While Obama administration officials have been crowing about what they say are the 3.3 million people who have signed up for health insurance using the government website, industry insiders say it is going to be extremely difficult for the government to meet its downwardly revised number of 6 million enrollees by March 31. But that is both the bureaucrats' advantage and the peoples detriment of big government programs like health care, i.e., its lack of competence and success can be buried by its ability to confiscate taxpayer dollars with which to paper over utter failure.
The administration's figure of 3.3 million enrollees so far ignores the fact that their billion dollar website dos not have a mechanism for visitors to cancel their transaction. Without a cancel button, the website is counting as enrollees everyone who makes inquiries into health plans. To further obfuscate the real number of enrollees, is the twenty percent of people selecting plans who are not actually paying their premiums for those plans. Additionally, according to Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, two-thirds of those who are enrolling in ObamaCare plans were previously insured until the Affordable Care Act outlawed their plans and forced them to seek insurance on the government exchange.
Many of those signing up for health insurance through the government website are finding that their plans come with very high deductibles, and they are electing not to pay their premiums. Some private insurers are reporting non-payment rates as high as thirty percent, and those who do not pay are not covered. This means that of the 3.3 million people the administration is claiming are "signed up" for insurance, only 2.6 million are actually legitimately covered.
Some of those not paying their premiums are unwilling, while others simply think the payments will be automatically deducted from their paychecks or tax refunds. Still others are confused by the myriad ad hoc changes made to the law by the president and are under a false assumption that they have another year or more before they will have to actually pay for the coverage they believe has already begun. The confusion has left many persons without coverage, even after having signed up on healthcare.gov.
ObamaCare has already failed miserably in its promised outcome of insuring the uninsured while allowing those previously insured to remain so. There are no current statistics that show how many people are actually uninsured, but even before the disastrous roll out of government-run health care last fall, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Affordable Care Act would leave 30 million Americans uninsured. I expect that number to increase significantly now that we have seen the malaise and malice of the promise of "universal health care."
Monday, February 17, 2014
Saturday, February 15, 2014
A Classic From The Obama Boneyard Of Abject Failures
With an ever expanding mountain of Obama administration failures, sometimes the forgotten will rear their ugly heads, to the chagrin of every day Americans. I had such an experience when I walked into the dealership and asked the salesman, "Is there such an animal as a dependable used car for around four to five grand?" To which he sardonically responded, "Not since Cash for Clunkers."
Ah yes, Cash for Clunkers, the use of confiscated taxpayer dollars that was suppose to create new car sales while at the same time remove older, earth-unfriendly vehicles from the road and save the planet. In the end, Cash for Clunkers made it much harder for middle and lower income persons to find reliable used transportation for a reasonable price. The program also made the availability of used parts scarce, and their cost increased by as much as three to four times. These unintended (maybe, maybe not) outcomes of the program were due to its mandatory crushing of vehicles submitted as "trades."
While defenders of the program point to the 690,000 cars which were sold under it, Edmunds.com, the premier auto industry analysis and research firm, rightly points out that only 125,000 of those sales were incremental. The remaining sales were all ones that would have been executed without the program. In an industry that sells on average 14 to 15 million cars a year in the United States, 125,000 is less than a 1% increase.
At a cost to taxpayers of $24,000 per vehicle sold, the increase in sales was not worth the investment. This is due to the fact that the average new car in 2009, the year of the program, sold for around $26,000. Even if one could count the $2000 per vehicle variance for the 125,000 additional vehicles sold, as "profit" to the economy, that only amounts to 250 million dollars. A drop in an ocean of an economy that generates 17 trillion dollars in economic activity per year. But even that amount is suspect as a benefit because it consisted of money forcibly removed from the economy only to be allowed to re-enter by the grace of government, a break even proposition at best.
The Cash for Clunkers program is a microcosm of myriad Obama administration policies that will have long-lasting effects far outliving his tenure as president. It cost taxpayers more than any benefit received, raised the cost of products affected by government intrusion into the free market, and placed additional burdens on middle and lower income people. This, and not hope and change, is the real theme of the Obama reign.
