Did they think they were still working for Bill Clinton?
Posted on | April 14, 2012 | 2 Comments
The New York Post reports that a dozen Secret Service agents sent to Colombia to provide security for President Barack Obama were returned home amid allegations of misconduct involving soliciting prostitutes.
Related Posts:
Mike Wallace, RIP
Posted on | April 8, 2012 | Comments Off
I predict that, even as we speak, dozens of political cartoonists have started sketching out the obligatory cartoon of Mike Wallace conducting a hard hitting interview of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates:
CBS newsman Mike Wallace, the dogged, merciless reporter and interviewer who took on politicians, celebrities and other public figures in a 60-year career highlighted by the on-air confrontations that helped make “60 Minutes” the most successful prime-time television news program ever, has died. He was 93.
Related Posts:
ObamaCare at the Supreme Court
Posted on | March 27, 2012 | 3 Comments
Let me try to put the primary issue in context.
Everyone should have access to health care, and access to health care requires people be able to pay for health care. The determination is made that the best way to be sure that you have the ability to pay for health care is to purchase health insurance.
So, everyone should have health care, says our elected leaders. So, how do we do it?
Well, if someone doesn’t have health insurance, or can’t pay, we should require hospitals and doctors to provide the care – at least that’s the thinking. But that costs the doctors and hospitals money. If they can’t make money, then they go out of business and no one gets health care. So, perhaps what we do is let people buy health insurance only when they need health care (evil corporations shouldn’t hold your current ailments against you even though it increases their costs and risks), so pass a law saying you can’t be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
But if you only buy insurance when you need it, then you haven’t been paying into the system previously, and thus the economic model for insurance can’t work, as insurance relies on having enough people pay into the insurance pool who never actually use as much of the cash as they put in, thereby subsidizing those who paid-in but pull out more.
But we’ve declared we don’t like uninsured people who can’t pay, because hospitals are still required to provide a level of treatment, and because those folks can’t afford long term care, they die early. We don’t like that.
So, the government decides everybody should be able to pay and should have insurance, and we will subsidize those who can’t afford it. This raises the demand for insurance, and insurance naturally raises the demand for health services. If you have pre-paid for a service, less a minor buy-in of a co-pay or, for larger issues, a deductible, you are more likely to be sure to consume those services – without regard to price. Thus, demand increases without regard to price (the economists say this demand is inelastic). When demand increases, price increases as supply tries hard to catch up.
Similarly, when demand for insurance increases, price for insurance increases. When government officials determine that everyone should buy a product, they know they are increases demand and that causes price to go up, so now we have to limit the price of what’s now demanded. Limiting the price turns the provision of insurance into a losing proposition – insurance companies would go out of business and then only the rich can pay for health care (though, demand would drop too, thereby lowering cost, but no one seems to think about that). So, to fix the problem government created by increasing demand, it needs to subsidize the insurance system by forcing low-risk people – those for whom it makes less economic sense – to buy insurance.
In short, government regulation creates an economic problem, which government tries to correct by forcing the purchase of a product. The result of which may keep insurance prices down, but will do nothing for prices of actual health care, which will increase as demand increases. But then government will fix that by either capping the prices of certain types of care, or by reducing demand by denying (or allowing or requiring insurance companies not to pay for) certain procedures. These would be your “cost control” or “death panels” (example, you here it today, should Dick Cheney not have been able to get a heart transplant because of his advanced age?).
Even simpler:
1. Everyone should have health care.
2. Everyone should be able to pay for it or there won’t be health care.
3. Insurance is a good way to pay.
4. Everyone should have health insurance, even if they are already sick and a higher risk – but not at a higher price that accounts for the higher risk.
5. Health insurance costs too much as demand increases, so cap it and define the benefits so that everyone can afford it.
6. Capping the price means there’s not enough money to pay for all these health services.
7. Make low risk people purchase insurance when they normally wouldn’t so there’s more money in the pool to redistribute to the others.
8. Health care demand increases, because more people have pre-paid for services by buying insurance.
9. Increased demand for health care causes prices to rise.
10. Limit the demand and lower the cost by prohibiting the purchase of certain services in certain cases with that health insurance. (If you are rich, you can probably buy a longer life with your own money.)
11. Go to the Supreme Court and tell them that requiring people to buy insurance is a necessary and proper use of Congress’ power to regulate commerce because, otherwise, it’s other regulations of commerce will destroy the insurance industry.
