Wouldn't it be great?

If the Supreme Court invalidated the individual mandate? BTW - since the there's no severability for that portion of the bill, the entire thing would be trashed.

It's a tremendous longshot. It's doubtful that the judges would want to take a stand on this, but there are a couple of things working in favor:

1 - As the (misguided) article suggests, there is no clear precedent on a mandate to purchase something from a private enterprise
2 - Obama's F-you to the court in the state-of-the-union address after the Citizens United might have pissed off the conservative block enough to return the favor

In the end, it's unlikely - I doubt that Kennedy will stand for it - but we sure can hope. And, it will definitely get there. No way Republican Attorneys General will drop this in the run-up to the midterms; best for them, it's doubtful the case would be argued before the next term.

Let's keep our fingers crossed anyway...

in reference to: Editorial - The Legal Assault on Health Reforms - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Meet Senator Robert Menendez...

A piece of shit. Strong-arm tactics that are probably illegal. And, I'm sorry, but what does diversity have to do with corporate America? Aren't these entities formed to maximize profits for their shareholders? Last time I looked, most corporate by-laws didn't include towing the Democratic Progressive line for diversity.

I'm pretty sure there are laws on the books protecting the downtrodden minority masses already - they're called "Equal Opportunity" regulations. Hiring entities are required by law (however misguided) to follow them. Menendez needs to get a life.

in reference to: Robert Menendez poll draws scrutiny - John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

It was always Class Warfare - Duh!!!

When team Obama decided to avoid any serious attempts at controlling medical costs, there was only one way this legislation could pass, and that was to increase revenue.

Typical of the Liberal movement, the policies targeted the top 5% of earners, who already pay better than 60% of all federal revenues. Problem is, you can tax 'em at 100% (I know the Dems would love this) and still not cover the gaping deficit holes that are represented by Social Security, Medicare, and now Obamacare.

The larger issue is that an increasingly large percentage of the company pays little or no income taxes at all - in fact, a good percentage receive revenues from the government in the form of "earned income tax credits". It's extremely easy for this constituency to continue to ask for more and more when the price is borne on the backs of productive citizens.

This is the ultimate failure of Obama-care. It does nothing to force the consumers of healthcare to limit their consumption. Other than premiums (which most still do not pay), they have no idea how much it costs for any given procedure, and thus no reason to shop for better prices - why should they - somebody else is paying the bill. The sad thing is that increasingly, the "somebody else" is the American taxpayer.

in reference to: Economic Scene - In Health Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Glad to see common sense prevails (for once)...

Clearly the schools and the D.A. had no business getting in between parents and children and disciplinary choice. Bravo to the court that smacked down the District Attorney, who sounds like a grade "A" asshole (along with the school officials). Clearly an episode of overreach and trying to make points with a conservative constituency. Perhaps time would be better spent prosecuting real criminals, and perhaps the schools should focus less on policing morality and more on educating students.

in reference to: Editorial - Prosecutors Gone Wild - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

How do I get my reward?

Hey Jimbo - windfall taxes are never a good idea. Perhaps instead of this perfect hindsight your conscience should have been in play on 9/19/2008 with the result of a "No" vote. You lost the high-ground at that time - don't try to reclaim it now.

And, I'm curious. How exactly would I be repaid? Or, would the receipts from these taxes just go back into the general fund for you to keep on spending? Or would it be a direct rebate? If that's the case, can I assume that it would only be to people who ACTUALLY PAY TAXES - or would it be for the Democratic constituents who live off the taxes of more affluent individuals?

Just curious - let me know where to get my check - I'll bank it against the day you arbitrarily decide that I make too much money...

in reference to: Jim Webb - How to reward taxpayers who bailed out Wall Street - washingtonpost.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Still happy with The Chosen One?

He proves to be every bit the piece of garbage that Bush was. Absolute power and all that. The minute he took the oath, he through all his campaign promises over the side of the boat with respect to individual rights and transparency.

I'm literally dying to get to 2012. In 2008 I stood on principal and didn't vote for either Obama or McCain. This time I'd vote for Charles Manson if he ran on the opposition ticket and could unseat the most destructive President we've had in a generation.

in reference to: A little secret about Obama's transparency - latimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Uh - what?

I love David Brooks, he's more in the WFB school of conservatism and usually strikes a great balance between the rabid liberalism of the Times and the idiotic spiel of the Fox News crowd.

However, it feels like he mailed this one in. While I'm sure Phillip Blond is a great guy, the ideas that Brooks distills seem incredibly non-specific - push power to front-line civil servants - what the hell does that mean exactly? Some life-based examples that have worked would be great.

On the eve of the most contentious legislation to emerge in Congress in 50 years, Brooks is strangely silent on HCR, after making great arguments against it all week. I would have expected a reasoned assault to continue - I feel as though I've been cheated.

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - The Broken Society - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Carrots everywhere, but no stick?

