Election 2016: Jeb Bush: I’m ‘thinking about’ 2016 run
**Posted by Phineas
The law of unintended consequences (1) strikes again. First widows; are orphans next?
(Transcript via The Weekly Standard)
“More than two dozen widows who were married to retired Madison county employees, lost their health insurance coverage earlier this year. And now one commissioner says it’s time to give it back to them. The change was sparked by the new federal health care law, but whether or not coverage can actually be restored really isn’t clear,” said the anchor.
Says the reporter, “Madison county commissioner Roger Jones says no one realized just how much the new federal health care law would change things, especially for the spouses of some of his former employees.”
“A lot of these people are on fixed incomes, low fixed incomes. Some of them are living on Social Security and very little else and health insurance is very important to them,” says the county commissioner.
Essentially, the county had self-insured and provided coverage to the widows of its former employees. It’s a nice benefit, something I gather isn’t all that common.
But things changed when our glorious new healthcare act became law and we started to find out what was in it: Madison county discovered that, thanks to all the new requirements, it would cost them an extra $25,000,000 to cover the widows. They didn’t have the money, so guess who lost their insurance?
Apologists might argue that the county or state could raise taxes and fees to cover the expenses, or, even if they couldn’t, the widows still have Medicare and Medicaid (Oh, joy.) available, thanks to the ACA. So it’s not really a problem, right? Just a few bugs to work out.
But that’s not the point. These people had an insurance plan that met their needs, and the county was honoring its promise to its employees. There was no good reason for government to come in like a bull in a china shop and wreck those arrangements. Now, thanks to Barack Obama and the Democratic Party (2), you literally have widows on fixed incomes left without health insurance. And who knows how many places in America this story or ones similar to it are playing out?
This thing is an anti-constitutional monstrosity and it has got to go.
RELATED: More from Hot Air on the difficulties of restoring coverage to these people.
(1) Also known as: “Things that inevitably happen when a bunch of arrogant fools think they can control by bureaucratic ukase a complex, varied economy composed of millions of individuals with highly varied needs.”
(2) Remember, kids, not a single Republican voted for this mess, and we’ve been warning it would be a train wreck from Day One.
(Crossposted at Public Secrets)
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) April 17, 2014
Now, I know y’all will be able to do wonders with giving this “selfie” the caption it deserves, but remember to keep it clean, please. Twitchy.com has some good ones that were tweeted out last night.
I’m guessing the two weren’t actually riding together in the same car when this photo was taken, as the Secret Service understandably dictates the President and VP can’t travel in the same vehicle for security purposes. But, I can safely assume that this has everything to do with the “guy’s trip” The Hill reported yesterday that President Obama and the Veep went on in an attempt at trying to pivot the national discussion back to the economy:
President Obama and Vice President Biden took what the president dubbed “a guy’s trip” to western Pennsylvania on Wednesday, as the White House looked to refocus attention on the president’s economic agenda.
During a stop at a local community college, Obama announced $600 million in government training initiatives designed to help workers find jobs.
That includes $500 million to help community colleges tailor their curriculums to better fit employers’ needs, and $100 million in grants to fund apprenticeship programs.
“We want a seamless progression from community college programs to industry-recognized credentials and credit towards a college degree,” Obama said.
The president looked to draw a contrast with “some folks” in Washington who have stymied his economic agenda, with his budget proposals and stimulus plans earning little momentum on Capitol Hill. But despite a series of events focusing on his economic messaging, the White House has so far failed to gain traction on his policy proposals.
Obama acknowledged he and Biden “sometimes sound like a broken record” as they discuss their economic proposals.
But, the president argued, it was “more urgent now than ever that we push forward” because of how the job market was changing.
Before speaking, Obama and Biden met with students at the community college who showed off their work in a “mechatronics” course where they learn how to operate mechanical systems through electronics. Two students showed Obama and Biden a motor control system that simulated a garage door opener.
“We’re lawyers, we barely understand garage door openers,” Obama quipped.
Or, how to fix the economy, for that matter …
In late February, the City University of New York announced that it had tapped Princeton economist and New York Times blogger Paul Krugman for a distinguished professorship at CUNY’s Graduate Center and its Luxembourg Income Study Center, a research arm devoted to studying income patterns and their effect on inequality.
About that. According to a formal offer letter obtained under New York’s Freedom of Information Law, CUNY intends to pay Krugman $225,000, or $25,000 per month (over two semesters), to “play a modest role in our public events” and “contribute to the build-up” of a new “inequality initiative.” It is not clear, and neither CUNY nor Krugman was able to explain, what “contribute to the build-up” entails.
It’s certainly not teaching. “You will not be expected to teach or supervise students,” the letter informs Professor Krugman, who replies: “I admit that I had to read it several times to be clear … it’s remarkably generous.” (After his first year, Krugman will be required to host a single seminar.)
Sooo, basically the esteemed Krugman will get paid $225,000 a year to do … nothing. In fact, it sounds like this “position” will benefit Paul Krugman a hell of a lot more than those whose incomes he supposedly wants to make “more equal.” Sound familiar?
**Posted by Phineas
Here’s a thought experiment for you: Imagine a university that, through sheer chance, wound up with a mostly Black or Asian student body. Concerned faculty meet, their brows furrowed gravely. What can be done to fix this problem?
And then, a solution! Solicit advice from students and alumni on how the university can make itself “more White.”
And now imagine the national furor that would erupt.
That’s what should happen to Western Washington University in Bellingham, which is worried that it is too White:
Western Washington University sent a questionnaire to students asking them for advice on how the administration could succeed at making sure that in future years, “we are not as white as we are today.”
