Tag: politics

Although they always seem to come as a surprise to liberal Americans:

Experts warn there won’t be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

That shortfall is predicted despite a push by teaching hospitals and medical schools to boost the number of U.S. doctors, which now totals about 954,000. The greatest demand will be for primary-care physicians. These general practitioners, internists, family physicians and pediatricians will have a larger role under the new law, coordinating care for each patient.

The U.S. has 352,908 primary-care doctors now, and the college association estimates that 45,000 more will be needed by 2020. But the number of medical-school students entering family medicine fell more than a quarter between 2002 and 2007.

At least the health care you’re not getting will cost you less. So there is that, anyhow.

Keep this Kentucky Senate in mind the next time the Republican Party asks you for money to stop the growth of government. Because they don’t mean it. Not even a little. And they never have:

The prospect of a Paul victory scares some Republicans. Former Vice President Dick Cheney endorsed Mr. Grayson last month after conservatives in Washington circulated an e-mail message about what they called Dr. Paul’s “troubling” views on national security. Mr. Grayson’s supporters note that Dr. Paul once argued for closing the detention center at Guantánamo Bay and that he said detainees who cannot be convicted should be sent back to Afghanistan….

Mr. Grayson argues that some of Dr. Paul’s ideas (getting rid of the Departments of Energy, Education and Commerce) are too “weird” for Kentucky. And in increasingly sharp ads, he argues that Dr. Paul is downright dangerous when it comes to foreign policy. “Here’s a guy who is outside of the Republican mainstream,” Mr. Grayson said in an interview here.

Given the disaster that mainstream Republicans proved themselves to be from 2000 to 2006, to say nothing of the Banking Bailout of 2008 that was orchestrated by mainstream Republicans, one would logically conclude that being outside of the Republican mainstream is exactly what is required for both Kentucky and the nation. And needless to say, “troubling views” means nothing more than a refusal to endorse the Imperial America approach to foreign policy.

There is nothing conservative about Imperial America or its self-styled conservative advocates. Nor is it possible to support the Iraqi and Afghanistan occupations while simultaneously claiming to support small and limited government.

It doesn’t matter how perfectly you attempt to tie it down, government will always find a means of expanding its power:

Minnesota’s Republican governor, Tim Pawlenty, says the new federal health care law is unconstitutional. DFL Attorney General Lori Swanson says it’s not.

If the legal question gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, it may be decided with the help of a long-gone small-time Ohio farmer who once was fined $117 for growing too much wheat.

A key question about the health care bill involves just how far the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce reaches. For nearly 70 years, one influential precedent on that issue has been the peculiar case of farmer Roscoe Filburn, whose crop was deemed to influence commerce “among the several states” — the kind of commerce the Constitution permits Congress to regulate — even though none of the excess wheat left his farm.

In case you’re wondering why the USA is utterly dooomed, consider the results of a recent Right Wing News poll on which right-wing figures 80 right-wing bloggers like and dislike. (Full disclosure: I was one of the 80 polled.)

How do you feel about Ron Paul?
Strongly like: 7% (6 votes)
Like: 23% (19 votes)
Dislike 28%: (23 votes)
Strongly dislike: 40% (32 votes)

How do you feel about George W. Bush?
Strongly like: 30% (25 votes)
Like: 56% (46 votes)
Dislike 11% (9 votes)
Strongly dislike: 1% (1 vote)

When Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are on the most unpopular list and Michelle Malkin and George W. Bush are among the most popular among self-styled conservatives, the only logical conclusion is that John Derbyshire is entirely correct. American conservatism is absolutely doomed.

Obamacare faces immediate corporate blowback:

One of the “cute tricks” passed with Medicare Part “D” (by George W. Bush) was a “tax credit” for corporations who provided health care to retirees from their firms. This too was a distortion – an intentional one put into that bill to “buy off” some key Reps and Senators to insure passage of Medicare Part “D” (the biggest boondoggle and scam in the history of the Republic – until President Obama signed this piece of crap legislation.)

But this legislation repeals that little ditty in the Medicare Part “D” law. Remember, the Democrat talking points were that this bill would “lower your costs” and “make health care more affordable.” It was also called a “jobs bill” – that is, that this bill would create jobs.

Within hours corporations announced intent to recognize the repeal of this exemption – via 8Ks filed with the SEC. This was not a surprise – Caterpillar had warned the Administration, as had other firms, that the bill as written would increase their costs and that they would have to recognize those forward costs.

Securities laws require firms to disclose material changes when they are realized – which in this case means when the bill was signed into law, since they had already analyzed the bill and it’s impact. Legally, these companies are obligated to file the 8Ks disclosing these charges.

The Administration and Democrats generally ignored these folks when they warned of this impact before the bill was passed…. Well, the corporations weren’t lying, and now the 8Ks are flying. Caterpillar has announced an intent to take a $100 million non-cash charge, John Deer $150 million, and AT&T a whopping $1 billion.