12. Lose in the Supreme Court, run for re-election arguing that we tried to help, but the Supreme Court won’t let the government force you to buy insurance from private companies, but they’ll probably let us force you to pay the government to provide health care directly.
13. Single Payer.
Related Posts:
Police raid wrong house, handcuff 76-year-old stroke victim
Posted on | March 25, 2012 | 1 Comment
[Seventy-six year old Fred] Skinner doesn’t hear as well as he used to, but there was no missing the pair of crashes he heard late in the morning on March 13.
The first was at the outside door to his front porch and the second was at the inner door from the porch to his living room. About eight uniformed police officers burst into his kitchen, finding him at the table with a plate of breakfast crumbs….
The officers spread out into the basement and second floor then quickly returned. Someone was handcuffing Skinner’s arms behind his back when they looked through the mail on the table and saw his name.
“They said, ‘Is this your name?’” Skinner said. “I said, ‘Yes.’ Then they said, ‘Wrong house.’”
The officers left as quickly as they came, leaving his doorknob on the porch floor and the two doors broken open. The whole incident took five minutes….
The raid was conducted by the Rochester Police Department and the Finger Lakes Drug Task Force, which is led by the Auburn Police Department and, in this case, also involved the Cayuga County Sheriff’s Office.
No one involved would specify the purpose of the raid or say why the officers broke into the wrong house. No arrests have been made in the original drug case, which is still active.
The Rochester Police Department was the lead agency. Department spokesman Stephen Scott declined to comment but said there is an investigation into the incident.
“We haven’t determined there was a mistake yet; the investigation is still ongoing,” he said.
Related Posts:
Tags: auburn police > cayuga county > drug task force > fred skinner > rochester police
It’s St. Patrick’s Day, and that means Guinness
Posted on | March 17, 2012 | 2 Comments
…and the music of the Pogues.
Related Posts:
“Game Change”, by the Liberal Filmmakers Jay Roach and Tom Hanks
Posted on | March 9, 2012 | 1 Comment
Game Change The Movie, as opposed to Game Change The Book, focuses only on Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign, ignoring the juicy drama of Hillary and Bill playing the race card or John Edwards’ fathering a child with a woman not his dying wife. OK, fine. There’s only so much you can cram into a made-for-TV movie. And while news outlets that are never confused with right wing talk radio or “Faux News” have no problem pointing out the left-wing pedigree of the producers, The New York Times again can’t seem to bring itself to actually report anything that is relevant.
And it would be fine, if the Times regularly abstained from characterizing the political stance of producers and directors of politically charged docudramas. In its review of the HBO movie:
On Sunday night Reelz will show “The Undefeated,” a two-hour documentary that its creators say was “inspired” by Ms. Palin’s memoir, “Going Rogue: An American Life.” Made by the conservative filmmaker Stephen K. Bannon, it’s a hallucinatory hagiography that uses baby pictures, Scripture, re-enactments and nature films of lions devouring zebras to chronicle Ms. Palin’s martyrdom at the hands of the left. (Andrew Breitbart, the right-wing blogger who died just over a week ago, delivers a fire-breathing testimonial.)
There’s a twofer. A “conservative filmmaker” and a “right-wing blogger” – although Breitbart was a “blogger” in the sense that the Atlantic or the Washington Post is a “blog”, but that’s another issue entirely.
The above quote is from the same story that discusses Game Change. But there’s no mention of the political leanings of the producers or stars of Game Change. Imagine:
On Saturday night HBO will show “Game Change,” a TV movie that its creators say was “inspired” by the book of the same name, though leaving out most of the storylines. Made by the liberal filmmaker Jay Roach, it’s a hallucinatory liberal smear job that uses thinly-sourced journalism and Democratic donor Ed Harris and hemp-activist Woody Harrelson to chronicle the slander of Ms. Palin’s by the left. (Julianne Moore, the left-wing actress, delivers a sexless performance.)
Oh well. What’ll they think of next? Getting leftist Meryl Streep to play Margaret Thatcher or something?
Related Posts:
Sell an Irish coffee, go to prison?
Posted on | March 3, 2012 | 4 Comments
The New York State Senate has passed a law making the sale of caffeinated alcoholic beverages a felony.
Related Posts:
Despite sexually loaded behavior, NY School stymied in firing teacher
Posted on | February 26, 2012 | 1 Comment
Democrat & Chronicle (Rochester, NY):
For years, teacher Valerie Yarn sent unwanted sexually suggestive letters, emails and presents to her bosses in the Rochester School District.
