"The Moment of Truth"

"The Moment of Truth" is here.   This 66-page report from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform documents the arrival of our country at the crossroads. This is the time to choose whether oceans of debt begin to recede and our planet debt star begins to heal.  John Merline, AOL Opinion Editor, spots a few hidden gems buried in the report:

2) Health reform's cost savings apparently were bogus. Remember how Democrats boasted that health reform would cut the budget deficit by $170 billion over the next decade and far more after that? The deficit commission must not have gotten that memo. It says health spending projections under the new law "count on large phantom savings" and the reform law's new long-term care program that the report calls "unsustainable." As a result, Congress will still need to enact "a number of other reforms to reduce federal health spending and slow the growth of health care costs more broadly."

Who knew this thing would turn out to be a "fiscal Frankenstein?"  Aside from the 600 + posts I wrote on the subject, nearly everyone who was paying attention knew the Democratic math didn't add up.  The only way the cost curve  would be bent with this fiasco was upward.  The report at least acknowledges "the elephant in the room."

Despite offering high praise for the committee and the report, Congressman Paul Ryan is not going to vote for the plan:

"Obviously, I’m not going to vote for it,” said Congressman Ryan, who is an important voice on the commission as incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee come January.

Ryan’s biggest problem with the debt commission report, he said, was that “it not only didn’t address the elephant in the room, health care, it made it fatter.“

Just what we need, a fatter elephant.  Where is Michelle with her diet advice when we need her?  Maybe she is out buying another pair of $600 sneakers.  She, like her husband is a big spender:

5) Obama is a big spender. Although President Barack Obama has talked about fiscal discipline -- and set up this deficit commission -- his own budget plan would spend $350 billion more on so-called discretionary programs over the next decade than if the government were just left on autopilot, according to the report. 

I am completely shocked at this news.  I thought we had a  big old Blue Dog living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  Read the rest of Merline's list of hidden gems, there are quite a few.

Despite my doubts real reform is possible under this president, I agree with Paul Ryan who praised the report for putting a plan on the table and elevating the discussion on our looming financial crisis to "adult level."  Ryan is wise, as always, for calling attention to the elephant in the room.  This is the moment to get that elephant out of the living room and the "Blue Dog" out of the White House.

Ed Morrissey  has more.
Tweet

Rasmussen: 63% now oppose health care legislation

The latest survey shows a significant jump in favor of repealing the health care law

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63% of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the plan passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Obama in March.

Prior to today, weekly polling had shown support for repeal ranging from 54% to 58%.
Currently, just 32% oppose repeal.

The new findings include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal of the health care bill and 25% who Strongly Oppose it.

If Republican candidates are looking for a position to endear them to conservative and swing voters alike, promising to be a vote in favor of repeal wold be the ticket.  Clearly the Obama/Pelosi prediction that voters would like the health care law once they found out what was in it is failing, just like their agenda.

Peter Orszag Touts the Wonders of Powerful Rationing Board

Via Breitbart and Naked Emperor News

It's stunning how the truth has found its' way to the light of day once the massive health care legislation finally passed. When Sarah Palin talked about "death panels" she was then, and is now, scoffed at by the media and members of the Democratic elite. Now we see the President's Budget Director touting the wonders of the Independent Payment Advisory Board that will be ultimately responsible for denying treatments they deem excessive and setting Medicare reimbursement rates. This is the group with the power to decide the pain killer vs. the operation question.  Members of the panel will not be accountable to the electorate as they will be appointed by the President.  As Orszag makes clear in the video below this board will be very powerful.

The IPAB drew significant opposition from the health care industry though this was not made widely known to the public during the debate. The powerful IPAB advisory board represents a significant shift in decision making away from your doctor and towards Washington:

Medicare providers and suppliers could be subject to significant payment cuts if the proposed IPAB is enacted and overall Medicare spending continues to increase at its current rate. A group of providers and advocacy groups, including the American Hospital Association, joined in a January 11, 2010, letter opposing the IPAB, noting that it would not be accountable to anyone but the president (who appoints its members). Shifting payment authority from Congress to an independent commission would be a significant change, and is viewed as one of the most meaningful measures in health reform legislation with respect to bending the cost curve in health spending.

