My mistake. It's not "Limousine Liberal". The proper term is "Boardroom Liberal". Who knew?

This is from an article about Valerie Jarrett's influence on President Obama and his policies, The Obama Whisperer, No one has understood Valerie Jarrett's role, until now . Sadly, it completely ignores the effects of said policies...  Regardless, the article describes an advisor who, it should be noted, is not a cabinet member and as such required no vetting by the Senate, not that she would have gotten any in 2009 anyway...  But, I digress.  This paints the an incomplete picture of the actual person Valerie Jarrett is and gives only a few sentence glance at how she became who she is, and completely ignores how she came to such a prominent role as is painted.  

Regardless, there are a few nuggets to take away from the article.  One is the evolution of her role from prominent advisor and attender of all meetings relating to policy to one of creator of the impenetrable bubble for the POTUS.  Valerie Jarrett, they would have us believe, has out lasted all other presidential confidants, from Rahm Emanuel to Robert Gibbs, and as these people left they were replaced with people who were more amicable to Ms. Jarrett.  Again, this reinforces my earlier query on who is Valerie Jarrett?  Where did she come from?  How did she Get where she is?  How did she get involved with the Obama's?  Why is their relationship so seemingly intimate?

The other, and in my humble opinion, more important admission in this article is this regime's philosophy of "Boardroom Liberals".  This is important not just because it is an admission of this regimes philosophy, but because it is in an article in the left's bible, The New Republic. Here is (to me anyhow) the krux of the left's statist mentality:

"They emanate from the worldview that Jarrett and Obama share—call it “boardroom liberalism.” It’s a worldview that’s steeped in social progressivism, in the values of tolerance and diversity. It takes as a given that government has a role to play in building infrastructure, regulating business, training workers, smoothing out the boom-bust cycles of the economy, providing for the poor and disadvantaged. But it is a view from on high—one that presumes a dominant role for large institutions like corporations and a wisdom on the part of elites. It believes that the world works best when these elites use their power magnanimously, not when they’re forced to share it. The picture of the boardroom liberal is a corporate CEO handing a refrigerator-sized check to the head of a charity at a celebrity golf tournament. All the better if they’re surrounded by minority children and struggling moms." [emphasis added]

Bam.  Just like that, everything falls into place.....

As if that admission were not enough, the article goes on to highlight the current White House operations like this:

As it happens, the way the White House runs these days does even less to check Obama’s inclinations. According to a former high-level aide, there is no longer a daily meeting between the president and his top advisers. Under the old system, if the president waved off one adviser’s objection to his preferred plan of action, another could step in to vouch for the objection’s merit. The advice Obama gets now, though, comes more regularly through one-off interactions with the likes of Jarrett and Denis McDonough, who don’t have anyone else to back them up. In the second term, observes the former aide, “Maybe the president says, more often than in the past, ‘We’re doing it.’”

The result is that Obama has become even more persuaded of his righteousness as the years have gone on. His belief that he can win over opponents is unshaken. Unfortunately, these opponents include a party in the throes of radicalism and a self- interested class of ultra-rich that increasingly calls to mind plutocracy—not people whose better instincts you can appeal to. Obama and Jarrett should know this." 

I guess this is exemplifies how Obama can stand up there and take no responsibility for the mid-term drubbing his party took this year...  Amazing.

Is this a plan?

Let's think about this issue logically.

#1: Desire for Single Payer Universal Healthcare Plan:

But, how can you get there....?

 #2: "You don't want to let a good crisis go to waste....."





So let's review:

                       Single Payer Universal Healthcare 
                   + "Never want to let a good crisis go to waste"
                       Purposefully Created Crisis?

Or maybe it's easier to think of it like this:

                     "Never want to let a good crisis go to waste"
                   + Purposefully Created Crisis                                                
                      Single Payer Universal Healthcare

I'm just sayin'....

Really, might it not be helpful to create a crisis?  

So what to do about this?  Well, an election is coming up next year in which it is possible to take control of the U.S. Senate and reinforce control of the U.S. House of Representatives.  At that point, they could greatly curtail the further implementation of Obamacare through various procedural & budgetary methods effectively neutering the law until a GOP President can be elected in 2016.  

