Tag Archives: political economy

Disruption

Posted on by
Reply

And the widening gyre may be dissipating, finally.

Recall that a Federal judge in the 5th Appellate district ruled rump Obamacare unconstitutional because the tax imposed on not having health insurance was rescinded and the law had no severability clause—making the law itself an unconstitutional demand that private citizens buy something they did not want.

An outcome of this is feared by the NLMSM and Progressive-Democrats to be

particular disruption within the industry as no replacement system would be put in place.

It’s certainly true that there will be disruption—but no greater than the disruption from the imposition of Obamacare in the first place, which entailed the Federal government seizing control of the health care provision and health care coverage industries—a full sixth of our economy—and throwing millions of Americans off the health insurance plans they had and wanted to keep by making those plans illegal.

The disruption will be considerably less than the current plans of Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidates, whose aim is to make illegal all hints of private health insurance and to seize the rest of those two industries through “Medicare for all” plans, forcing Americans to participate in—and to pay for—yet more programs that they don’t want.

Indeed, both Obamacare and the current Progressive-Democrats’ plans have nothing to do with insurance, health or otherwise; they were and are nothing but Government mandated and privately funded—lately proposed taxpayer funded—welfare programs overlain like a new room on a settler’s prairie house on the existing ramshackle house of welfare programs.

The disruption will be short-lived, too.  The “no replacement system put in place” is only technically true: the Federal government isn’t mandating a particular system (whether by design or by Republican fecklessness).  The resulting newly unfettered health free market will very quickly fill that niche.  The freed-up industries will rapidly produce plans that fit the customers’ needs and wants for their personal health care and true health insurance plans.

The new insurance plans will be based off the plans extant prior to the Obamacare debacle, and then they’ll be tailored to current customer wishes rather than Government one-size-fits-all coverages.  No longer will Americans be required to pay for coverages they don’t need or don’t want, no longer will young and healthy Americans who don’t need or want coverage be required to pay for any sort of it, no longer will grown, adult human beings be treated like children barred from making their own risk-related decisions concerning their own health and the specific insurance coverages they want.

Explorations

Posted on by
1

Illinois is verging on bankruptcy, and Progressive-Democratic Governor JB Pritzker and his henchmen running this Progressive-Democrat-run State want a State constitutional amendment to raise taxes preferentially on the rich—a progressive tax.

Illinois faces a $3.2 billion budget deficit next fiscal year, unfunded pension liabilities estimated from $133 billion to $250 billion, and the worst credit rating of any US state. It has roughly $8 billion in bills outstanding.

They insist that the good citizens of Illinois—and especially the not-so-good rich ones—should pay for this failure to perform, rather than that failure be made good through reallocation of currently collected revenues.  The technical term for that is “spending cuts.”

Here’s Deputy Governor Dan Hynes (D):

You have wide acceptance that Illinois needs new revenue.  If the voters disagree with us in 2020, then we’ll have to explore other revenues.

The first statement is a dubious claim, at best.  The second shows how economically illiterate is Hynes and his Progressive-Democratic Party. He—and they—can’t even conceive of the other side of that coin: that what Illinois needs is less spending.  That what they should be exploring is spending cuts.

Cowards

Posted on by
Reply

The Senate voted on the Green New Deal, but the proposal, first offered in the House (and yet to be voted on there), failed a cloture vote to let it come to the floor for discussion, debate, and subsequent vote up or down.

The Senate on Tuesday failed to advance the Green New Deal, the ambitious plan to combat climate change proposed by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, after what Democrats said was a politically-motivated show vote.
The measure, which needed 60 votes to clear a procedural hurdle, failed in a 0-57 vote, with 43 Democrats voting present.

Those 43 Progressive-Democrat Senators without the courage to vote their convictions included Senator Ed Markey (D, MA), the proposal’s Senate cosponsor, along with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY) in the House.  Apparently, the Senate cosponsor isn’t serious about his own proposal.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) demonstrated the fundamental failure of the Progressive-Democratic Party with this rationalization:

[W]e are finally talking about the issue, and that is great….

