbers — a minus 7 overall.
Only Jimmy Carter had a negative number at this point — minus 18.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:31 PM | Comments (647)
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

What begins? Full On Campaign Season, that's what. It's time to practice the proper usage of the President's most potent weapon to get re-elected - The Race Card.

We're talking about Saturday's speech at a Congressional Black Caucus get together. Where he harangued the Democrat's most loyal faction to stop whining and start getting busy getting him the second term he's entitled to.

From the AP transcript.

Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes," he said, his voice rising as applause and cheers mounted. "Shake it off. Stop complainin'. Stop grumblin'. Stop cryin'. We are going to press on. We have work to do.

How does racism pop up? Acknowledging dropped g's is Raaaaacist!

On MSNBC, the African-American author Karen Hunter complained the news service transcribed Obama's speech without cleaning it up as other outlets did--specifically including the "dropped g's."

But McWhorter argued

the g-less version "is actually the correct one," noting that the president's victory in the 2008 election was due, in part, to how effortlessly "he can switch into that [black] dialect."

Whatever the reason, Hunter found it offensive. "I teach a journalism class, and I tell my students to fix people's grammar, because you don't want them to sound ignorant," she said. "For them to do that, it's code, and I don't like it."

It's Code! See? It's magic campaign time where words means whatever the commentator wants them to mean so long as it either makes Obama look good or his critics look bad. In this case, AP let the veil slip and showed Obama changing his lingo for one audience. And let the rest of the world see it - and that must not be seen! AP is to be mildly scolded for this mistake. The official line from the MSM is that Obama doesn't pander. Don't Differ From the Line.

While I was reading this I thought about how Bush 43 was treated. Fortunately, I was on my medication - otherwise my heart might have stopped. The very next paragraph...

It's worth noting that the same sorts of arguments arose during George W. Bush's presidency, with the White House cleaning up the president's speeches to make him sound smarter, and news outlets sometimes not doing so.

"Sometimes." Cute. Anyway, they did acknowledge it. But this was posted in some sort of AP blog - I'm not sure that counts.

Tom Kent, the AP deputy managing editor for standards and production, said in a statement to The Cutline. "In this case, our reporter, who was there in person, felt the spellings were appropriate to convey a particular touch that President Obama appeared to be intentionally making use of."

Conservative bloggers agree--mainly because the story showed Obama pandering to a black base.

"Now that the presidential campaign season has begun," Courtland Milloy wrote in an op-ed column for the Washington Post, "it's okay for President Obama to openly court black people again."

We're going to see The Race Card played early and often this campaign. IMHO it's not going to work as well as they expect. We've elected a black President! That's armor.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 04:58 PM | Comments (214)
Post contains 540 words, total size 4 kb.

More Jews disapprove of Obama than approve, which of course means that most Jews now hate black people. (The only possible explanation for thinking a SCOAMF is doing a poor job.)

For the first time since he took the oath of office, President Barack ObamaÂ’s job-performance disapproval number among Jewish voters is higher than his approval, the American Jewish CommitteeÂ’s (AJCÂ’s) Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion showed Monday.

According to the poll, Jewish approval of the presidentÂ’s performance declined to 45 percent, with 48 percent disapproving and 7 percent undecided. Last year, 51 percent approved of ObamaÂ’s job performance and 44 percent disapproved.

So, Jews are starting to wake up and smell the SCOAMF. That must mean it's time for the New York Times to scare them with visions of visions of the Apocalypse.

Why the Antichrist Matters in Politics

By MATTHEW AVERY SUTTON
Published: September 25, 2011
Pullman, Wash.

THE end is near — or so it seems to a segment of Christians aligned with the religious right. The global economic meltdown, numerous natural disasters and the threat of radical Islam have fueled a conviction among some evangelicals that these are the last days. While such beliefs might be dismissed as the rantings of a small but vocal minority, apocalyptic fears helped drive the antigovernment movements of the 1930s and ’40s and could help define the 2012 presidential campaign as well.

Christian apocalypticism has a long and varied history. Its most prevalent modern incarnation took shape a century ago, among the vast network of preachers, evangelists, Bible-college professors and publishers who established the fundamentalist movement. Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals and independents, they shared a commitment to returning the Christian faith to its “fundamentals.”

Biblical criticism, the return of Jews to the Holy Land, evolutionary science and World War I convinced them that the second coming of Jesus was imminent. Basing their predictions on biblical prophecy, they identified signs, drawn especially from the books of Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation, that would foreshadow the arrival of the last days: the growth of strong central governments and the consolidation of independent nations into one superstate led by a seemingly benevolent leader promising world peace.

This leader would ultimately prove to be the Antichrist, who, after the so-called rapture of true saints to heaven, would lead humanity through a great tribulation culminating in the second coming and Armageddon.

One of my best friends is Jewish, and a committed Zionist. He's also a fairly strong Democrat.

Occasionally we'll see a bit of news together, and Obama and the Democrats will be doing something to undercut, isolate, or pressure Israel, and I'll arch an eyebrow in his direction.

I don't have to say anything; he knows what the eyebrow means.

"The Republicans just want the Jews in Israel to hurry the Apocalypse," he tells me.

The reason he believes this is that he has to believe this. The party he supports is not a very good friend to Israel, and the party he opposes is. To square this circle -- and justify to himself his continued support of the Democratic Party and Israel -- he's almost forced to buy into this claim that Republicans are even worse on Israel, and only support that country due to a Christian Theocratic Apocalypse Agenda.

So the uncomfortable fact that the Democratic Party is unfriendly to Israel is dismissed. The Republicans may "support" Israel, but they do so for the wrong reasons, and have a hostility towards the Jews in their hearts.

Which is why this will not be the first NYT article about this. The media is going to push this idea, because they need to get the Jews in line. They can't claim that Obama is a good president, or a friend to Israel; they can only throw mud at the Republican Party.

Which they will. Sure, Republicans are better for Jews on a variety of issues, including Israel, but seriously, Republican just want Jews in Israel so they can be killed in large numbers and usher in the second coming of Christ, who will of course convert the Jews who remain alive.

Meanwhile, the Democrats just want Israel to be weaker and less secure.

Isn't that better, when you think about it?

Posted by: Ace at 02:12 PM | Comments (585)
Post contains 719 words, total size 5 kb.