With both houses of the US Legislature and the Presidency the GOP could then undo Obamacare and implement free market based solutions.

The solutions are actually quite simple:

1. Allow selling of health (and all) insurance across state lines.

2. Eliminate the "minimum coverage" requirements imposed by Obamacare allowing people 
    to pick & choose what coverage they want.  (i.e., 57 year men should not be required to 
    cover maternity or fertility insurance.)

3. Reinstitute Health Savings Accounts where you can receive tax deductions for putting 
    money into HSA's to cover healthcare costs in the future.  

• These should be available for   every person from birth, so parents could fund accounts for healthcare use later in life.
• Proof of maxing out HSA's would reduce payments for Medicare withholdings.

4.  Means test Medicare.  Those people who have been responsibly setting aside money for 
     their care should receive less benefits, especially if they've contributed less to Medicare.

• These last two (#3 & #4) effectively allow people to "opt out" of Medicare.

5. Take away a business tax deduction for healthcare insurance expenses and give that tax 
    deduction to the individual.  

• This effectively makes every person a healthcare insurance consumer.  Imagine what would happen to insurance prices when insurance companies  could sell across state lines (increasing consumer choice) to a market that is immediately many times larger (individuals vs companies).

6. Tort reform limiting liability for medical malpractice.

• This would reduce the malpractice insurance of doctors and therefor their costs which would reduce costs overall.  It is after all called "practicing" medicine for a reason. While there are egregious cases were patients and their families need monetary  compensation, there need to be some realistic caps.

7. Expand Medicaid as a safety net for those in true poverty.  

There are, of course, more things that would help.  But, ultimately making the purchase of healthcare insurance and the decision of how much insurance they want to purchase, the responsibility of the individual you are restoring their liberty. 

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.  - This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson.

File this under, "What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander"

Oh, the Irony....  The healthcare they want for the rest us us is not good enough for them.  Please note that all emphasis is mine:

Obamacare? We were just leaving …

By ANNA PALMER and JAKE SHERMAN | 6/13/13 5:13 AM EDT

Dozens of lawmakers and aides are so afraid that their health insurance premiums will skyrocket next year thanks to Obamacare that they are thinking about retiring early or just quitting.

The fear: Government-subsidized premiums will disappear at the end of the year under a provision in the health care law that nudges aides and lawmakers onto the government health care exchanges, which could make their benefits exorbitantly expensive.

Democratic and Republican leaders are taking the issue seriously, but first they need more specifics from the Office of Personnel Management on how the new rule should take effect — a decision that Capitol Hill sources expect by fall, at the latest. The administration has clammed up in advance of a ruling, sources on both sides of the aisle said.

If the issue isn't resolved, and massive numbers of lawmakers and aides bolt, many on Capitol Hill fear it could lead to a brain drain just as Congress tackles a slew of weighty issues — like fights over the Tax Code and immigration reform.  [Brain drain?  From Capital Hill?  This would require us to believe they have brains to drain....]

The problem is far more acute in the House, where lawmakers and aides are generally younger and less wealthy. Sources said several aides have already given lawmakers notice that they’ll be leaving over concerns about Obamacare. Republican and Democratic lawmakers said the chatter about retiring now, to remain on the current health care plan, is constant.

Rep. John Larson, a Connecticut Democrat in leadership when the law passed, said he thinks the problem will be resolved. “If not, I think we should begin an immediate amicus brief to say, ‘Listen this is simply not fair to these employees,’” Larson told POLITICO. “They are federal employees.”  [Really?  Are federal employees more important than private sector employees?  The hubris of these people is breath taking.  The private sector has been addressing these issues of increased "healthcare" costs - really should be referred to a health insurance costs - for decades.  It's nice they finally get a taste of what it's like out here in fly over country. ]

Republicans, never a fan of Democratic health care reform, are more vocal about the potential adverse effects of the provision.  “It’s a reality,” said Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas). “This is the law. … It’s going to hinder our ability with retention of members, it’s going to hinder our ability for members to take care of their families.” He said his fellow lawmakers are having “quiet conversations” about the threat.  [Why quiet conversations?  Why are they not screaming it from the roof tops?  Why are they not warning us?  Why didn't they protect us from the hideous monstrosity of government over reach?  Why has Medicare & Medicaid not been more vocal?  Oh, wait, because the law was written that Medicare & Medicaid (and AARP) could NOT send out warnings of impending cuts and increased costs.  - Yes that is true.]