Ah yes, Cash for Clunkers, the use of confiscated taxpayer dollars that was suppose to create new car sales while at the same time remove older, earth-unfriendly vehicles from the road and save the planet. In the end, Cash for Clunkers made it much harder for middle and lower income persons to find reliable used transportation for a reasonable price. The program also made the availability of used parts scarce, and their cost increased by as much as three to four times. These unintended (maybe, maybe not) outcomes of the program were due to its mandatory crushing of vehicles submitted as "trades."
While defenders of the program point to the 690,000 cars which were sold under it, Edmunds.com, the premier auto industry analysis and research firm, rightly points out that only 125,000 of those sales were incremental. The remaining sales were all ones that would have been executed without the program. In an industry that sells on average 14 to 15 million cars a year in the United States, 125,000 is less than a 1% increase.
At a cost to taxpayers of $24,000 per vehicle sold, the increase in sales was not worth the investment. This is due to the fact that the average new car in 2009, the year of the program, sold for around $26,000. Even if one could count the $2000 per vehicle variance for the 125,000 additional vehicles sold, as "profit" to the economy, that only amounts to 250 million dollars. A drop in an ocean of an economy that generates 17 trillion dollars in economic activity per year. But even that amount is suspect as a benefit because it consisted of money forcibly removed from the economy only to be allowed to re-enter by the grace of government, a break even proposition at best.
The Cash for Clunkers program is a microcosm of myriad Obama administration policies that will have long-lasting effects far outliving his tenure as president. It cost taxpayers more than any benefit received, raised the cost of products affected by government intrusion into the free market, and placed additional burdens on middle and lower income people. This, and not hope and change, is the real theme of the Obama reign.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Winter Weather Is Obama Pass
You may have heard some people, mostly in the Obama administration and their annex on Wall Street, blame the recent Winter weather for the terrible economic data resulting from Obamanomics. The number of jobs created by this strangled economy has been anything but economically sustaining. But the last two months, the number of jobs created has been even more pathetic than it has been throughout the last five years. And you guessed it, the horrible numbers have been blamed on Winter weather, as if we have never had any before.
In the world of the Obamaites (those on Wall Street being solid members in that club having supported Barack Obama in both of his presidential bids by a ratio of 2 to 1), employers only add jobs in good weather. This theory about job creation being based on weather instead of business needs shows the lack of understanding of how business works by those on the Left, even those whose business is business.
The weak retail sales for January (a drop of fourth tenths of a percent instead of the expected rise of one tenth) was also blamed on the Winter weather. On the surface this may make sense because people shop less when the roads are snow-covered. But Internet sales also dropped by three tenths of a percent, which can not be explained away by inclement weather. The decrease in Internet sales is a sign that the consumer is being financially squeezed by Obama policies like Health Care Reform.
There is no doubt that the economy is slowing, even from the snails pace it has traveled the last 5 years. But it is to the benefit of those on Wall Street, both politically and financially, to feed the charade of a growing economy. Politically, because most of them being committed Leftists can not allow their president to appear as the economic failure he is. And financially, their motivation is to pump up the economy to lure retail investors into ploughing their money into an artificially rising market.
It has been educative of the Lefts complete disconnect from reality to watch the main stream financial media blame Winter weather for the endless stream of bad economic data. The almost pathological desire to make Barack Obama look like a success, and bestow him with achievement where there is none, is endemic of his entire life. There has always been someone there to change his Cs into As, to give him ownership of a bigger house than he could afford on his own, and to ordain him with titles he did not warrant by merit. But now instead of his benefactors being professors at Columbia, Tony Resko, and the faculty at Harvard respectively, it is the majority of the financial industry. And it is done so to the detriment of American liberty and prosperity in which the American people keep their wealth of freedom.
In the world of the Obamaites (those on Wall Street being solid members in that club having supported Barack Obama in both of his presidential bids by a ratio of 2 to 1), employers only add jobs in good weather. This theory about job creation being based on weather instead of business needs shows the lack of understanding of how business works by those on the Left, even those whose business is business.
The weak retail sales for January (a drop of fourth tenths of a percent instead of the expected rise of one tenth) was also blamed on the Winter weather. On the surface this may make sense because people shop less when the roads are snow-covered. But Internet sales also dropped by three tenths of a percent, which can not be explained away by inclement weather. The decrease in Internet sales is a sign that the consumer is being financially squeezed by Obama policies like Health Care Reform.