In spite of the power invested in the IPAB, a recent report by the President's own Medicare Advisory cautioned costs will continue to rise under the new health care law. The report further predicted cuts to hospitals and other care providers could force some into the red while others will be driven from the Medicare market entirely.

There can be little doubt, a shortage of providers faced with increased demand for services will lead to rationing and/or higher costs. While advocates of health care legislation argue there is rationing in our current health care system, this rationing is done primarily by the insurers driven by free market forces.  There is a distinction between rationing by political bureaucracies and rationing by competitive free market systems. Given my druthers, I would take my chances in the free market every time.  Anyone recall the price of their first VCR?  If you've priced one lately you'll know that is one market government has managed to stay away from.   All things considered the health care legislation seems quite short on hope and jam-packed with change of the unintended and undesired sort.  Sadly, some in the administration still consider these revelations a good thing:

NRCC: Pop Up Dems

Ed Morrissey has the latest NRCC ad that does inspire me to think, "we are just getting started." There are some great pop ups in this ad. So many in fact, I had to watch it a few times to get them all. I particularly liked the pop up right after Obama thanks his Democrats in Congress but there are two pop ups at the end that are hilarious. See if you can spot them:

Quinnipiac: Still no bounce for Obama

The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Obama has not gotten a bounce from his health care legislation passage. In fact, his latest numbers show him at the lowest approval since his inauguration:

"President Barack Obama's approval rating hovers at an all-time low. The White House had predicted passage of the health care overhaul would boost his fortunes, but that has not been the case, and that legislation itself remains decidedly unpopular," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

"At this point Americans are slightly more confident than not that President Obama will make a good choice for the Supreme Court, but they split with 42 percent saying the nominee will be too liberal and 42 percent saying the nominee will be about right," Brown added.

As baffling as it might seem, some Americans still have faith Obama will make the right choice to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by John Paul Stevens' retirement. This is less baffling, however, when you examine who still has faith in Obama's judgement. Jennifer Rubin sifts through the poll data and finds Obama has all but lost the coalition that elected him:

Obama’s broad-based ideological coalition has fractured. Among liberals, 77 percent approve of his performance (accounting, no doubt, for high approval among Jews and African Americans, who are more liberal than the population as a whole), while 54 percent of moderates and only 38 percent of independents, 10 percent of Tea Partiers, and 11 percent of Republicans approve of his job performance.

Obama has essentially lost the carefully assembled, broad-based majority that elected him. He is now kept from drifting into George W. Bush–like polling by the loyalty of devoted African Americans, Jews, and liberals. It’s not a winning model for re-election, but then he hasn’t governed in a way to maintain a majority of support from Americans.

The good news for Obama, the media  will continue to cheerlead for him.  Instead of focusing on Obama's lost coalition we will see headlines gleaned from polling data that touts confidence in his ability to choose the right nominee compared to Senate Republicans.  CNN writes, "Poll: Majority say Obama will make right choice on nomination." From The Hill, we see "Voters trust Obama over GOP to make right SCOTUS pick." Perhaps Quinnipiac, CNN and The Hill haven't been made aware of the fact but Senate Republicans are not responsible for picking Supreme Court nominees.  I remain dumbfounded why any pollster bothers to survey such questions.

Health care remains decidedly unpopular with 53% disapproving of the legislation while 39% approve.  Perhaps this explains why Obama has stopped talking about health care.  No doubt his cheerleading media will oblige him and drop the issue from their headlines.

New York Times just noticed insurance regulations failing in New York

Via Memeorandum

Now they tell us, The New York Times finally gets around to reporting on the effects of insurance industry regulations in the state of New York that had some unintended consequences we are likely to see with ObamaCare as well:

New York’s insurance system has been a working laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law — insurance even for those who are already sick and facing huge medical bills — and an expensive lesson in unplanned consequences. Premiums for individual and small group policies have risen so high that state officials and patients’ advocates say that New York’s extensive insurance safety net for people like Ms. Welles is falling apart.

