Go On Pretending

Whether
With the end of open enrollment, the administration must now turn its attention to a handful of practical questions that may have as much impact on the law’s success as the number of people who sign up. These include whether consumers continue to pay their share of monthly premiums, whether they have access to the doctors and hospitals they need and whether insurance companies will be required to raise premiums. (New York Times, 4/2/2014)

We already know the answers to these questions. No, no, yes. 


No Buts
But Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, said she did not think the health care law would be the decisive issue in this year’s midterm elections, regardless of the intensity of the attacks leveled by Republicans.

“I never said that we would run on it,” Ms. Pelosi said in an interview. “That wasn’t why we passed it. But we are not running away from it.” In the end, she said, “elections are always about jobs and the economy.” (New York Times, 4/2/2014)

And how is that working out for Dems, Nance? The jobs and economy thing?


Saving Paul Ryan
Mr. Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman and a possible White House contender in 2016, laid out a budget plan that cuts $5 trillion in spending over the next decade. He said it would bring federal spending and taxes into balance by 2024, through steep cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, and the total repeal of the Affordable Care Act just as millions are reaping the benefits of the law.
....
“This is what elections are about,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee. “Budgets are the clearest roadmaps for discovering what people’s priorities are.”
....
Because Senate Democrats do not intend to even draft a budget this year, the Ryan plan will serve more as a political manifesto than a legislative roadmap for the 113th Congress. (New York Times, 4/2/2014)

First of all, Paul Ryan is brilliant. Think of his intellect in the VEEP chair versus the bozo we have and weep that America did not elect Mitt Romney. Second, Ryan is courageous in spelling out his budget in minute detail. In doing so, he opens himself up to Democrat nitpicking over every line item which they then turn around and campaign on. Sample Democrat party news release: Ryan budget would kill the poor! 

And the most dishonest thing about Dems? They don't even have the guts to propose a budget as the Times generously points out.


Euphoria
Suddenly ObamaCare is a roaring success, happy days are here again and liberals are euphoric, or claim to be. There are more than a few reasons to doubt this new fairy tale, not least the behavior of Senate Democrats running for re-election this year.

In the Rose Garden Tuesday, President Obama reported that 7.1 million people had signed up so far, confirming a Monday night White House news leak. "That doesn't mean all our health-care problems have been solved forever," he conceded with customary modesty. The government appears to have tapped heretofore-unknown reserves of bureaucratic efficiency by releasing numbers timed to this campaign-style pep rally. (Wall Street Journal, 4/1/2014)

So just to be clear, 45 million people did not have health insurance. That is what the Dems told us was a major reason why America needed Obamacare. Now 7.1 million have signed up. Therefore, the percentage of people in the U.S. without health insurance went from 15% to 12.7%. And Dems score Obamacare as a raging success. Only remember that the 7.1% includes many who had health insurance before, but had to sign up because Obamacare resulted in the cancellation of their policies. Let's say, conservatively, that enrollees who were previously insured total 2 million. Obamacare then moved the uninsured percentage from 15% to 13.3%. Victory!

Of course, don't forget that 80% are getting government subsidies... 


Run-In
Today, we are going to discuss the Supreme Court decision on political donations. Already, we have run into a terrible problem, which is the difficulty in having a fun conversation about campaign finance laws. (Gail Collins, New York Times, 4/3/2014)

Typically dishonest op-ed piece by a New York Times Liberal. Collins decries the Supreme Court ruling on campaign donations while mentioning the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson. Geez, Ms. Collins, are there any billionaires who give lots of money to Democrat candidates? Maybe you could Google it...