There is no doubt that the economy is slowing, even from the snails pace it has traveled the last 5 years. But it is to the benefit of those on Wall Street, both politically and financially, to feed the charade of a growing economy. Politically, because most of them being committed Leftists can not allow their president to appear as the economic failure he is. And financially, their motivation is to pump up the economy to lure retail investors into ploughing their money into an artificially rising market.
It has been educative of the Lefts complete disconnect from reality to watch the main stream financial media blame Winter weather for the endless stream of bad economic data. The almost pathological desire to make Barack Obama look like a success, and bestow him with achievement where there is none, is endemic of his entire life. There has always been someone there to change his Cs into As, to give him ownership of a bigger house than he could afford on his own, and to ordain him with titles he did not warrant by merit. But now instead of his benefactors being professors at Columbia, Tony Resko, and the faculty at Harvard respectively, it is the majority of the financial industry. And it is done so to the detriment of American liberty and prosperity in which the American people keep their wealth of freedom.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
The Manly Deficit In The Republican Party
There are very few men left among congressional Republicants, courage being one of the main tenets of manhood. After Thursday's vote on raising the debt limit unconditionally, I doubt very much there are any men left in Republicant leadership roles. Listening to talk radio yesterday after the vote made me want to find the nearest porcelain receptacle in which to regurgitate every vote I so foolishly donated to the Republicant party over the last 6 years.
It is completely ineffable to any sane and right thinking person how it is that some in talk radio and in congress can possibly defend the passage of a bill giving President Obama carte blanche to spend as much as he wants over the next 13 months. The strategy that I heard Republicant congressmen and radio pundits alike express is that ObamaCare is going to be the issue in the upcoming mid-term elections, and nothing like a silly old debt limit is going to interfere with that.
Hey guys! ObamaCare is the law, and as for repeal or replace, it is a dead issue. You and the rest of the scared modicans (moderate Republicans) saw to that last fall when you failed to muster the courage to defund it. Besides, ObamaCare becomes more and more part of the American landscape with each passing day as more Americans sign up and become dependent on subsidies. The ship to reverse ObamaCare has sailed, apparently with some Republicants on board waving foolishly, completely unaware they are headed out to sea.
The Republicnats I have heard defending the unconditional debt limit bill say they are unable to achieve anything else because the president and congressional Democrats refuse to negotiate. Since when are principles only worth defending when your opposition is agreeable? And what kind of morally inverted world do these defenders of the "give them what they want because they will not negotiate" strategy live in which doing the right thing is only employed when it is comfortable to do so? In their world, courage is predicated upon the non-resistance of your foes.
Maybe the Republicants' options are limited because they do not control the senate or the Oval Office. But they could have passed a separate bill on Thursday to remove the ObamaCare subsidies for the insurance companies, with the stipulation that they would only pass a clean debt limit bill if the former bill was put to the floor of the senate for a vote. This would at least get Democrat senators on record voting for insurance company subsidies, and with many of them up for re-election, they may have just voted for the bill to remove them.
Whether or not my preceding strategy would work is an unknown since the Republicant leadership did not even try it, or anything else for that matter. I think with the public's disgust over ObamaCare and the strain it is placing on the average American family, Republicants could have pushed Democrats with the aforementioned strategy to delay and/or rewrite major parts of the law. But alas, this would have taken the manly virtue of courage, which is sadly missing from Republicant leadership in congress.
It is completely ineffable to any sane and right thinking person how it is that some in talk radio and in congress can possibly defend the passage of a bill giving President Obama carte blanche to spend as much as he wants over the next 13 months. The strategy that I heard Republicant congressmen and radio pundits alike express is that ObamaCare is going to be the issue in the upcoming mid-term elections, and nothing like a silly old debt limit is going to interfere with that.
Hey guys! ObamaCare is the law, and as for repeal or replace, it is a dead issue. You and the rest of the scared modicans (moderate Republicans) saw to that last fall when you failed to muster the courage to defund it. Besides, ObamaCare becomes more and more part of the American landscape with each passing day as more Americans sign up and become dependent on subsidies. The ship to reverse ObamaCare has sailed, apparently with some Republicants on board waving foolishly, completely unaware they are headed out to sea.