The problem stems in part from the state’s high medical costs and in part from its stringent requirements for insurance companies in the individual and small group market. In 1993, motivated by stories of suffering AIDS patients, the state became one of the first to require insurers to extend individual or small group coverage to anyone with pre-existing illnesses.

New York also became one of the few states that require insurers within each region of the state to charge the same rates for the same benefits, regardless of whether people are old or young, male or female, smokers or nonsmokers, high risk or low risk.

Healthy people, in effect, began to subsidize people who needed more health care. The healthier customers soon discovered that the high premiums were not worth it and dropped out of the plans. The pool of insured people shrank to the point where many of them had high health care needs. Without healthier people to spread the risk, their premiums skyrocketed, a phenomenon known in the trade as the “adverse selection death spiral.”

The federal mandate, that some Democrats argue doesn't even exist, is intended to offset the "death spiral." With penalties ranging from $695 for individuals and $2085 for families, there is little incentive to purchase the insurance especially at much higher prices necessary to offset the high risk pool insurers are required to cover.  If most purchase insurance there is a theoretical potential for prices to come down but this has not been shown to be true in Massachusetts.  Let's be honest though, no one made a better case against mandates than the candidate Barack Obama:

Now, under any mandate, you are going to have problems with people who don't end up having health coverage. Massachusetts right now embarked on an experiment where they mandated coverage.

And, by the way, I want to congratulate Governor Schwarzenegger and the speaker and others who have been trying to do this in California, but I know that those who have looked at it understand, you can mandate it, but there's still going to be people who can't afford it. And if they cannot afford it, then the question is, what are you going to do about it? 

Obama looked at mandates and campaigned against them.  Knowing full well mandates create larger problems, Obama orchestrated this massive health care legislation against the will of the American people.  Why?  It doesn't take much to figure out the woman featured in the Times article, April Welles, will be the prototype for the next round of Democratic sob stories offered as proof the only answer to the problem is single payer:

She was lucky to live in New York, one of the first states to require insurance companies to offer comprehensive coverage to all people regardless of pre-existing conditions. But Ms. Welles, 58, also pays dearly: Her premium is $17,876 a year.

“That’s a lot of groceries,” she said.

Is there anyone who can't hear the stump speeches being written almost as soon as ObamaCare starts to fail?   Insurers who would charge Ms. Welles $17,876 for insurance will be held up as villains despite the fact the legislation all but guarantee Ms. Welles' rates would be exorbitant.  Let's be honest, we are not talking about insurance anymore for Ms. Welles.  She would be denied fire insurance if she were purchasing a plan when her house was on fire.  Republicans need to repeal and replace ObamaCare with something that truly deals with costs.  Our country can't afford the promises made under Social Security and Medicare.  It won't be long before the politicians can no longer hide the fact our country is on fire and there are no insurers left to blame.

Justice Breyer Expects Many Cases From a Law of 2400 Pages

Justice Breyer, a liberal-leaning Clinton appointee to the Supreme Court weighs in on the potential for the Supreme Court to weigh in on health care. Both Breyer and Justice Clarence Thomas testified before a Congressional budget hearing yesterday prompting a discussion on what the court looks for in a new member. When questioned on their apparent light case load Breyer anticipated that would change in the near future:

"Now you, I gather, have passed a law with 2,400 pages," he told panel members, referring to the health care bill. "If you had passed a law with 2,400 pages it probably has a lot of words. And I would predict as a test of the theory that three or four years today no one is every going to ask us again why we have so few cases."

Breyer had been asked why the Supreme Court's caselaod had been relatively light in recent years. The 71-year-old justice explained his colleagues usually only accepts cases where lower courts have disagreed over a particular issue, giving the Supreme Court a chance to offer the final word. A Democratic White House and Congress promoting and passing laws may now have a greater chance of being overturned in coming years by federal courts that have a majority of Republican appointees. Six of the nine current justices on the Supreme Court were named by GOP presidents.

