The Week of Extreme Busyness continues (though the weekend has gotten slightly less busy), but here’s a semi-random LinkSwarm to end your work week with.
Thanks to ObamaCare’s electronic billing provisions, doctors “see fewer patients per shift than they did previously, and spend less time with each one.”
Grad student sues over university giving her a C+ in a class. Oh, and she also attend the university for free. Why not just hang a sign around your neck saying “No employer should ever hire me, I’m a lawsuit waiting to happen”?
It’s always fun to watch liberals stub their toes against reality. This time around it’s JournoLista Matthew Yglesias who is shocked, shocked to discover that trying to start a small business (in his case renting out a spare house) is wrapped up in bureaucratic red tape. When this was pointed out to him on Twitter, he protested that he had often complained about local government red tape. Fine and dandy, but why is he such an enthusiast for big government at the federal level?
His dichotomy of thought seems to suggest there are several blind-spots in his understanding of economics (a rather significant drawback for a journalist who regularly write about economics). Watching him fail to draw the obvious conclusions on the baleful effect of big government on small business is almost priceless in its cluelessness. Let’s discuss a few of the many, many ideas that never seemed to have occurred to him, shall we?
In ways big and small, every single day is like what Yglesias described for small business dealing with big government.
Trudging between bureaucrats, Yglesias should have thought to himself: “ObamaCare will be 1000 times worse for small business than this.” Because it will be. But of course he can’t do that, given what a cheerleader he is for ObamaCare and how he belittled business owner concerns. But it’s always different when it happens to you.
The idea that red tape scales (at a minimum) with the size of government does not seem to have occurred to him.
And excessive red tape begets excessive local red tape complying with federal mandates.
He complains that the process he had to go through could have been made more efficient. What does he think all those Democratic patronage machine jobs are for?
If he’s been writing about economics for years, but is just now discovering the problems of how big government slows down business, you wonder: Does he never get out of DC? He could have picked up the phone and talked to real business owners who work outside the Liberal Reality Bubble and discovered all this many many years ago.
Bureaucratic inefficiencies are much like cockroaches: for every instance you see, there are thousands you don’t. And just like cockroaches, they swarm and multiply off in the dark while you’re not looking.
I’m going to bet that Yglesias has never read James Q. Wilson’s Bureaucracy.
And yet there’s a certain perverse pleasure in watching Yglesias wrestle with the problems of big government and not draw the obvious conclusion. It’s like watching a man hold the 6th piece of a 6-piece jigsaw puzzle, look back and forth between the piece and hole and declare “I just don’t understand!” It’s like watching a blind man suddenly given sight and see the elephant he had been feeling for the first time in his life, then resolutely put on opaque glasses and mutter “No, that can’t be it.” Or like Butt-Head trying to figure out what happened to his TV:
He can’t figure it out because he won’t let himself figure it out. Too much of his own self-love is tied up in the notion that he’s good because he’s a liberal, and liberals are good because big government is good in and of itself. For every maddening piece of red tape, somewhere out there was a Matthew Yglesias who thought that having government run and regulate something was just a swell idea.
You do it to yourself, you do. And that’s what really hurts…
“Why would you leave $25 million on the table?” Oh gee, I don’t know, but maybe because you have to pay back $34 million on your risky $2.5 million loan? Math, liberal! Do you speak it?
Speaking of TPPF, they linked to this Dallas Fed report, which shows that the Texas economy continues to hum along. “Texas added 22,900 jobs in October, lowering its unemployment rate in October to 6.6 percent, down from 6.8 percent in September and 1.3 percent below the national average of 7.9 percent.”
First up, Unions kill Hostess. By calling a strike against a company that was already in bankruptcy, against the advice of the Teamsters, who had already taken a look at the Hostess books, the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union ensured that instead of a 6% pay cut, unionized workers would take a 100% pay cut. Way to go, unions!
Israel still seems to be gearing up for a ground offensive in Gaza. And by firing rockets at Tel Aviv, Hamas pretty much guarantees that the only faction in Israeli politics urging restraint will retink their position. “I get a lot less liberal when you want to kill me.”