The question notes that WWU’s racial make up does not perfectly reflect the nation at large, and asks students to consider strategies that other universities have used to focus on skin color as the paramount indicator of a student-applicant’s worth.
The president of WWU has stated that his explicit goal is to reduce the white population on campus, according to Campus Reform.
“I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, that we as a faculty and staff and student body, as an administration, if we 10 years from now are as white as we are today, we will have failed as a university,” said Bruce Shepard, president of WWU, in a 2012 address.
Maybe I’m just a parochial, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, supremacist White guy from a middle-class, suburban background, and so I’m too reactionary and by definition racist to comprehend the enlightened attitudes of our academic betters. Evidently I’m too stupid to see that nothing is more important than skin color. And I’m just crazy enough to still take seriously something once said by another noted reactionary:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
WWU President Bruce Shepard probably would like to tell Dr. King he had it backwards: he should have wanted his children judged not for the content of their character, for then they could have earned admittance to Western Washington University based solely on the color of their skin.
This is progressive racialist nonsense laid bare. Instead of looking for real diversity, such as an intellectual diversity ranging from Right to Left and a cultural diversity not inextricably tied to skin tone, the academic Left divides society into group identities, to which everyone is assigned regardless of individual belief (1). You can bet WWU’s struggle to be less White is informed by Critical Race Theory and is meant to battle the Leftist scapegoats, structural racism and White privilege.
The only factors that should ever be considered in admissions decisions are academic performance and, if you want to give aid, economic need. One of the few things California has done right in recent years is to ban “affirmative action” in college admissions, though that battle is never truly over.
If I were a student a WWU, I’d transfer. I wouldn’t want to be associated with such a race-obsessed institution. If I were a donor, I’d cancel my donation. And if I were a citizen of Washington, I’d demand to know why the state legislature is funding an institution that not only discriminates based on race, in contradiction to everything this nation is supposed to stand for, but asks for advice on how to do it better!
This is just bunk. (3)
(1) An example I came across years ago: a man of Black African ancestry, born in Francophone Africa but raised in France, identifies wholly with France — French culture, French history, the French language. His heart stirs when he sings La Marsellaise (2) or sees La Tricolore. Now, is he “French,” or (in American racial-cultural terms) “Black?” The gentleman himself would tell you he is French, and proudly so. The racialist, on the other hand, sees only the melanin in his skin. The rest just makes him a self-hating victim of “cultural imperialism.”
(2) Whatever else I might say about France, they do have the best national anthem on the planet.
(3) I’m sure you know what word I really meant. But, this is a family show.
(Crossposted at Public Secrets)
I love it!
— Josh Romney (@joshromney) April 15, 2014
Now THAT is how it’s done, y’all.
The Hill’s Gossip Blog reports that Chelsea Clinton is no longer ruling out a potential run for political office:
Chelsea Clinton says when people ask her these days whether she wants to go into politics, her answer isn’t an automatic “no.”
The 34-year-old former first daughter told Fast Company in an interview published Monday, “for so long the answer was just a visceral no. Not because I had made any conscientious, deliberate decision, but since people had been asking for as long as literally I could remember, it was no.”
Now, the only child of former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explains, “I live in a city and a state and a country where I support my elected representatives. If at some point that weren’t the case, and I didn’t support my mayor or my city councilwoman or my congresswoman or either of my senators — and I’m lucky to live in a state where I have lots of women representing me, you know — maybe then I’d have to ask and answer the question for myself, and come to a different answer.”
I have nothing against Chelsea Clinton personally, and from what I’ve seen she’s conducted herself over the last several years with class, dignity and grace, but if her politics are anything like her parents’, and I strongly suspect they are, then she’ll just be another Clinton for conservatives to oppose on down the road. Question is – will the American people experience Clinton fatigue in the future much as they seem to have Bush fatigue? As they say, stay tuned.
The “War On Women” theme was a key component of Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign. And since politicians tend to repeat what works, the Democrats are pushing the same theme again for 2014 — and, no doubt, as preparation for a Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 where all opposition will be treated as evidence of sexism. But have they taken it too far? Just maybe.
“The level of hyperbole — actually, of demagoguery — that Democrats have engaged in here is revolting. It’s entirely understandable, of course: The Senate is up for grabs. Women account for a majority of voters. They tend to favor Democrats. To the extent that women — and in particular, single women — can be motivated to turn out in a midterm election, waving the bloody shirt of unequal pay is smart politics. Fairness is another matter. Since President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, it has been illegal for employers to pay women less than men for the same work.”
The problem is that comparing what all men and all women earn is deceptive. Men tend to choose more jobs that require long hours, or that are dangerous — hence the much higher rate of vocational death among men than women — but that also pay more. Women tend to prefer jobs that offer flexible or shorter hours, and clean indoor conditions.
Then it turned out that the Obama White House itself pays women workers less than men. White House Press Secretary Carney didn’t mention his wife’s choices, but did argue that the number was misleading because women held different jobs. Well, yes. Federal law says you have to pay people the same for the same work; it doesn’t say you have to pay secretaries the same as press secretaries. This is true both in the White House, and in the private businesses that the White House was attacking.
Make sure to read the whole thing, especially if you want to learn more about other Democrats who don’t practice what they preach when it comes to their standard and definition of “equal pay” … including NC’s own Senator Kay Hagan.
Reviving the “war on women” meme is just another desperate election year tactic (like playing the race card) for Democrats who want to maintain control of the Senate and win more seats in the US House, as Reynolds notes above. But at least in the case of the phony equal pay argument, even many of the left’s reliable media outlets aren’t on board with it, so it looks like – at least in this case – the Democrats have engaged in a spectacular fail.