In that vein, Breyer offered a humorous "reality check" on court challenges, citing the example used by the renowned French writer Michel de Montaigne in 1584.

"This king, he wrote, was so stupid he thought by writing a lot of laws he was going to reduce the number of lawyers because he's explained everything," said Breyer. "Doesn't the king know every word in a bill is the subject for an argument in court in a decision?"

Well we know one king and a number of his minions knew few if any of the words in a 2400 page law.  The Montaigne quote is the highlight for me though clearly the news is he expects health care to give them quite a bit of business in the next few years.  More on Michel de Montaigne here.  Here is a video clip of the relevant portion of Justice Breyers statement for context.

58% Support Repeal of Health Care - We need to make that happen

Rasmussen has the latest polling on health care showing 58% support repeal, including 50% who strongly support repeal.   Those opposing repeal of the legislation are losing steam with 38% opposing appeal, down from 42% in the previous two weeks.  Despite widespread support for repeal the poll shows little optimism the bill will be repealed:

But only 38% of voters think it is even somewhat likely that the health care bill will be repealed. Fifty-one percent (51%) see repeal as unlikely, Those figures include 11% who say it’s very likely to be repealed and 18% who say repeal is not at all likely.

Still, 52% believe the health care plan will be bad for the country. Thirty-nine percent (39%) think it will be good for the country, and one percent (1%) more say it will have no impact. These numbers have changed little since the March 21 House vote to pass the health care bill.

 So much for health care growing in popularity when people find out what is in it.  I am not surprised people are pessimistic about chances for the bill to be repealed.  Repeal poses many challenges including the necessity for Republicans to regain control of the House, Senate and Presidency as it is highly unlikely this President would sign legislation repealing the bill.  Still I think it is certainly not impossible with the pendulum swinging clearly in the Republican direction.  We also have the court cases which will eventually make their way to the Supreme Court.  Public opinion and a very loud message sent by voters in November may be too loud for the tone-deaf ears in Washington to ignore.  The greatest factor weighing in favor of opposition, in my opinion, is the opposition from the public.  So long as the public stays engaged, a fact that seems to be supported by this poll, we have a fighting chance.
(Note:  Ed Morrissey just posted a great interview with Ted Cruz, former Solicitor General of Texas explaining what the courts can and can't do to repeal ObamaCare.  Ultimately, it is WE THE PEOPLE, who will have the greatest impact on repealing the law.  The interview is very informative, go take a look)

Other polling news, it looks like game over in the Rubio/Crist race for the GOP nomination in Florida.  Ed Morrissey points to the recent debate between the two on Fox News Sunday as the nail in the coffin for Crist.

Not so much a poll but a sign of the times, hand wringing from The New York Times over the potential for a Republican rout a la 1994 looming for Democrats in 2010.  Leave it to the Times to find the ray of hope:

Yet Democrats have many reasons to compare the two elections and find hope. The flip side to what Mr. Gingrich said is that Democrats, remembering 1994, will not be surprised this time. They have aggressively warned incumbents against being overly confident, pressing them to raise money now and begin attacking prospective opponents.

“It is no shock that this is going to be a hard cycle,” said Jon Vogel, the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “People didn’t know that until late 1994; they ended their campaigns with money in the bank.”

The Democrats' war chests are indeed loaded and they will use their vast stores of money to fight losing power.  While this may seem a huge plus for Democrats, it is not one that is too difficult to overcome.  Find a candidate and offer your support.  Monetary donations are a great way to get involved but if money is tight, lend a hand to help with the campaign.  This is not an election we can afford to sit out and wait or others to deliver the results..

Update:  Adrienne at Potluck points out RightKlik has a list of all candidates and the dates of upcoming elections.  There is much to do before November.

Hey Where's My Free ObamaCare?