Alabama Rep. Jo Bonner said the threat is already real, especially for veteran lawmakers and staff. If they leave this year, they think they can continue to be covered under the current health care plan.

“I've lost one staffer who told me in confidence that he had been here for a number of years and the thought of losing the opportunity to keep his health insurance on Dec. 31 [forced him to leave]. He could keep what he had and on Jan. 1 he would go into that big black hole,” said Bonner, who had already planned his resignation from Congress. “And then I’ve got another staff member that I think it will be a factor as she’s contemplating her future.”

Lawmakers and aides on both sides of the aisle are acutely aware of the problems with the provision. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have discussed fixes to the provision. Boehner, according to House GOP sources, believes that Reid must take the lead on crafting a solution. Since Republicans opposed the bill, Boehner does not feel responsible to lead the effort to make changes.

The Affordable Care Act — signed into law in 2010 — contained a provision known as the Grassley Amendment, which said the government can only offer members of Congress and their staff plans that are “created” in the bill or “offered through an exchange” — unless the bill is amended.

Currently, aides and lawmakers receive their health care under the generous Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. The government subsidizes upward of 75 percent of the premiums for the health insurance plans. In 2014, most Capitol Hill aides and lawmakers are expected to be put onto the exchanges, and there has been no guidance whether the government will subsidize those premiums. This is expected to cause a steep spike in health insurance costs.

There have been many options for fixing the problem discussed throughout the year, including administrative fixes and legislative tweaks. One scenario seen as likely on Capitol Hill would have OPM simply decide that the government could still subsidize insurance on the exchanges.

House Democratic leadership says the issue must be resolved.

“The leadership has assured members that fixing this issue is a top priority,” said one Democratic leadership aide. “This issue must be fixed by administrative action in order that the flawed Grassley Amendment’s spirit is honored and all staff and members are treated the same.”  [Yeah, I could see how being treated just like everyone else in the nation could be construed as "flawed" by the typical inside the beltway bureaucrat.]

It could be politically difficult to change this provision. The provision was put in the bill in the first place on the theory that if Congress was going to make the country live under the provisions of Obamacare, the members and staff should have to as well.

The uncertainty has created a growing furor on Capitol Hill with aides young and old worried about skyrocketing health care premiums cutting deeply into their already small paychecks. Some longtime aides and members of Congress, who previously had government subsidized health care for life, are concerned that their premiums will now come out of their pension.

If their fears are borne out, the results could be twofold. Some junior staff will head for the private sector early while more seasoned aides and lawmakers could leave before the end of the year so they can continue under the old plan.

Several lawmakers said departures could run the gamut from low-level staff to legislative aides, to senior aides and lawmakers. Capitol Hill is an attractive workplace for politically ambitious college graduates, but a core of Capitol Hill aides stick around for decades, serving as institutional knowledge, and earning prized retirement packages.  [Then the Grassley amendment will do the job elections never could seem to accomplish - finally draining the swamp!  Perfection!]

OPM, which administers benefits for federal employees, is expected to rule in the coming months on how congressional health care is to be administered.  OPM did not respond to a request for comment.

More than a dozen senior aides interviewed by POLITICO about the issue declined to be named out of fear for future job prospects. The problem is most acutely felt at the staff level, where aides make between $35,000 and roughly $170,000 and budgetary problems have all but stopped pay increases and bonuses. Lawmakers have questioned leadership aides about the future of their health care.

“Between the constant uncertainty surrounding sequestration, and the likelihood aides will soon be paying for the subsidy portion of their health care coverage, congressional office budgets are being squeezed once again, and it’s causing a lot of concern amongst chiefs of staff regarding how to best handle the situation,” said one chief of staff to a senior Democratic member of the House. “Do we give raises to junior level aides so they can afford to pay for their higher health care costs, and if so, where do we find the funds to do so? Additionally, leadership has been relatively silent in terms of providing guidance to offices, which is frustrating.”  [Wow.  That sounds eerily like a private sector comment.  I guess it's never too late to learn something new.] 