Lefties are trying to boycott Papa Johns for daring to lay people off because of ObamaCare. “If this is anything like the Chick-fil-A buycott, and you want Papa John’s for dinner, you’d better get your order in now.” It’s amazing that any business in America ever has to declare bankruptcy, given there are so many liberals around who can tell them exactly how much profit they “need”…
Former general and former CIA head David Petraeus testifies on Benghazi. He says his report said the attack was launched by al Qaeda, but higher-ups in the Obama Administration deleted the reference. The more we hear about Benghazi, the more it appears that Fox News was right.
Larry Kudlow: “Mitt Romney politely cleaned Barack Obama’s clock tonight. A lethargic and at times tired looking President Obama was out-hustled, out-facted, out-energized, and out-informed by Former Governor Mitt Romney.”
And Jim Treacher has still more. “I’m glad the Greatest President Ever spent so much time stressing the importance of education, because he just got schooled.”
The Washington Postcalled Romney “well prepared and aggressive.”
The election, more than ever, is about the size of government. Obama wants an ever-larger, ever more powerful federal government, while Romney-Ryan want to reign it in. Despite Romney having a reputation as a bit of a squish, the pick shows he’s serious about reigning in runaway government. And it doesn’t detract from the debate over Obama’s horrible handling of the economy: Runaway government spending (and the uncertainty it engenders) is the largest single factor holding back the economy.
As an observant Catholic, Ryan sharpens the debate on the Obama Administration’s War on Catholics. The fervor with which Democrats pursued codifying taxpayer-funded abortion (no matter how many House seats it cost them) and the unwavering refusal to allow Catholic and other pro-life entities to opt out from providing insurance coverage of abortion suggests that it was one of the central driving goals of passing ObamaCare. Increasingly it appears that yes, that is the hill liberals want to die on. We should let them, and make sure that devout Catholics know the contempt the liberal establishment holds for both them and their beliefs.
Ryan Puts Wisconsin Further in Play. Scott Walker’s budget successes, and the abysmal serial failure of the Wisconsin recall elections prove that this once solidly Democratic state has been trending increasingly purple. By naming favorite son Ryan as his VP pick, Romney has singled he’s going to put up a real fight there. Romney can win elsewhere (Nevada and Iowa, for example) and still win 270 electoral votes; I don’t see any realistic path to victory for Obama if he loses there.
One effect of the ObamaCare ruling is that states can safely reject ObamCare’s Medicaid expansion without losing access to all Medicaid funds. It appears that Texas, wisely, will be doing just that, as will Florida.
Hopefully all this won’t matter, as Republicans will take the White House and Senate in November and repeal ObamaCare as job one in 2013. But in the unfortunate scenario where ObamaCare isn’t repealed, here’s an example of Blue States increasing the size and scope of government while converting more of their residents from independent citizens to wards of the state while Red States continue to either scale back intrusive government or at least refrain from expanding it. And with the Medicaid portion of the ObamaCare ruling, it’s going to be easier than ever for Red State government to Just Say No to new federal welfare initiatives with new funding strings attached.
So Red States will continue to stay lean, while Blue States move ever more quickly toward bankruptcy.
Even though I’ve endorsed Ted Cruz, I think it only fair to point out that Dewhurst has, in fact, constantly stated that he’s in favor of repealing ObamaCare pretty much since he joined the Senate race. (I even used the Wayback machine to verify it.) However, Cruz has been more fervent and articulate in campaigning against ObamaCare, making the phrase “repeal every syllable of every word of Obamacare” one of his stock talking points from the very beginning of his campaign. He’s also discussed the 10th Amendment reasons why ObamaCare is unconstitutional, something that I don’t recall Dewhurst doing. (Dewhurst has mentioned the 10th Amendment in support of the Texas Voter ID law.)
Cruz’s worry (which I think is legitimate) is that Dewhurst might be willing to compromise on ObamaCare. And I could easily see Dewhurst signing on with some “Group of 14” (or whatever) to needlessly save ObamaCare despite a Republican House, Senate, and White House, rather than push for full repeal.
Which is why this rings a little hollow to me:
But unlike some of Dewhurst’s other ads, at least that one probably won’t cost him votes…
Here’s the video of last week’s Cruz-Dewhurst debate:
The Dewhurst campaign is pointing to this Cruz appearance on the Dan Patrick show as evidence Cruz is a hothead:
34 minutes? No time to listen tonight…
And here’s still another journalist opining that the mid-Summer runoff date will mean. Memo to the MSM: IT’S TEXAS! IT’S HOT! WE’RE FREAKING USE TO IT!
