Boy, Did We Sell You a Bargain!!

As Rome burns around them, the Obama Administration is still playing the same song on their fiddles.  The lone tweet on White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and President Obama's Twitter accounts were reminders that repealing the Affordable Care Act would cost 25-million people "access to affordable health care".  In addition to ignoring concerns about Benghazi, the IRS/Tea Party controversy and seizing reporters personal phone records, the Administration decided to also pay no attention to a new Congressional Budget Office report that finds ObamaCare will cost twice what we were all promised.

You may recall, the President told Congress and the American people that the "first decade" of the affordable care act would carry a 985-billion dollar price tag.  The CBO, however, finds that the costs will actually be $1.8-TRILLION.  How could the White House have been off by so much?  The answer is one that is common in Washington--they just used very "creative" accounting.

The price tag first floated by the President totaled the cost of ObamaCare from the day it was approved in 2011--leaving out the fact that there would be no actual expenditures (and few benefits) until 2014!  With three years of ZERO dollars figured into the "costs" of the program, it was obviously going to appear much cheaper than it actually would be.  Why so few media outlets chose to ask questions about this at the time remains a mystery.

Now, the CBO is calculating the real costs of the ACA's "first decade" from the day the Federal government  actually starts spending money.  What is scary is that adding those three years to the computation DOUBLES the cost of the program.  And the CBO report doesn't include the higher than expected start-up expenses taken on by Washington--as Republican Governors refuse to take on the costs of setting up the health insurance exchanges that are the key to making ObamaCare work.

I've got to give the President credit, it takes some real cajones to sell somebody something at twice the price they thought they were paying and then to keep reminding them what a "great deal" they got.

How To Speak Obama-ese

I've come up with a new way to handle questions that are uncomfortable or that I don't want to answer anymore--I am going to respond like a member of the Obama Administration.

I came up with this idea after noticing the Administrations pattern of answering its critics with denial of accountability, and then attempts to basically shout down the questioner until they give up asking for anwers.  Take for example former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton trying to bully Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin:

So the next time I blow off cutting the lawn to go golfing--and tell my wife that I was actually working late--but she finds out, the conversation will go something like this:

WIFE--You went golfing yesterday?  I thought you said you were at work all afternoon and that's why you didn't cut the grass.

ME--THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THE GRASS IS NOT CUT.  WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE NOW IF I WAS GOLFING OR WORKING?

And then you have the President himself discussing his "surprise" and "outrage" that the IRS was putting the screws to his political opponents:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/15/18279340-obama-calls-irs-flap-inexcusable-announces-resignation-of-acting-irs-chief?lite

So the next time I come home from umpiring and just leave my sweaty clothes in the middle of the floor in the bedroom, the conversation will go something like this:

WIFE--Is there a reason that all of your umpiring clothes are on the floor in the bedroom?

ME--I HAD NO IDEA THERE WERE CLOTHES ON THE FLOOR UNTIL YOU TOLD ME.  I AM OUTRAGED BY THIS CONDUCT AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THERE WILL BE A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION INTO THIS MATTER AND THAT IF THERE IS ANY WRONGDOING UNCOVERED, THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!

And then Attorney General Eric Holder completes the triple play of obfuscation by belittling Senator Darrel Issa during testimony on the failure to release Justice Department emails yesterday:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/15/18279019-holder-scolds-issa-for-shameful-demeanor?lite

So the next time I fail to get something that I am required by policy to do at work--I'm going to put my boss in his place:

BOSS--Hey Jonathan, you never sent me the latest ratings report.

ME--THAT IS SO CONSISTENT WITH THE WAY YOU CONDUCT YOURSELF AS A MEMBER OF THE RADIO INDUSTRY. IT IS UNACCEPTABLE AND SHAMEFUL THAT YOU EVEN INSINUATE THAT I AM NOT DOING MY JOB.

I think I'm going to enjoy being an unaccountable bully from now on.

Just 3 & 1/2 Years of This To Go

Summers in Washington DC are long and hot.  The way things are going for President Obama, this summer is shaping up to be a Faustian journey to a new level of Hell.  The White House is currently fighting off three scandals that according to Oshkosh native Jim Vandehei at Politico.com, are leaving the President with no friends in Washington.

First you have the battle over who was trying to "control the narrative" when it came to the Benghazi attack.  Everybody knows that President Obama is a militant Islamic apologist who truly believes that the people who want to--and try to--kill us and our allies have a legitimate beef with Western governments and that we should be making concessions in our belief structures and cultural mores to accommodate them.  Do we really need a dozen Congressional committees to investigate that?  Not really.  We all know the real target of Benghazi is Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton--whom Republicans want to grind into the dirt because she is the early frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic Presidential nomination.  (Since Obama was the one who made the deal to guarantee Clinton a high-profile place in his administration in exchange for her and Bill's support in 2008, I guess he should still take some of the blame in this as well.)