Yet even after she spent time in jail for violating a court order one principal obtained against her, court records show that Yarn was able to keep her job as a physical education teacher. It was not long, school officials say, before she turned her unwanted advances on a new target — her students — forcing them to remove their shirts and bras in gym class, saying that she needed to conduct a physical evaluation….
The case underscores the difficulty New York school systems face removing problem teachers from the classroom. State law and union contracts make it difficult to remove tenured teachers from their positions, even in cases that involve misconduct with students. Hearings seeking termination can drag on for years and cost districts thousands of dollars, ultimately deterring many from going through the process.
Related Posts:
Why Romney Will Win (the Nomination and the Election)
Posted on | February 21, 2012 | 7 Comments
Despite the current conniptions over a possibly contested convention in Tampa, Romney will gain the delegates necessary before then. Even though the GOP has done an admirable thing with most states allocating proportionally rather than winner-take-all. Proportional allocation guarantees a longer primary fight.
And if, for some reason, Romney does not have the numbers come August, then Santorum, Gingrich and Paul can hold to their delegates and hope to get others to turn, or they can be kingmaker and release them with an endorsement. Gingrich isn’t releasing delegates. Paul has made it clear his candidacy is about power at the convention. Getting his views heard and on the platform. So, an audit of the Federal Reserve will be in the GOP platform.
But if Paul then has to pick among Gingrich, Santorum and Romney, Who’s he going to pick? It won’t be Gingrich and his big government solutions proclivities. It won’t be Santorum, as Paul’s live and let live philosophy doesn’t gel well with Santorum’s righteous religious conservatism. No, Paul will support Romney because of Mitt’s free market principles, and an understanding that Romneycare was little more than a conservative trying to figure out how to “get things done” in a very liberal state with a very liberal legislature (the legislature would have done worse without Romney and would have overridden any veto). Paul won’t fear Romney as being some bedroom-invading social conservative, knows his instincts are free market capitalism, and that Romney’s foreign policy may very well be less interventionist than the record of both Santorum and Gingrich.
So, there you go.
I’m a political junkie. I talk a lot about politics. A lot of 2008 Obama voters are not pleased with the president’s performance, and I’ve heard many say they’d be willing to vote for Romney. Even more Republicans have said they will never vote for Gingrich, but vote third party. The independents won’t warm to Santorum, as he’s an easy target to make “scary”, fairly or not. Romney can beat Obama easily, especially as there’s a hunger for competent, grown-up management after pie-eyed hope. Romeny would win with as many as 350 electoral votes. Romney wouldn’t be fighting to win North Carolina – it’d be in the bag. The battle would be waged in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Blue states. Not in Virginia, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida or Indiana (tradtional red states).
Add Christie or Rubio to the ticket, it’s even easier.
Related Posts:
Federal Review Composite Poll
Posted on | February 20, 2012 | 8 Comments
Yes, we will be resuming the Federal Review Composite Poll this year. As it has always been, it will be a meta analysis of polls, state-by-state. Unlike the pedestrian Real Clear Politics average, it will be based upon a weighted analysis of polls based upon margin of error, sample size, respondent type. We have done this since 2000, and have predicted the winner in each of 2000, 2004 and 2008, only getting 2 states wrong – but noting those were toss-ups (Wisconsin in 2004, North Carolina in 2008). So, stay tuned.
Based on our historic analysis, we believe that a Romney / Obama matchup would yield a Romney victory in excess of 300 electoral votes. But it’s early. Way early. Santorum could compete, but it would be a nail biter. When we get closer to having a GOP nominee, we’ll start running the numbers and posting our analysis.
In the meantime, why don’t you predict how the battlegrounds will come out. Ohio. Pennsylvania. Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Nevada, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas. Florida.
Related Posts:
keep looking »Archives
_
Pundits and Columnists
Worth Reading
That's Interesting
Switch site
Politics News
- Backroom ObamaCare deal probed by GOP
- DC fetal pain bill to get first hearing in House
- Wisconsin Dems shift tactics in recall fight, target Walker over probe
- Auto union slams Obama budget as ‘attack on the middle class’
- Vermont becomes first state to ban fracking
- Florida Catholic school considers dropping student health plan, on heels of Ohio decision
- Hill GOP wants answers on Hezbollah leader tied to soldiers killings, set for release
- Obama requesting help to pay for Afghan army, as spokesman says building army after pullout must be 'multilateral effort'
- House OKs GOP's anti-violence against women bill
- Fox News poll: Majority opposes gay marriage, doesn't want constitutional amendment