Grady Yarbrough and Paul Sadler also debated last week. Yarbrough said he supported a border wall, saying that the Berlin Wall was effective. Hmmm, I don’t think I would have made that analogy…
Speaking of things I’m not watching tonight, here’s KERA’s embeddable video of the Democratic debate:
More on the Democratic debate. Another summary. My summary of those two summaries: Yarbrough wants a border wall and legal pot, and Sadler is against both of those. Sadler does actually say the national debt is too high.
Just got off a Texas Public Policy Foundation conference call with Chuck DeVore and Arlene Wohlgemuth on the effects of the Supreme Court ObamaCare decision. Just in case you hadn’t read anything on the Internet today, that ruling was 5-4 affirming ObamaCare as constitutional, majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, not on Commerce Clause grounds, but on congress’ ability to tax:
The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.
Here some no-doubt random bits of information I gleaned from the conference call:
Of all the possible scenarios experts looked at in a possible ObamaCare ruling, this wasn’t one of them.
All the cost drivers and massive increase in bureaucracy is still there.
Texas was already looking at a $5 billion Medicaid shortfall for the next biennium; ObamaCare will likely make that a $15 shortfall.
No one knows if Texas will undertake Medicaid expansion or not.
ObamaCare was a consequence of Republican losses in 2006 and 2008, and a cause of Republican victories in 2010.
As a tax, ObamaCare can be repealed with 51 Senate votes (no filibuster).
Roberts’ decision “built a fence” around the Commerce Clause, possibly preventing further expansion of federal powers under that guise. (This has lead to some observers to suggest that Roberts is playing the “long game” of constraining the growth of the federal government.)
The court did invalidate (7-2) Medicare/Medicaid penalties for non-compliance, in that states cannot be “dragooned” into post-facto changes with the threat of withdrawn funding for established programs. DeVore: “This is a victory for the 10th Amendment and Federalism.”
That change might offer challenges to a whole lot of legislation.
The politicized way in which the Obama Administration has granted waivers to the politically connected might also offer avenues for equal protection challenges.
This TPPF policycast also covers some of the same topics discussed on the conference call.
So: That’s my brief recap of the conference call. I’m still digesting the ruling itself, and reactions to the ruling. I might be doing that for some time…
We’re a little more than a month out from the elections, and the rhetorical blows are already raining down among the candidates:
The Dewhurst campaign doubles down on the Communist Chinese attack:
The Dewhurst campaign also says the longer piece will be available to watch on Hulu “in exchange for viewing an entire program on Hulu without commercials.” I must admit that the idea of using hulu in this way for a political campaign never occurred to me. We’ll see if it’s cost effective…
Cruz gets profiled by the liberal Texas Observer. Though it covers everything you would expect it to cover, it’s actually a lot less of a hit piece than I expected it to be. And I didn’t know that Cruz was a pallbearer at William Rehnquist’s funeral. However, I think there’s one factual error (albeit one I’m sure the Cruz campaign won’t go out of their way top correct): As far as I know, Cruz has not been endorsed by Sen. Marco Rubio.
Tom Leppert calls his opponents “empty suits”:
Craig James has to feel pleased that Leppert feels he’s worth of being attacked.
The Dewhurst campaign took time out of their busy Cruz-attack schedule to swat Leppert over the ad: “‘Tom Leppert is probably just using the same kind of creative math that got him into trouble when he raised property taxes and ran up Dallas debt,’ said Dewhurst spokesman Enrique Marquez.” Ouch!
Some behind the scenes tidbits on the Houston Chronicle‘s editorial board interviews with Cruz and Leppert. While it’s not the huge negative an endorsement by the Austin American-Statesman is, I’m not sure the Chron‘s endorsement is a net plus for a Republican candidate these days. (20 years ago it was.)
The ground war has already started, as I got my first Cruz direct mail flyer yesterday.
A look at the air war. Interesting how Peggy Fikac calls Jim DeMint an “arch-conservative.” I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that she’s never labeled anyone an “arch-liberal” in print.
Trial lawyer and withdrawn democratic candidate Jason Gibson raised $25,980 between December 19 and when he dropped out February 2. I say “raised,” but every single donation he received was from himself…