Except for a very oblique reference to "weeding out" bad teachers, I don't see any real call for taking a hard stance on evaluating and FIRING teachers who aren't getting the job done...

More crap to keep the teachers unions happy. Until we get to a point where there's a system that measures the performance of teachers and provides a mechanism to get rid of those that don't meet minimum standards, we're never going to make progress on education.

in reference to: Editorial - Mr. Obama and No Child Left Behind - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Excerpt from David Brooks/Gail Collins "conversation"

I like the way David sums it up. Democrats will do literally anything to pass this abomination. As much as I hate the Republican congress under GWB, they never tried "Deem & Pass" with anything remotely resembling the importance of Healthcare reform.

This is pure and simple, a way for Democrats to avoid voting on the senate bill. Voters are smarter than they think and they will get hammered for this in November (thank God). I can now only hope that the Republicans use every procedural and parliamentary contraption known to the Senate to obstruct the Reconciliation process - especially the union giveaways.

in reference to:

"Yes, my own view may be distorted by the fact that I’m disappointed in the health care bill. But at least I violently opposed the nuclear option when the Republicans tried it a few years ago. I don’t think it is mere partisanship that makes me believe that representatives should have the guts to actually vote for the legislation they want to become law."
- Is Passing the Health Care Bill Really a Bad Idea? - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

A preview of Obamacare...

Guys, I know I'll seem heartless, but this is actually a good thing. Any development that starts to expose the true cost of medicine/care is knowledge worth freeing.

Sadly, with a nationalized healthcare system, with coverage rules created by fiat, we will ultimately devolve to this. Because Obamacare offers no hard cost controls (at least none that are legislative-proof), and nothing is done to share some of the cost of routine care with the consumer of the care, one of two things must happen:

Costs (prices) must be dictated by government - which is what you have here
Taxes must continue to rise beyond every confiscatory boundary we current respect, effectively killing growth for decades

Insurance was never meant for routine preventative care - that's like thinking your care insurance should cover oil changes and wiper blades. Insurance should exist to cover the catastrophic events in life. As long as we continue to think of it as an all-you-can-eat buffet (and there's nothing in Obamacare to change this), we're f*cked.

in reference to: With Medicaid Cuts, Doctors and Patients Drop Out - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Bobby's back to his normal hyperbolic self...

Pretty sure (but not 100% cause I'm lazy) that NUMMI was a UAW plant. If so, can't really blame Toyota (or any other automaker for that matter) for bailing. And don't let Bobby's whining get to you, California's problems are it's own fault, not Toyota's or yours or mine. And, you can bet they got more out of NUMMI in terms of salaries, local consumption, and taxes than Toyota ever did from the "dredging the Port of Oakland".

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Workers in California Crushed by Toyota - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Utter Rubbish

Krugman wishes away the fiscal problems with this abomination of a bill by indicating that future Congresses that back away from cost controls represent an indictment of our inability to control costs in general, not the bill itself?

Isn't that alone enough of a reason to scrap the bill and focus on a legislative-proof fix to healthcare costs? Do that, then do your Progressive magic and cover the uninsured. That's all many of us are asking.

If Krugman actually believes that this bill contains costs, why not simply pull out the cost control portions and pass this as a separate bill. Then tie increased coverage in tiers to actualized savings? You can cover as many people as you like, but you gotta pay for it up front. Isn't this how it should work?

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Health Reform Myths - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

I'm with Holder

I hope he sticks to his guns and resigns if team Obama and that foul-mouthed sunvabitch Emanuel overrule him. KSM and the others should be tried in civilian courts.

We are not at war people. Only the Congress can declare war on another sovereign nation and we have not done so - unless someone sneaked that by me.

While KSM and his ilk are terrorists in the true sense of the word, before 9/11, they would absolutely have been tried in civilian court. Remember Timothy McVeigh?

Let's see if Obama (liar) abandons yet another of his promises.

in reference to: Decision on 9/11 Trial Could Undercut Holder - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

What an amazing analysis

Of the duplicity of Obama-care. Love the breakdown of the "doc fix" where Ryan really breaks it off in him. I'm personally all for the "doc fix". If we can't fund it, cut the spending and watch how fast the doctors drop Grandma and Grandpa from the rolls.

I've said it multiple times. You cannot do universal without some combination of:

Price fixing - by government
Higher taxes - by government
Rationing care - by government

I'm fine with this - but let's not kid ourselves that you get universal care without the above-mentioned limitations. It's unsustainable, and you can't tax the rich to pay for this, it won't work.

in reference to: Paul D. Ryan: Dissecting the Real Cost of ObamaCare - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Great, great article

So, I've shied away recently from the WSJ - they've gotten way too partisan since Rupert took over, as evidenced by their standing editorial invite to Karl Rove, a moron if ever there was one.

But I've always loved Holman Jenkins, and this one is a reminder of why. It squarely nails everything that's wrong about the Progressive approach to healthcare reform - namely that it's impossible until we do away with the tax-favored status of the insurance benefit.