The Republicnats I have heard defending the unconditional debt limit bill say they are unable to achieve anything else because the president and congressional Democrats refuse to negotiate. Since when are principles only worth defending when your opposition is agreeable? And what kind of morally inverted world do these defenders of the "give them what they want because they will not negotiate" strategy live in which doing the right thing is only employed when it is comfortable to do so? In their world, courage is predicated upon the non-resistance of your foes.
Maybe the Republicants' options are limited because they do not control the senate or the Oval Office. But they could have passed a separate bill on Thursday to remove the ObamaCare subsidies for the insurance companies, with the stipulation that they would only pass a clean debt limit bill if the former bill was put to the floor of the senate for a vote. This would at least get Democrat senators on record voting for insurance company subsidies, and with many of them up for re-election, they may have just voted for the bill to remove them.
Whether or not my preceding strategy would work is an unknown since the Republicant leadership did not even try it, or anything else for that matter. I think with the public's disgust over ObamaCare and the strain it is placing on the average American family, Republicants could have pushed Democrats with the aforementioned strategy to delay and/or rewrite major parts of the law. But alas, this would have taken the manly virtue of courage, which is sadly missing from Republicant leadership in congress.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
John Boehner: History's Palest Pastel
Speaker of the House John Boehner has once again shown his willingness to acquiesce to the demands of a lawless president in the vacuum of leadership with which he has managed the United States House of Representatives. Unable to gather support from the members of his own party, the feckless Speaker courted Democrats in the biggest act of betrayal since Benedict Arnold. The Speaker has blown to smithereens the Hasert Rule, which was a long-standing tradition by Republican speakers to not bring legislation to the floor without a majority of Republican support. Only 28 Republicants voted for the debt limit increase bill which gives President Obama the ability to borrow as much money as he wishes. One hundred and ninety nine sensible Republicants voted against the bill.
With the passing of this legislation, the House of Representatives is now under de facto control of the Democrat party, without them having to win the mid-term elections this Fall. And because of John Boehner's betrayal of the American people and conservative values, the Democrat party will attain de jure control of the House this November. Dislike of the conservative wing of the Republicant party, and especially the Tea Party, by John Boehner and the rest of the Washington Republicant establishment, is stronger than their desire to do the right thing for the American people.
The strategy, if one wishes to call it that, which can be harvested from the Speaker's comments is that the Democrats will own the fiscal irresponsibility of the debt limit increase. Mr. Boehner's ignorance, deliberate or not, of his opposition's tactics and their incestuous relationship with the main stream media which contributes to the successful execution of those tactics, seems to be the modus operandi of Republicant leadership that is hell bent on politically destroying their own party. With this latest insult to fiscal probity by Speaker Boehner, he has insured that a significant number of conservatives will sit out this Fall's mid-term elections.
The unconditioned raise in the debt limit, along with the Ryan/Murray budget, have essentially neutered the Republicant party, causing them to become the "pale pastels" that Ronald Reagan warned against. Never before in this great nation's history have the people needed the "bold colors" of principled leadership in opposition to oppression. Unfortunately, the people have looked up from the weight of tyranny's yoke that has been placed upon them to catch a glimpse of history's palest pastel personified in John Boehner.
With the passing of this legislation, the House of Representatives is now under de facto control of the Democrat party, without them having to win the mid-term elections this Fall. And because of John Boehner's betrayal of the American people and conservative values, the Democrat party will attain de jure control of the House this November. Dislike of the conservative wing of the Republicant party, and especially the Tea Party, by John Boehner and the rest of the Washington Republicant establishment, is stronger than their desire to do the right thing for the American people.
The strategy, if one wishes to call it that, which can be harvested from the Speaker's comments is that the Democrats will own the fiscal irresponsibility of the debt limit increase. Mr. Boehner's ignorance, deliberate or not, of his opposition's tactics and their incestuous relationship with the main stream media which contributes to the successful execution of those tactics, seems to be the modus operandi of Republicant leadership that is hell bent on politically destroying their own party. With this latest insult to fiscal probity by Speaker Boehner, he has insured that a significant number of conservatives will sit out this Fall's mid-term elections.