We are indeed amused. Obama won’t prove to be the worst president ever, as Wilson and Lincoln almost surely have first and second positions locked down, but he is definitely one of the most comedic. And I suspect that he’s still only scratching the surface of his potential.

When you’re losing, change the language:

“NPR News is revising the terms we use to describe people and groups involved in the abortion debate. This updated policy is aimed at ensuring the words we speak and write are as clear, consistent and neutral as possible. This is important given that written text is such an integral part of our work.

On the air, we should use “abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)” and “abortion rights opponent(s)” or derivations thereof (for example: “advocates of abortion rights”). It is acceptable to use the phrase “anti-abortion”, but do not use the term “pro-abortion rights”.

Digital News will continue to use the AP style book for online content, which mirrors the revised NPR policy.

Do not use “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in copy except when used in the name of a group.

So, an “abortion rights supporter” is not “pro-abortion rights”? How does that make any sense? However, I do generally agree with the move away from the pro-life / pro-choice dichotomy. Most abortionettes are not uniformly pro-abortion, they primarily support it in the case of black women or when a baby inconveniently stands in the way of obtaining that all important degree in Starbuck’s managementWomen’s Studies or Walmart receptionistSociology. And “pro-choice” was always stupid. It was as about as reasonable as describing Hitler as “pro-choice” when it came to Jews.

Anyhow, it’s a pretty transparent to cast the anti-abortion movement as anti-rights. Because all rights are good, after all. Personally, I tend to view the two sides as “abortionette” and “decent, civilized human being”. The ironic thing is that it’s usually the ignorant pro-infanticide crowd that attempts to portray the opposition as paleolithic. But if there is one thing that archeology has taught us, it is that pre-Christian societies viewed it as a parental right to murder unwanted children, especially baby girls.

Not being a Republican, a conservative, or a wonker, I am completely unconcerned with who happens to work at the various Washington wankfeststhink tanks. That being said, I hardly think it’s astonishing to learn David Frum has continued to travel along the leftward path trod by David Brock and others before him.

With Mike Allen’s account of his exchange with David Frum, we apparently have David’s version of his departure from AEI: Donor pressure forced AEI president Arthur Brooks to fire him. “But the elite isn’t leading anymore,” David is quoted as saying. “It’s trapped. Partly because of the desperate economic situation in the country, what were once the leading institutions of conservatism are constrained. I think Arthur took no pleasure in this. I think he was embarrassed. I think he would have avoided it if he possibly could, but he couldn’t.”

I have known and liked David and Danielle Frum for many years, and what I am about to write will end that friendship. I regret that. But his statement goes beyond self-serving. It is a calumny against an organization that has treated him not just fairly but generously…. I also think that for David to have leveled the charge that Arthur Brooks caved in to donor pressure, knowing that the charge would be picked up and spread beyond recall, knowing that such a charge strikes at the core of the Institute’s integrity, and making such a sensational charge without a shred of evidence, is despicable.

Merowr! Despicable calumny… that’s excellent. This tempest in a teapot should be good for a few amusingly overheated columns over the next few weeks, to say nothing of random sideshots over the years. Having read a pair of David Frum’s books and interviewed him, I think he’s an interesting thinker who is about as genuinely and deeply conservative as Lady Gaga. Frum is one of those unique political analysts whose superior ability to recognize a problem is inversely proportional to his ability to recommend a reasonable solution to it.

I don’t see much value in the wank tanks anyhow. Begging copious donations from a lot of people in order to give it to a few people who have never accomplished anything material in their lives to sit around and think grand thoughts strikes me as an excellent way to kill a lot of trees without producing anything of value. I haven’t seen any evidence that the wank tanks have a better track record for putting out significant books than the average non-fiction publisher. As for the American Enterprise Institute, I see they’ve got something like 13 Fellows who supposedly pay attention to the economy and U.S. monetary policy, precisely none of whom were capable of figuring out that perhaps keeping interest rates near zero just possibly might cause an investment bubble that could perhaps have some small effect on the economy.

(rolls eyes) Seriously, what in the name of Milton Friedman are you doing if your entire job is to pay attention to monetary policy and you don’t even know what obvious effect certain monetary policies will have on the economy?

With all of the unfunded public pension liabilities that are so rapidly accruing, there is virtually no chance that the federal government isn’t going to transform the 401k plan into a centralized pay-out-as-needed one like Social Security:

One of the nation’s largest labor unions, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), is promoting a plan that will centralize all retirement plans for American workers, including private 401(k) plans, under one new “retirement system” for the United States. In effect, government pensions for everyone, not unlike the European system and regardless of personal choice.

For those who have more than the median 25k in their 401k, I suspect the penalty for early withdrawal may eventually be seen as cheap at the price.