Via Memeorandum

Remember the enthusiasm in a college audience for health care? There was stunned silence, however, when Obama broke the bad news it wouldn't all be free. Evidently not everyone heard that bit of  bad news or missed it entirely while cheering the fact 26 year olds will be covered under their parents plan.    Perhaps people stopped tuning in after Obama health care speech number 563.  If all else fails as an excuse blame the critics  for confusing this group of poor souls who just want their free health care and they want it now:

"They're saying, 'Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?' " said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com. The California-based company sells coverage from 185 health insurance carriers in 50 states.

McLean said the call center had been inundated by uninsured consumers who were hoping that the overhaul would translate into instant, affordable coverage. That widespread misconception may have originated in part from distorted rhetoric about the legislation bubbling up from the hyper-partisan debate about it in Washington and some media outlets, such as when opponents denounced it as socialism.

"We tell them it's not free, that there are going to be things in place that help people who are low-income, but that ultimately most of that is not going to be taking place until 2014," McLean said.

Not the first time Obama promises translated into free lunch time, nor will it be the last.  Wait till they discover free O-Care actually means No Care.  Allahpundit asks the critical question, however, will they make the connection when suddenly everything costs quite a bit more than it used to while they are savoring their not-so -free  No-Care.  Let's be sure to point that out to anyone who suggests that the only way to get *really* free health care is to travel through that doorway that has already been kicked wide open.

iPad vs oPad

Via That's Right

This is so clever, just as we have come to expect from a Bullet People production. With all the buzz this week focusing on the release of the iPad, this timely video makes a great analogy to government health care by touting the release of the oPad instead. I have used this argument myself in "discussions" with some who believe health care can only be improved with greater government involvement. This was always baffling to me. Can you imagine the government arguing the only way to bring down the cost of HD televisions is for the government to compete with Sony? Of course it might be necessary if Sony were only allowed to sell in Pennsylvania while Panasonic had the sole rights to sales in Tennessee. No one truly believes that markets are improved by government just as we know intuitively a government produced oPad will not be an improvement over the iPad.

Harry Reid: "Now that the legislation has passed, it's amazing how much different people's attitude is"

I think someone needs to investigate whether there has been tampering with the water supply in the Democrats' chambers in Congress. Harry Reid must be suffering from some mass delusional disorder that might best be explained by ingesting hallucinatory substances. Failing that, they have come to believe their own spin. Let's be honest, it is really powerful spin. As a cost saving measure, I have heard they are considering using it as a replacement drug in methadone clinics. I hope they informed the CBO, maybe they can rescore the bill with Democratic hallucinatory spin as a replacement for anaesthesia too.

 In a half hour interview with Greta Van Sustern Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid explains at approximately the 20 minute mark the health care bill is really really popular now. Reid answers Greta's question how did he explain the unpopularity of the bill. Reid blamed a very vocal minority for spreading lies or something. From there he takes a one way trip to fantasy land and doesn't return. People are stopping him to thank him, sending him notes in Church, and even Republicans are acknowledging how great the bill is though might want to make, you know, a minor change or two.

These were not the only excursions to fantasy land in the interview either. I bet you didn't know that Harry Reid's polls in Nevada are actually pretty good. Only one newspaper is trying to make them look grim. Harry needs to clean his glasses, he seems to be missing the news:

According to the new poll, fully 62% of Nevadans think it would be a good thing if most incumbents up for reelection across these United States lost this coming November.

An identical 62% of Nevadans also think it would be a good thing if President Obama's recently signed healthcare legislation was repealed; that figure is slightly higher than the national repeal rate.

Unfortunately for Nevada's five-term, 70-year-old senior Sen. Harry Reid, he is not only an....

... incumbent up for reelection this year, he was one of the top driving forces behind Obama's unpopular healthcare legislation. It appears he's going to need those millions from two Obama fundraisers in-state.

Denial Harry, it ain't just a river in Egypt.