The unconditioned raise in the debt limit, along with the Ryan/Murray budget, have essentially neutered the Republicant party, causing them to become the "pale pastels" that Ronald Reagan warned against. Never before in this great nation's history have the people needed the "bold colors" of principled leadership in opposition to oppression. Unfortunately, the people have looked up from the weight of tyranny's yoke that has been placed upon them to catch a glimpse of history's palest pastel personified in John Boehner.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
The Deliberate Ignorance Of The Markets
In the practice of delusion over reality one will not find a more willing group of participants than the stock market. This collection of smart people who desire fallacy to fact and mediocrity to merit, react more out of adherence to group think than they do from a close examination of data. A case in point was the release last Friday of the employment number for the month of January, which was a dismal 113 thousand jobs added in the month. The analysts were expecting only a mildly less pathetic number of 180 thousand. The market, which if propelled by data and facts, should have gone down several hundred points, instead made gains across the major indices of about one percent.
One of the favorite activities of the last few years by the market movers has been to rummage through the burnt out structure of what was once a thriving economy and find a charred nickel they can use to say that things are looking up. That charred nickel last Friday was the two tenths of a percentage point rise in the work force participation rate, which is still at a 35 year low. The work force participation rate is the percentage of working aged adults who are employed or actively seeking employment. The market analysts and participants saw the miniscule increase as a positive sign for the economy.
But the work force participation rate did not increase because more people were working, but rather because more people were looking for work. This country, under the leadership of Barack Obama, has its largest group of unemployed individuals of working age than at any other time in our history. Over 90 million persons are unemployed in this country, a record of failure for the Obama administration and its policies.
The reason for the slight uptick in the labor force participation rate recently is the laid off holiday workers, who are much more likely to participate in the labor force as "actively pursuing employment." I would not make the hasty determination that the uptick is a trend, we will see in the coming months if those newly unemployed persons either find jobs or become discouraged and remove themselves from the labor market, thus sending the labor force participation rate tumbling.
It has been my contention that since the Federal Reserve has essentially pumped 3 trillion dollars of wealth into the markets over the last four years, market participants accept data from the government that has become ever more detached from reality. And the Federal Reserve's bond-buying spree has been an abject failure, according to their own metrics for ending the program, which have not been met. But they are smart enough to know that to continue it much longer would completely collapse the dollar. So once again, the people of this country will suffer from higher inflation, chronically high unemployment, and flaccid economic growth because of meddling by academics who have never worked in the private economy they have destroyed through their ignorance.
One of the favorite activities of the last few years by the market movers has been to rummage through the burnt out structure of what was once a thriving economy and find a charred nickel they can use to say that things are looking up. That charred nickel last Friday was the two tenths of a percentage point rise in the work force participation rate, which is still at a 35 year low. The work force participation rate is the percentage of working aged adults who are employed or actively seeking employment. The market analysts and participants saw the miniscule increase as a positive sign for the economy.
But the work force participation rate did not increase because more people were working, but rather because more people were looking for work. This country, under the leadership of Barack Obama, has its largest group of unemployed individuals of working age than at any other time in our history. Over 90 million persons are unemployed in this country, a record of failure for the Obama administration and its policies.
The reason for the slight uptick in the labor force participation rate recently is the laid off holiday workers, who are much more likely to participate in the labor force as "actively pursuing employment." I would not make the hasty determination that the uptick is a trend, we will see in the coming months if those newly unemployed persons either find jobs or become discouraged and remove themselves from the labor market, thus sending the labor force participation rate tumbling.
It has been my contention that since the Federal Reserve has essentially pumped 3 trillion dollars of wealth into the markets over the last four years, market participants accept data from the government that has become ever more detached from reality. And the Federal Reserve's bond-buying spree has been an abject failure, according to their own metrics for ending the program, which have not been met. But they are smart enough to know that to continue it much longer would completely collapse the dollar. So once again, the people of this country will suffer from higher inflation, chronically high unemployment, and flaccid economic growth because of meddling by academics who have never worked in the private economy they have destroyed through their ignorance.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Multi-Cultural Coke, Bob Dylan And Chrysler
Being one that does not have the drivel of popular culture mainstreamed into my home through either broadcast, cable, or satellite television, I may appear to be "out of the loop." My further disinterest in sports makes me somewhat of an outcast among beer-guzzling sports fans of my sex. I do know enough to acknowledge that the Super Bowl was played over a week ago, and from what I have heard, my membership in the club of non-sports watchers stood me in fine stead, allowing me to miss not so much a contest but a practice session for the Seattle Seahawks.