There are other ways that aides can fully avoid this problem. If they’re married, they can join their spouse’s health care plan. If they are 65, they can go on Medicare.  But the focus right now is centered on lawmakers trying to figure out how to offset potential increases in premiums.

“I know other members are doing the same thing in terms of what we can do to offset [premiums],” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said. “You are particularly limited now because of course we've had the cuts in the [member office allowances] on top of this. You just don’t have a lot of options.”

Cole added, “A lot of the staff stays on largely because of the benefit levels and particularly if you've got people with families and it’s extraordinarily important to them … it’s just not right.”

Jennifer Haberkorn contributed to this report.

The New Media Model

How does a Podunk like me get to interact with people so much smarter than myself?


Easy, you email them.

So last night I was watching Hannity interview Dick Morris.  As per usual, Morris ignored Hannity's final question and commandeered his last minute on the show to highlight something, he wrote about in his book, "Screwed".  He mentioned how Hillary Clinton is about to sign an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on July 27th, 2012 and how it will effect our 2nd amendment rights here in the U.S.  

I got a little spooked about my right to bear arms, so I Google 'Arms Trade Treaty' and I see that The Heritage Foundation has a released a background report called The  U.N. Arms Trade Treaty's Criteria for the Transfer Pose Problems for the U.S. the same day Dick Morris is talking about it.  So Dick's comments must have some validity, right?

I read the report and did not see any mention of the 2nd Amendment issues Dick Morris discussed.  So, I did what any curious citizen would do.  I emailed the author, Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D.  I mean, he is only a Senior Research Fellow in Anglo-American Relations with The Margret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a Heritage Department.

I sent the following (cryptic) message at 9:28 PM EDT, July 9, 2012:

Dr. Bromund, 

I saw Dick Morris state on Hannity tonight, July 9, 2012, that U.N. Arms Trade Treaty could be used as a “back door gun regulation”.  

I did not reach that conclusion when I read your report. 

Do you have an opinion?  Back door gun regulation or not?

I figured I would get the obligatory, "We have received your correspondence and will get back to you shortly" auto-response.  

Well, much to my surprise, at 9:37 AM EDT, July 10, 2012, I received the following:

Dear Mr. Xxxxxx, 

Thanks for your note. I'm answering from my personal account, as I'm at the UN ATT conference now and Blackberry is a tedious way to type a reply. 

I've addressed this question in a number of pieces: 

1. The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty’s Criteria for Transfers Pose Problems for the U.S.2. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/effects-of-the-un-arms-trade-treaty-on-the-us 

And will be writing a blog about it later today (if UN work allows). 

In short, I would say that my view is that the foreign policy reason for opposing the ATT are more salient than those related to the 2nd Amendment. But there are reasons to be concerned about the treaty's domestic impact. That is sometimes framed as a sort of 'black helicopter' issue, which is ridiculous. The much more realistic concern is 'death by a thousand cuts': that the ATT will require or facilitate administrative restrictions, or be used as a legal source by judges of a transnationalist bent, in ways that will restrict the effective use of 2nd Amendment rights, without being 'gun confiscation.'

I didn't see Dick Morris's appearance, but I hear [sic] about it.  In my view, exaggerated concern about the domestic effects of the ATT is self-defeating, in that it is too easily dismissed as silly, and because it detracts from the foreign policy issues.

 Best, Dr. Bromund

I have to say, I LOVE technology.  The internet is the great equalizer.  Just as the printing press contributed to to England's hold over the colonies, so will the internet free us from the political class.

Here I am writing to one of the foremost experts in International Security Studies from the comfort of my living room and I get an authoritative answer some 12 hrs later.  Amazing.

In addition, I would say you should go sign the petition on Dick Morris' website, as the ATT is a horrible deal for the U.S., but one would expect that when our current regime believes it is 'managing the decline of the U.S.", not building up the U.S. as has been our policy for most of the last 236 years.