Well, no, the Senate is not finally talking about the issue; 43 Progressive-Democrat Senators hid under their desks during the vote and called “Present,” deliberately blocking the Senate’s opportunity to talk about the issue.

Senators Joe Manchin (D, WV), Doug Jones (D, AL), Kyrsten Sinema (D, AZ), and Angus King (I, ME) were the only Progressive-Democrats with the moral courage to vote for cloture, to vote to allow the Green New Deal to be talked about on the floor of the Senate, in full view of Senators’ constituents.

Running Away

Posted on by
Reply

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY) is terrified of the upcoming Senate vote on her New Green Deal proposal that she has laid before the House.  She has her fear on display in this tweet of hers:

The GOP’s whole game of wasting votes in Congress to target others “on the record”, for leg [legislation] they have no intent to pass, is a disgrace.  Stop wasting the American peoples’ time + learn to govern. Our jobs aren’t for campaigning, & that’s exactly what these bluff-votes are for.

Apparently, Progressive-Democrats’ jobs aren’t for actually voting on the proposals they make.  It seems that Progressive-Democrat proposals aren’t actually serious policy ideas; they’re just virtue signaling.

There’s this, too, from some number of Progressive-Democratic Senators:

Some Democrats said they plan to vote “present” on the resolution to signal their opposition to what they call a “sham” vote….

These guys, if they follow through with just kicking back with their feet up on their Senate desks, will be doing more than just cowering away from being on the record in the man-caused climate debate. They’ll be betraying their constituents who hired them and sent them to the Senate to do more substantive things than just being…present.

Is that why, maybe, that Progressive-Democrat are so terrified of folks actually going on the record on Ocasio-Cortez’ “climate” proposal? Is that why, maybe, that climatistas, including other Progressive-Democrats, are so terrified of differing opinions on the state and trend of our climate—terrified to the extent that they’re trying to make disagreeing with them on climate a crime?

Because they might be found to be who they really are?

Time for a Clean Break

Posted on by
Reply

No more bad faith pseudo-negotiations by Brussels.  No more dithering and bad-skilled pseudo-negotiations by Theresa May.

The UK asked the European Union to delay its departure from the bloc until June 30, an extension that if approved would give Prime Minister Theresa May just weeks to break an impasse in Parliament over her withdrawal deal.

It’s not just an internal impasse between the PM and Parliament. It’s also and more importantly an impasse between Great Britain and Brussels.

Cut the cord.  The other 27 nations of the EU, or at least that one of them with sense and integrity, should reject the request for more time.  It’s time that only will be wasted by both sides, each for its own reasons.

Update: The EU, lacking even that single nation of the 27, has voted to grant Great Britain’s request for more time before leaving. In fact, the EU offered a couple of options for more time.

  • Option 1: If the UK parliament votes for the withdrawal agreement next week, it can delay exiting until May 22 to ratify the text.
  • Option 2: If it does not approve the deal, the EU will offer a shorter extension until April 12.
  • If it rejects the deal and takes the shorter extension, it can then decide whether to seek a much longer delay and vote in the European elections or leave on April 12 without a deal.

The withdrawal agreement the Parliament is expected to vote on is the same one it’s rejected twice before.  The EU isn’t serious about that thing being accepted on the third try.

This is a sham offer, designed only to drag things out; Brussels is continuing to deal in bad faith. The continent has, perhaps, one or both of two motives for this disingenuousity.  It’s still looking to make an example of Great Britain as a warning to other member nations that might be thinking of leaving.  It’s looking to dismember Great Britain by taking Northern Ireland out of the nation with its demand of an open, unguarded border between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland.

If the Brits have any sense at all left (an increasing question), they’ll reject the deal and go out from the EU on schedule, on 29 March, and with no deal at all.  No amount of time is going to get them a better deal, incessant delay will only give the Remainers on both side of the Channel time to find a way to keep Great Britain trapped in the EU cage.