From what I have heard in the ensuing week since the Super Bowl, there were two commercials in particular that seemed to stir the passions of the game's spectators like the play on the field could not. One was the multi-cultural Coca-Cola commercial in which America the Beautiful was sung in different languages. The other commercial that seem to spark a minor controversy was the Chrysler ad in which singer/songwriter icon, Bob Dylan, played spokesman for the car manufacture.
If I may, I will address these commercials in inverse order, dealing with the Bob Dylan commercial first. I read many criticisms of Mr. Dylan calling him a sellout for hawking cars for Chrysler Motors. It has always amused me that those that call celebrities "sellout" for receiving fair compensation for their endorsement, are the very people who do not have a marketable personality. And Bob Dylan is a man who is no stranger to being called a sellout. Those on the Left have been merciless when applying that term to Mr. Dylan over the last fifty years.
They called him a sellout when he transitioned from "protest songs" to ones of a more personal nature. And the oppressive Left flipped out further when Bob decided to expand his music using electrical instruments. He was called a sellout when he became a born again Christian, although I do not understand how one makes the case that God is somehow analogous to a commercial enterprise. Sellout is a term applied to celebrities by envious nobodies for making a profit from years of hard work building a persona that has value to the commercial market. Truly a cardinal sin, especially among Leftists who choose not to work so hard.
The second Super Bowl commercial requiring my comment is the Coca-Cola ad with America the Beautiful being the target of sacrilege by being sung in different languages. It has become very popular among the multi-cultural Left to extinguish the embers of our national culture and balkanize the country. When a people do not have a common language and culture, greatness will allude them and their society will devolve into disparate groups that are linked together by nothing but dependence on government. Far from bringing people together as it claims, multi-culturalism divides people by destroying their national commonality.
In the final analysis, Bob Dylan was making a living from his work, just like a plumber, electrician, or anyone who works for a living. Coca-Cola, on the other hand, is the true sellout, selling out to the tin gods of political correctness and multi-culturalism.
From what I have heard in the ensuing week since the Super Bowl, there were two commercials in particular that seemed to stir the passions of the game's spectators like the play on the field could not. One was the multi-cultural Coca-Cola commercial in which America the Beautiful was sung in different languages. The other commercial that seem to spark a minor controversy was the Chrysler ad in which singer/songwriter icon, Bob Dylan, played spokesman for the car manufacture.
If I may, I will address these commercials in inverse order, dealing with the Bob Dylan commercial first. I read many criticisms of Mr. Dylan calling him a sellout for hawking cars for Chrysler Motors. It has always amused me that those that call celebrities "sellout" for receiving fair compensation for their endorsement, are the very people who do not have a marketable personality. And Bob Dylan is a man who is no stranger to being called a sellout. Those on the Left have been merciless when applying that term to Mr. Dylan over the last fifty years.
They called him a sellout when he transitioned from "protest songs" to ones of a more personal nature. And the oppressive Left flipped out further when Bob decided to expand his music using electrical instruments. He was called a sellout when he became a born again Christian, although I do not understand how one makes the case that God is somehow analogous to a commercial enterprise. Sellout is a term applied to celebrities by envious nobodies for making a profit from years of hard work building a persona that has value to the commercial market. Truly a cardinal sin, especially among Leftists who choose not to work so hard.
The second Super Bowl commercial requiring my comment is the Coca-Cola ad with America the Beautiful being the target of sacrilege by being sung in different languages. It has become very popular among the multi-cultural Left to extinguish the embers of our national culture and balkanize the country. When a people do not have a common language and culture, greatness will allude them and their society will devolve into disparate groups that are linked together by nothing but dependence on government. Far from bringing people together as it claims, multi-culturalism divides people by destroying their national commonality.
In the final analysis, Bob Dylan was making a living from his work, just like a plumber, electrician, or anyone who works for a living. Coca-Cola, on the other hand, is the true sellout, selling out to the tin gods of political correctness and multi-culturalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)