Obama’s carbon blackmail

Is anyone else outraged at the blackmail scam being run by the White House?  The Administration is getting nowhere with its’ carbon/climate agenda, so it’s sending in the bent-nosed thugs from the EPA.

A top White House economic official said that if Congress doesn’t move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a “command-and-control” role over the process in a way that could hurt business.  “If you don’t pass this legislation, then … the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area,” the official said. “And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”

“So, passing the right kind of legislation with the right kind of compensations seems to us to be the best way to reduce uncertainty and actually to encourage investment,” the official said.

See, the Administration is really pro-business, but those command-and-control bullies at the EPA will make things terrible if Congress doesn’t accept cap-and-trade.

The EPA, though, is an executive agency.  And who is the Chief Executive?  This extortion has Obama/Emanuel written all over it.  And this isn’t petty politics, this is the nation’s economic future they’re playing with.  I’m appalled.

Tiger’s PR nightmare: number of women or type of women?

If cheating on your wife is bad, cheating over the years and with numerous women is horrible. My guess, though, is that it’s the type of women he ran around with that’s going to hurt his image most.

While not generally un-attractive, these women look like party girls, all big hair and fake boobs and double- digit IQs. I know this is the low-hanging fruit, but seriously, Tiger, you’re … well, you’re Tiger. At least you were …

Obama Nobel-nominated in January?

So, you think Obama is unworthy of the Nobel Peace Prize after only 9 lackluster months as president?  How about in January, less than 2 weeks after being inaugurated?  Well, per the rules, that’s when he must have been nominated!

Why have health care insurance at all?

I’m surprised I haven’t seen any commentary on a very interesting article which appeared in last month’s Atlantic magazine. The piece was wide-ranging, but the gist was that health care was so expensive because, unlike in other industries, price is essentially irrelevant to the consumer/patient. Many examples are given, and the article is worthwhile reading for that alone. It’s hard to argue that central point, but the concept is hardly new.

The eye-opener for me was the idea that we should abandon the insurance concept altogether. Like most of us, I take the insurance model as a given, even though it’s really a creature only of the past 60 years. Before that, people obtained health care the same way they obtained most everything else, with … wait for it … their own money. Aside from giving an individual more control over his own life, this has the obvious benefit of price transparency.

How could anyone possibly afford that? you ask. The short answer is that

Will Dan Brown’s “Lost Symbol” anger the Christian right?

The gist of the reviews that I read on Dan Brown’s new novel, “The Lost Symbol”, was that it was familiar Dan Brown; that it’s D.C. setting was going to make it inherently interesting to Americans; but that it wouldn’t inspire the kind of water cooler discussions that “The Da Vinci Code” did. I’m now about 20% through “Symbol” and can agree with all but the third point.

It is classic history-filled Brown, and I’m enjoying reading about a city I’ve visited, not to mention that that it’s our nation’s capitol. However, the suggestion that we were not founded on a bedrock of Christianity is certain to anger the Christian right.

Let the boycotts begin …

ObamaCare: “Best Practices” irony …

The contradiction would be funny were not the potential consequences so dire:

Obama contends that costs can be controlled and outcomes improved if we utilize practices that have proved to be most effective.  Yet by mandating that only certain practices be utilized, he would kill the variation that allows us to determine what, in fact, are the best practices.

Obama has at least changed the debate …

I hope and expect that the currently discussed mega-plans for health care reform will die on the vine.  What I assume will happen is that some lame legislation will pass and Obama will sign it, declare victory, and move on …

But even if he gets nothing, I think it has to be acknowledged that he’s changed the terms of the debate.

This was driven home to me watching Dana Perino, former Assistant and Press Secretary to W., respond to the suggestion that critics were against reform.  “Name one!”, she challenged.  And she’s right, though I doubt she realizes the truth that she spoke.

The fact is that Obama has moved the discussion left.  The issue is no longer “Should we reform health care?”, but “How should we reform health care?”  In the long run, that’s huge …

Biggest Obama supporter decries new taxes!

Much has been made of the about-face Obama and the Dems have taken on the issue of taxing health care benefits, after crucifying McCain for just that position in the 2008 campaign.  Still, taxing these benefits is looking like the only way to finance a big part of ObamaCare.  Moreover, there is no logical reason (aside from brute political power) that this benefit should be singled out for exemption.

I have to laugh at the reaction of the unions to the prospect of paying more taxes.  I thought that unions, and the left in general, favored more taxes, especially in pursuit of health care reform.  Sorry, I guess that’s only if they someone else pays them.

Best of all is the complete reverse on their belief that the better-off should pay more: Because they tend to have the best health care benefits, union members “would be stuck footing more of the bill than others,” complains a union think tanker.  Yes, because they get better benefits.  How is that not fair?  Imagine the outrage if this taxation were progressive (like the income tax they would make more so)!

So expect a carve-out (read: no taxes) for the benefits of these favored individuals.  Proving yet again that elections matter …

Have they even started on health care?

For the last couple of days there have been stories in the papers about the committees working on the health care bill.  Both said, in similar language, that there were two sticking points.  First, the issue of the “public option”; second, how to pay for it all.

What?  Have they made no progress at all?  Those have been the only two major issues to be decided ever since Obama started talking about this during the campaign …

If he can’t do GM, he’ll never do health care

As mortified as I am at the current government meddling in the GM bankruptcy, I do see an upside.  Let the people see how the federal government fares running an enterprise (as if the Post Office wasn’t sufficiently instructive!) before we hand over the reins to the largest federal enterprise imaginable.

GM should be a breeze, right?  After all, it’s tiny compared to the health care industry.  So if GM can come back without more federal money, I’ll re-think my position on Obama’s health care plans.

And I expect that if GM turns out to be a nightmare, then it will be admitted by all that ObamaCare is a mistake.  Is that naive of me?  Just trying it on, to see how the other half lives.