Lucid Links (012910, Morning)
A John Kerry-like State of the Union moment — President Obama and his fellow Democrats were the architects of the 2009 budget Obama whined about inheriting in his State of the Union speech:
… the 2009 budget was almost exclusively approved by Democrats, with “Yeas” coming from current President then Sen. Obama, his current Vice President then Sen. Joe Biden, his current Chief of Staff then Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and his current Secretary of State then Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Beyond that, Noel Sheppard’s NewsBusters post points out that Obama himself praised that budget on March 14, 2008:
“The budget passed by the Senate tonight makes significant progress in getting our nation’s priorities back on track. After years of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, this year’s budget helps restore fiscal responsibility in Washington, and provides tax relief for the middle class and low-income families who need help most. It includes an expansion in the Child Tax Credit that I have fought for and makes marriage penalty relief permanent. And it rejects the President’s drastic cuts in important domestic programs.
“We need change in this country, and this budget is an important step in helping bring it about. I commend Chairman Conrad for his extraordinary leadership in moving this resolution forward and moving America’s fiscal policies in the right direction.”
In 2003, in connection with Senate votes involving funding the war in Iraq, Kerry said, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” In 2008, Obama voted for the budget and praised it before he trashed it on Wednesday.
______________________________________________________
Andrew Breitbart has come out swinging on James O’Keefe arrest — “For those in the mainstream media committed to report the false and libelous narrative of ‘Watergate Jr.,’ ‘wiretapping’ and ‘bugging,’ I predict much egg on your J-school grad faces.”
MSNBC so-called journalist David Shuster has already made a complete fool of himself in making stuff up. Breitbart and Lachian Mackley at NewsBusters have forced Shuster into a retraction and his MSNBC bosses into admitting that Shuster’s related pseudo-triumphant tweets “were inappropriate.”
______________________________________________________
Running without shoes is supposed to be better for you (HT Instapundit). OK, but what about the occasional piece of broken glass or other sharp objects?
______________________________________________________
Who says there’s no partisan cooperation? From the Politico:
A top House committee responded to the mounting voter backlash against backroom deals on health reform by seeking more information Wednesday about White House negotiations with industry groups.
Hours before President Barack Obama delivered his State of the Union address, Republicans and Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee agreed to pursue a revised GOP request for additional documentation about the talks that led to a series of controversial administration agreements with doctors, hospitals and drug makers at the outset of the health care debate.
This is funny. Desperate Democrats feeling that they have to do something to distract their voters from their support of statist health care bills are saying, “See, see, I don’t like those backroom deals either, and so I supported an investigation.” Pathetic.
______________________________________________________
An “Obama Shocks the Elites” moment via Bloomberg – “Stunned Wall Street Firms Don’t Want War With Obama.”
I wonder how many of them thought that making political contributions to the Democratic Party and its candidates would buy them peace?
Running with shoes is unnatural? Nonsense. You see, unlike animals, humans aren’t born with clothes built in (no fur, feathers, etc.) or naturally built in protective covering (no scales, shells, etc.) or feet with built in pads or rough, leathery skin to soften the rigors of walking and running and protect against sharp objects like rocks. But God gave us something better, much higher intelligence. Therefore, we used our *natural* abilities to think and reason to invent things to compensate for these shortcomings, for instance footwear to protect our feet and clothes to protect us from the elements, heat, cold, etc.
Therefore our shoes and clothes (sorry, nudists) are in fact quite natural and a product of the natural progression of human thought, society, and innate abilities.
Comment by zf — January 29, 2010 @ 6:44 pm
Here’s a thought I would like to float for discussion: Since the increase of minimum wage has made it less likely employers will hire unskilled labor and on top of that the threat of employer mandated health insurance, I propose a win/win solution:
Ideally, we would dispense with the Federal Miniumum wage altogether and let employers and employees do their own bargaining to let the market place decide the fair value of a wage given an individual’s skills, abilities, and work ethic balanced by the number of people available to work that job (supply & demand).
Since the government insists on mircro-managing to everyone’s deteriment (including that of workers), here is a compromise – Allow a one year training wage at the previous minimum wage ($6.55/hr), then at the one year anniversary a raise to the prevailing minimum wage of $7.25/hr. Furthermore, any health insurance benefit (cost) borne by the employer would be credited toward the minimum wage.
Example: An employer hires a new worker at a top rate of $6.55/hr. The cost of a basic health insurance plan is around $500/month. A choice of a catastrophic-high deductible plan would be cheaper. Pro-rated on a 22 business day month, at 8 hours a day, the total working hours per month would be 176. $500/176 = $2.84/hr. The employer would deduct $2.84/hr pre-tax from the $6.55/hr wage to pay the employee $3.71/hr.
This would mean number one everyone who wants health insurance can have it, Medicaid won’t be paying for health insurance coverage, and employers are more likely to hire workers without fear of seeing their cost spiral out of control. Anyone at minimum wage is not going to be subject to federal income tax anyway and in fact, States and local governments who inflict income taxes should raise their exemption amounts to completely drop minimum wage workers off the tax rolls with a phase in around $10/hr.
The net effect is the government is not going to realize a drop in income tax receipts because more people at the bottom would be working and Social Benefit programs won’t be shelling out money. The government would be running way less of a deficit because of reduced expenses.
If the government is really interested in getting people into higher wage jobs, they should subsidize Community College and trade schools courses that are part of a certificate or AA program like being a Xray tech, med tech, LPN, paralegal, refrigeration tech, auto mechanic, etc. Why waste it on TANIF, HOC, and the host of other give away programs that reward doing nothing?????
Comment by dscott — January 30, 2010 @ 6:14 pm
#2, conceptually pretty sensible. If -ees had a choice, at the rate you note, they would never choose to be covered if they were only getting min wage.
Indiv. insurance coverage varies greatly by age, and it’s often as low a $200 a month for catastrophic (for younger people), so it may be palatable for some.
The biggest objection would be from people who would think this is worker exploitation.
Comment by TBlumer — January 31, 2010 @ 5:18 am
Obama and his fellow Democrats are unpredictable and fickle. Don’t they think about their decisions are hundred times before voting for or against it? How often should they change their minds especially about the budget? Yes, Pres. Obama we need change in this country and that should start with you.
Comment by Mark @ Israel — January 31, 2010 @ 4:49 pm
#3, that’s right, some people won’t and that should be their choice based upon factors like economics, age and health. Only the individual can make choices appropriate to “their” situation. I personally would encourage a Catastrophic plan just to get the “discounts” which all the “insured” get but this is bowing to the reality that Congress will NEVER pass a law that does away with the 3 tier fee structure created by the … wait for it … wait for it… Congress who insisted that Medicare and Medicaid get to force huge discounts on medical provideres thus underhandedly cost shifting those expenses to the rest of us. Which is why any expansion of Medicaid will doom the existing system since even more money would have to be cost shifted thus forcing up rates for the rest of us.
Comment by dscott — January 31, 2010 @ 11:58 pm