Via Gateway Pundit
For more fear and loathing with Harry Reid, take a look at this shorter segment taken from the longer interview above. Reid tries to make the case that the Cornhusker Kickback was really his secret plan to get the same deal for every state. Greta doesn't seem to be buying that one. Of course, if you have the time to watch the whole trip into Harry Reid's delusional world the entire interview is pretty amazing. It almost feels as though it should come with 3D glasses, it is just that trippy an adventure.

" The fight is our fight, and it begins now! The time is at hand to reclaim America for freedom."

caption - ”The able Doctor, or America Swallowing the Bitter Draught.
Engraving from the London Magazine, May 1, 1774. British Cartoon Collection. Prints and Photographs Division. LC-USZC4-5289.

"This cartoon protested the Intolerable Acts. The British Prime Minister (Lord North) is shown forcing the American colonies in the form of a native woman to drink down the Intolerable Acts (tea). Her arms are restrained by Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, and Lord Sandwich, a notorious libertine, is shown looking up her dress while he holds down her feet. Britannia, in the background, is weeping for her subjects. This was distributed in the American Colonies by Paul Revere."


Students of history no doubt recall the Intolerable Acts came in response to the Boston Tea Party.  It is no wonder Congressman Paul Ryan has declared the health care legislation passed on March 21, 2010, "a new Intolerable Act in a recent speech  to the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs in Oklahoma City.  It's a lengthy speech and I truthfully had a hard time choosing one portion to highlight.  I will include here the ending because I quoted it in the title of this post:

Knowing America, and Oklahoma as I have come to know it, I am confident that the American character is up to every challenge. America is not over. This exceptional nation will not go down the way of mediocrity. Ronald Reagan used to say: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction ... It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for [our children] to do the same." We are that generation. The fight is our fight, and it begins now! The time is at hand to reclaim America for freedom.

This speech was creating quite a buzz on Twitter tonight with good reason.   I highly recommend reading the whole thing.  Personally, I think this man should be President sooner rather than later and I am evidently not alone in that belief.  First things first, though, for now our focus should be on November.  Paul Ryan makes this clear, "It isn't good news when anyone loses his job. But I'll make an exception when the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader lose theirs in November!"  Amen to that, I have had enough of this bitter draught.

Famous Last Words - "It's a jobs bill"

Remember those famous words from the health care summit in February? Nancy Pelosi declared, "it's not a health-care reform bill, it's a jobs bill," which would create 4 million jobs, seriously. It's unclear in what fantasy land in a galaxy far, far away these miraculous jobs will be created. Here in America, however, small business owners are finding there doesn't seem to be much incentive in the plan to add on new employees:

Health Care May be Hazardous to Re-election

Politics Daily  has a fascinating round up of polling analysis broken down by state showing Obama in trouble in a few key states he won in 2008.  I am sure it will come as no surprise that health care has hurt him quite a bit.  Bruce Drake notes:

"In the states polled by Rasmussen where Obama is in negative territory, he often is deep in negative territory because those who "strongly" disapprove range from 40 percent to 50 percent. Sometimes, the "strongly" disapprove nearly matches or does match the percentage of those who approve. The same is true in those states where a majority disapprove of the health care reform plan he advocated."


One key state that stood out was Ohio which is particularly interesting because the state has been crucial to winning the last few elections.  The polling for health care is very bad there and it seems the hope for Democrats in the state may rest on Obama's popularity there:

PPP says 53 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing while 40 percent approve, and 7 percent are undecided.

Independents disapprove by a 63 percent to 32 percent margin, with 6 percent undecided. Fifty-four percent oppose his health care plan while 39 percent support it, with 6 percent undecided. PPP's Dean Debnam, commenting on the Ohio Senate race, observed, ""None of the candidates in Ohio is really standing out right now. But if Barack Obama's numbers in the state remain this low it's not likely to elect a Democratic Senator this year. His popularity could be the deciding factor in this race."

Two numbers stand out, keeping in mind PPP is a left leaning pollster, 63% of Independents disapprove of Obama while only 39% over all support health care.  This doesn't bode well for Obama or Democratic hopefuls in this election.  I am not sure what could increase his popularity other than repealing health care but it appears he has his work cut out for him there.