It also shows that Obama really isn't very original, or, at least in my estimation bright. It was surprisingly timely.

in reference to: Holman Jenkins: The President vs. Health-Care Reform - WSJ.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

This is a goddamn'ed shame...

We need Harold Fords of both parties to be running for office, not running away. Hell, I'd vote for Harold Ford - he seems to be truly post-partisan and a helluva nice guy. He realizes that we can't spend our way to Utopia, and gets the fact that some type of tax increases are required. If we had 25 senators of his caliber from both parties, we'd be getting shit done. It's sad that this is what we've come to.

in reference to: Op-Ed Contributor - Why I’m Not Running for the Senate - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

This is a tough one...

As a Libertarian with Federalist leanings, I'm almost 100% on board with concept of states' rights. I believe issues like abortion should be handled at the state level, as should gay marriage - barring some change in the constitution of course.

But in this case, we're talking about the State's potentially being able to infringe upon enumerated individual rights specified in the Constitution. In this case, I have to say the states are wrong, and that then cannot pass laws that limit an individual's second amendment rights.

in reference to: Editorial - The Second Amendment’s Reach - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

And people wonder why...

Some people fear the government! I agree with Bob Herbert about twice a year. This is one of those times. Doesn't this violate every principle of illegal search and seizure? Where is the ACLU on this one? Why hasn't someone sued? I'm outraged and perplexed.

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - The N.Y.P.D. Is Watching Certain People - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Good news...

Guys, this was in place for a reason. If we can't start cutting these payments now and showing some fiscal responsibility, we'll never summon the political will to do the hard things - ever, and we'll tax the productivity right out of existence.

If some doctors stop seeing Medicare patients, then so be it.

I know this will never last - it's political suicide, but good God, wouldn't it be great if it could? We've postponed this every time it's come up since it's enactment some 20 years ago.

in reference to: Senate gridlock triggers 21 pct cut to doctors - AP News Wire, Associated Press News - Salon.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Uh - no shit?

That's the problem people. You want universal access, but you don't want to come clean about the costs, or the hard choices that will need to be made to pay for this stuff.

The inevitable result of Universal care is rationing - which is entirely normal and as it should be. If the Dems really want this - they need to be able to explain why this is a good thing. If not, we as a people should be scared shitless of the debt they're gonna pile up to pay for this Utopian plan

in reference to:

"Could Obama have done better by leveling with Americans about the cost of helping "the folks who are left out"? Probably not, I suppose. But it might have been a strategy more in tune with the true Obama."
- Fred Hiatt - Obama's empathy meets the politics of governing - washingtonpost.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

You may find it hard to believe...

But I agree with everything Kuttner says. God, is, as they say, in the details, and the key here is one little sentence he casually introduces in the 5th paragraph:

"As a consequence, they can direct health spending to areas of medical need rather than letting the market direct health dollars to areas of greatest profit"

See the idea of directing spending to areas of need is a way of saying rationing. That's the way that Canada, Britain - all those countries that Michael Moore lionizes, manage to keep costs down.

You know what - I'm fine with it. We gotta get the costs out and the only way to do it is to limit some treatments. And yes, Grandma may not get that silly-assed Hoveround - she can use a good old-fashioned serviceable wheelchair instead.

And, grandpa may have to get on a waiting list for 6 months to get that new hip. But that's how this should and will work people. We cannot continue to have it all and consume healthcare indiscriminately like we do now.

in reference to:

"As a consequence, they can direct health spending to areas of medical need rather than letting the market direct health dollars to areas of greatest profit"
- Robert Kuttner: The Cure That Dares Not Speak Its Name (view on Google Sidewiki)

Sounds to me like...

She's a total, freakin' bitch. And, as much as I hate the current batch of Republicans, they're 100 times better than the tax-n-spend Dems.

Will it be in bad taste to sing "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead", if the Republicans reclaim the House this year?

I know which way I'm votin'

in reference to: Nancy Pelosi's brutal reality check - John Bresnahan and Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Ding, ding, ding..

The Times' moron alarm clock just went off again. Subtle difference this time. Since they realize that principal reductions - or any othe modifications - are somewhat irrelevant to the unemployed, they are now calling for the Federal government to - get this - make the mortgage payments for the endangered borrowers!

I love it! Where do I sign up to get my mortgage paid by Uncle Obama?

in reference to: Editorial - As Foreclosures Continue ... - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

So, lemme get this straight...

You're saying the solution is...

MORE GOVERNMENT! Yet another federal agency to "protect" consumers and increase the share of federal spending! Great call Paul!

Actually read an interesting article on Krugman in this past week's New Yorker. Interesting guy - rabid partisan who I despise - but an interesting profile. Apparently didn't used to be such an over-the-top Liberal asshole. If you have 45 minutes I recommend it - http://bit.ly/bsOu7t

in reference to: Op-Ed Columnist - Financial Reform Endgame - NYTimes.com (view on Google Sidewiki)