Double Decade Teens

One of the provisions in the health care bill that takes effect initially allows parents to keep their "children" on their insurance policies until they reach the age of 27, which sounds relatively harmless since it would be unlikely to increase premiums drastically as health issues in twenty-somethings aren't generally plentiful. But, as Steyn points out in this article, "the impact of an endlessly deferred adulthood is...psychological. Even as the western world atrophies, not merely its pop culture but its entire societal aesthetic seems mired in arrested development."

Congressional Dunces

The fact that Congress isn't aware of, and doesn't understand the content of the health care bill is scary enough, but what this author explains is that they also don't understand the regulatory implications of what they have drafted. If they don't understand their own regulatory language and its consequences in the health care industry, God help them as they attempt to re-regulate the complexities of the securities industry. Read the full article at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections/Progressives-can_t-get-past-the-Knowledge-Problem-89780997.html#ixzz0kLovbZgS

Health Care Law not Unrepealable Like Social Security and Medicare

The linked article (click on the blog title, as always), discusses some very salient reasons why attempting to repeal the health care law is not akin to attempting a repeal other entitlement programs. Here are the Cliffs Notes: 1. Social Security and Medicare are entitlement programs that benefit those that pay for them. The health care bill, on the other hand, is paid for by Medicare beneficiaries and the wealthy, neither of whom are likely to receive the benefits. 2. The health care bill is perceived as a redistributive mechanism and is more similar to government programs that have been repealed such as the WPA, CCC and OEO. 3. The health care bill started on different footing than Social Security or Medicare. (This is my favorite point because everyone misrepresents this and claims that those programs received opposition similar to the health care bill.) The fact is, Social Security and Medicare did not start out as controversial programs and passed with significant support from the minority party. 4. It is not unthinkable for the GOP to win back both houses of Congress in November and gain a Senate supermajority and the Presidency in 2012.

Bill's Death to Private Student Loans Will Result in Job Losses

The final vote-getting link in the sausage-making of the health care bill was its $61 billion in health care "savings" which shifted all lending from the lender-based Federal Family Education Loan Program to the government's Direct Loan Program. The language made it into the bill despite private lender's best efforts to stop them from ending their ability to make loans, which they argued would kill thousands of jobs. The federal student-loan takeover of the remaining 14% of private industry loans is both another reason to hate this bill and an example of our government's overstep to the detriment of competition and private industry. To be fair, the abolishment of the private student loan industry started with the creation of the “Stafford Loan” program in 1965 to allow students to borrow money cheaply with a government guarantee. Subsequently, the government saw fit to transfer loans made by private lenders to the government’s books with a subsidy, which allowed sketchy, but more favorable book-keeping. Clinton then started the direct loan program where the government would directly make its own loans to students, supposedly increasing competition. With a glance back at history, it's easy to see how lenders were slowly elbowed out by government loan programs in this industry. As I said, only 14% remain and with this bill, Obama and Congress will have eliminated the last profit-makers from the business to "save" money - money which he has already spent on health care at the expense of many thousand jobs, according to private banking institutions. (See http://www.journalstar.com/business/local/article_e1492e4a-391f-11df-a246-001cc4c03286.html)

HillaryCare is to ObamaCare

A slightly older, but young-at-heart, friend of mine emailed me today and told me that in his mind, the primary reason for the Republican congressional electoral victories in 1994 was due to a backlash against HillaryCare, the single payer health care overhaul proposed by the Clintons earlier that year. He explained that the very proposal of socialized medicine caused the pendulum to swing back in favor of the GOP. However, some say it was the opposite - that the Clinton's ineffeciveness in bringing about major health care change caused Clinton Congress. Not surprisingly, the same arguments are occurring with the passage of ObamaCare, except, since it passed, the Republicans say that the ram-through will lead to GOP landslides while the Democrats argue that its passsage will buffer them against any electoral correction as people will see the goodness behind the law by election time. Upon the passage of ObamaCare, I said, and still believe, that the Republicans will take both houses, midterm trend aside. I believe Americans will no longer have to endure the Pelosi bob or the Reid-isms primarily because people are angry. And, everyone knows - anger, even more than sandwiches and free rides to the polls - motivates voters to turn out and toss out those to which their anger is directed. And, as I pointed out yesterday, voter anger and disapproval with Congress is at 72%. That number has not been as high since October of 1994. What has changed since the 2008 elections and now? Yes, the economy isn't great, but unemployment has remained relatively flat and has even declined a tad in the past two months. Yes, the $787 billion stimulus seems to have been a bust by all accounts, save the insanely-named bureaucratic body that counts the jobs they "created," but public anger didn't swell upon it's passage. Perhaps the partisan passage of this bill began to roll the ball of public opinion down the hill, but it wasn't until the health care debate came front and center and STAYED front and center, that "weak" candidates and campaigns caused Democratic losses in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts. You will never get a Democrat to admit that the health care proposal caused these losses, just as they'll spin defeats in 40 seats in the House and 11 seats in the Senate come November, but deep down, they'll know. It'll be so much fun listening to them try to explain why all the speeches in the world couldn't convince the American people that self-interested congressmen know what's better for them than they do.

Poll Shows Voter Disapproval of Congress Hasn't Been This High Since '94

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll has voter disapproval of Congress at 72%, a figure which hasn't been reached since the week before the 1994 election. It's hard for me to remember what had people so upset in '94, as I was in high school, but it's painfully obvious at this juncture - the shoving through of the original pork-filled health care legislation that voters repeatedly begged Congress to scrap. If history repeats itself and those numbers remain high, Republicans are likely in for a hell of an election in November. And actually, many are in for a neat preview of November over Easter recess as their angry constituents pay them visits. Of course, they'll only claim that those voicing their concerns are racist, low-income-family-hating, Swastika-tatooed, gun-wielding, Neanderthals that are insecure about the fact that the non-Hispanic Caucasion population is declining because just like in '64, dissent with this legislation is about racism, not disapproval with pork-belly politics, higher deficits and worsened health care. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html Except, hmmmmmmmmm, the poll seems to suggest otherwise, and the media understands this, which is why they are doing everything in their power to discredit Americans that disapprove of the new law.

The Potential VAT Tax and the Real "Voodoo Economics" of the Heath Care Bill

Krauthammer predicted a national sales tax earlier this week but has now provided a more concrete case explaining the specific economic pitfalls of the health care bill and why a value added tax will be necessary to plug the hole. As he put it, "Obamacare, when stripped of its budgetary gimmicks — the unfunded $200 billion­–plus doctor fix, the double-counting of Medicare cuts, the ten-six sleight-of-hand (counting ten years of revenue and only six years of outflows) — is, at minimum, a $2trillion new entitlement." So, which funds will be expended to expand Medicaid by adding 15 million new dependents as the debt grows exponentially, our bond ratings become more threatened and hyperinflation looms? Well, as Obama has intimated, his deficit-reduction commission will tell us AFTER the elections. And what will they tell us? If you're Krauthammer, you believe a 1% consumption tax is coming as "every 1 percent of VAT would yield up to $1 trillion a decade." According to Krauthammer, levying all the taxes in the world on the "rich," which is now defined as anyone making $200,000, is not nearly enough to cover the largest and most expensive entitlement in history. And as he points out, the VAT will only grow once instituted, just as was the case in Europe. ("Germany: 19 percent. France and Italy: 20 percent. Most of Scandinavia: 25 percent.") And, I'm betting he's right about this because it makes sense that "as we approach European levels of entitlements, we will need European levels of taxation."