 Because I am in Pennsylvania I naturally was interested in those results.  Obama won Pennsylvania readily in 2008 but there does appear to be some buyer's remorse setting in.  The latest Rasmussen poll tells the tale:

Rasmussen says 51 percent disapprove of Obama's performance (with 41 percent "strongly" disapproving) while 48 percent approve. Sixty-five percent oppose the health care reform plan he backed (with 57 percent in strong opposition) while 31 percent favored it. Sixty percent say he did a poor job of handling the issue, 9 percent rate it fair, and 30 percent grade it good or excellent.

 Pennsylvanians are really opposed to this health care legislation which seems to have put Obama underwater in a state he won.  The same is true in Florida and we all know how key Florida can be in determining the outcome of elections.  It looks to me Virginia and most of the states that turned blue for the first time in 2008 have recovered from their hope and change hangover.  Of course 2012 is a long way away and much can change in the interim.  Still, it looks as though if the election were held today Obama would join the ranks of the "one-termers," quite readily.

For those interested in polling, be sure to read through Politics Daily state-by-state breakdown.  One thing to note, however, Research 2000 polls are paid for by Daily KOS and seem to me the rosiest of rosy scenarios for Democrats.  Though there are a few there that can't hide the unpopularity of either Obama or his agenda, believe me they seem to be trying in those polls to hide what they can.  Keep that in mind when reading analysis of those polls.  The rest of the polling information is pretty interesting so be sure to take a look.

Sorry Dems,There's no Cure for What Ails You

One week later, the truth of this is more evident.  If you were angry when it passed, "hold that thought" until November.  Congressional approval ratings of 11% are fatal  but it is up to us to keep up the fight until then.

See Cartoons by Cartoon by Gary McCoy - Courtesy of Politicalcartoons.com - Email this Cartoon

Jill, has a round up of a few great posts over at Potluck, be sure to take a look.  

Legislate in Haste, Repent in November

First they forgot to cover pre-existing conditions in children.  Then it was that big promise that children could stay on their parents plan until they were 26 years old.  Businesses are now reporting they will take a beating in new expenses.  Now it seems retirees will as well because the plan raises revenue by eliminating tax break that kept retirees on company prescription-medication plans.  Millions of seniors will be dumped onto Medicare part D plans as a result.    So much for the "you-can-keep-your-current-plan" pledge.  Ed Morrissey finds the bad news buried in in this AP report.   Ed writes:

The Democrats in Congress argued that they would gain $5.4 billion in revenue by eliminating the tax break enacted in the 2003 Medicare Part D program as an incentive for businesses to keep their retirees out of the Medicare system.  Instead, they have given businesses a reason to dump their retirees out of the private networks and into the Part D system now.  Not only will the expected tax revenues never appear, but now we will have to spend a lot more money covering those prescriptions out of public funds.  The seniors in these programs will suffer most of all, as the Part D coverage is vastly inferior to the private plans offered by businesses in the private sector.

Businesses have been warning Democrats about this for months according to the AP report so it's tough to blame the Democrats for not having read this.  It seems more like they didn't want to hear it because they would have to find $5 billion somewhere else to pay for this monstrosity.   The alternative explanation would be they knew this might be a result and didn't care.  Frankly either explanation is credible at this point considering how poorly Democrats have handled this legislation.

Democrats own the health care system at this point and there will be plenty of time between now and November to analyze the fallout of their failure to consider the  real implications of their legislation.  Thus far, their big deal legislation is looking more like a monstrosity and less like a masterstroke.  Good luck with that in November.

Wildly Popular Health Care Law Has Majority Support for Repeal

H/T: Hot Air
Rasmussen's latest poll, conducted two nights after the health care bill was passed, shows a majority supports repeal of the bill:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the first two nights after the president signed the bill, shows that 55% favor repealing the legislation. Forty-two percent (42%) oppose repeal. Those figures include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal and 35% who Strongly Oppose it.

In terms of Election 2010, 52% say they’d vote for a candidate who favors repeal over one who does not. Forty-one percent (41%) would cast their vote for someone who opposes repeal.

Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly favor repeal while most Democrats are opposed. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 59% favor repeal, and 35% are against it.

Most senior citizens (59%) also favor repeal. Earlier, voters over 65 had been more opposed to the health care plan than younger adults. Seniors use the health care system more than anyone else. But 58% of those 18 to 29 also support repeal of the plan which requires all Americans to have health insurance.

This ought to put a crimp in the latest efforts to show Americans are slowly warming up to health care legislation. The big surprise here is the sudden awakening of the 18 to 29 age group. Obama never mentioned the mandate when I saw him address a group of college students in Pennsylvania two weeks ago. He did, however, emphasize they would be able to stay on their parents plan until they were 26, which was greeted with enthusiasm. Too bad they left that part out of the bill. Though that provision is likely to be fixed as it was included in reconciliation, Democrats left out another major promise to cover children with preexisting conditions. Read the bill much Democrats? It seems the answer to that question is a resounding, HELL NO!

Democrats vulnerable in the coming midterm elections must take a moment's pause when they hear the senior citizens who always come out to vote support repeal by 59% as do 59% of independent voters. Jennifer Rubin thinks this puts taking the Senate on the table:

but it’s no longer inconceivable that the Senate could flip, leaving the remaining Democrats (especially those up for re-election in 2012) quaking. Republicans have excellent to good shots at picking up Pennsylvania, Delaware, Colorado, Arkansas, North Dakota, Nevada, and Illinois. Throw in Wisconsin (if former governor Tommy Thompson runs) and California as competitive states, and you see a pathway to a GOP Senate takeover.

Will remaining Democrats who survive the midterms continue to ignore the will of the voters? Perhaps we might find those survivors amenable to overriding a presidential veto to repeal the bill.

More on this at Memeorandum

The Tax Man Cometh

Harvard economist Greg Mankiw looks into his crystal ball and sees the potential for European level tax rates in America's future. Though Mankiw sees some potential merit in aspects of the health care bill, he believes it will add significantly to our long-term fiscal problems. He wonders how long before the President comes clean with the American people that his spending programs require higher taxes:

The Obama administration's political philosophy is more egalitarian and more communitarian than mine. Their spending programs require much higher taxes than we have now and, indeed, much higher taxes than they have had the temerity to propose. Here is the question I have been wondering about: How long can the President wait before he comes clean with the American people and explains how high taxes needs to rise to pay for his vision of government?

I hope Mankiw is not holding his breath waiting for the Obama administration to come clean. He shirked the responsibility when he created the deficit reduction committee.

Charles Krauthammer sees the VAT tax in our future to solve the problem. Ed Morrissey notes this was debated while the bills were being written. Clearly it was scrapped knowing Americans would overwhelmingly reject a bill that was paid for with such a tax. Nevertheless, the day of reckoning is coming and with it higher taxes. Be prepared:

Stuck With Stupak

Here's the perfect accompaniment to my my latest post at our group blog Potluck:

Full story from Major Garrett
More at Memeorandum and Carol's Closet

Paul Ryan - This Thing is a Fiscal Frankenstein

Politico has a nice video of Paul Ryan explaining the gimmicks used to game the CBO score. There is not much new offered but I thought this worth a post regardless. I have been involved in a ridiculous facebook debate where I am being informed how this fiscal train wreck is really going to save money. Some appear to be buying hook,line and sinker into some of the media regurgitations of Democratic talking points. I am not sure there is much that can change minds of those who really want to believe this is the miracle the administration paints it to be. Nevertheless, the more people are armed with the facts when confronted with these arguments the better. I have to admit I have a tough time passing up the opportunity to post a good Paul Ryan video.

This was just too good to pass up and there are more in the series posted at Politico if you would like to see the entire in-depth interview or selected parts. I highly recommend the video where Ryan explains the coming debt tsunami if you have the time.