Then you have the IRS/Tea Party scandal.  The President has put up his usual "I knew nothing about this and I am outraged that it was happening, and the few 'rogue' people responsible will be held accountable" defense.  While Congress will hold dozens of hearings on this one as well--with similar "outrage" from other Democrats as well--no heads will roll at the White House over this, because heads never roll at the White House over anything. 

And then we have the Justice Department tapping the Associated Press phone records.  I'll spare you the phony outrage as a journalist who "feels violated that my government is spying on me" because what Eric Holder's crew was doing was likely completely legal.  Remember the Patriot Act and how we just had to give the Federal Government so much more power to perform surveillance on us to "protect us"?  Well, this scandal is simply chickens coming home to roost.  However, in targeting the media for scrutiny, the Obama Administration has chosen the absolute worst enemy it can have for the rest of his time in Washington--because he is about to lose the gentle filter that enjoyed from the friendly press room in his first term.

As I mentioned before the November elections, second Presidential terms are inevitably worse than the first terms--both for the politician and the country as a whole.  And when you consider the lack of success this Administration enjoyed in it's first four years--and the start to this second term--this summer won't be the only intolerable period for President Obama.

How I Almost Missed the Greatest Comeback in Hockey History

So there I was last night, sitting on the couch angry and petulant as my beloved Boston Bruins had just given up a terrible 2-on-1 goal to Toronto to fall behind the Maple Leafs 4-1 with 14-and-a-half minutes left to play in the 3rd period of a decisive Game 7 in their opening round series.  I was ready to give up on the game (no team has ever come back from a 3-goal deficit in the 3rd period of a Game 7 to win)--and told my wife that she could turn the TV to whatever she wanted, because I was going to finish my "Lucky 3rd Period Rally Beer", take a shower and go to bed.

But for some reason, she kept the game on while I posted angry tweets about how lazy Milan Lucic is, what a puck hog Jaromir Jagr is, and how Head Coach Claude Julien needs to be fired if he can't get a team ready to play in a Game 7 on home ice.  Andt then Nathan Horton scored a goal for the B's with about 10-minutes to play to make it 4-2.  My first thought was that Boston would either give up another stupid goal to put the game out of reach again--or they would get a useless goal with about 10-seconds left to lose by one instead of two.  But my wife talked me into staying a little bit longer--pointing out how the B's were dominating the play.

After a few more chances to pull closer were denied by missed shots or great saves by the Leafs' goalie, my faith waned again--and as the Bruins pulled their goalie with a minute and a half left for the extra attacker, I could not imagine them still getting two goals to tie the game.  But then Zdeno Chara scored on a redirect with a 1:22 left to play--and all of a sudden its a one-goal game and Boston Garden (or at least the fans who didn't leave at 4-1) was rocking.

And then less than 30 second later the Bruins score AGAIN--with Patrice Bergeron getting another goal and suddenly the GAME IS TIED--and I am a crazy man in the living room--jumping around, screaming and pounding the floor.  Then the Bruins just miss getting ANOTHER GOAL with 8-seconds left as the puck jumped over the stick of Rich Peverly right in front of an open goal--and the regulation ends in a tie. 

As I took a hurried shower during the intermission, this feeling of dread came over me.  "They've lured me back in with the miracle rally--but now they will break my heart by losing it on a soft goal in overtime."  I reluctantly cracked open a "Lucky Overtime Beer" and settled in for the crushing defeat.  And there were some scary moments--but a rebound put-back by Bergeron again five minutes into OT made everything right with the world again.

And to think, I would have missed this little slice of unadulterated joy if my wife hadn't convinced me to keep the faith.  Thanks, Michele!!

What We Can Learn From Toddlers

Having spent the weekend with a two year old and a one year old child, I've come to realize that maybe we Fiscal Conservatives are going about our opposition to the Affordable Care Act the wrong way.  Like toddlers, Liberals want what they currently do not have--even though they already have more than any child their age had in past.  And the more you tell them they can't have what they want, the more desirous they become of that object.  And just like a two year old, when The Left finally gets what they so badly desired for so long, the novelty of it quickly wears off and they give up the item (usually slightly damaged) and move on to a new object that they are told they cannot have.  It is only when the threat of having that first item taken away from them again that they get all concerned about it--even if they haven't even looked at it in months.

We are already seeing that loss of interest in the reaction to the Obama Administration's lack of progress on setting up the infrastructure to handle the ACA.  There should be protests in front of the Health and Human Services building every day demanding more work on setting up health insurance exchanges--you know, the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE IN MAKING OBAMACARE "WORK".  And what is needed to help small businesses decide if they are going to offer coverage to employees--or just cut them loose and pay the "non-coverage" fee--I mean tax.  Instead, Liberals have already moved on to their next crusade--I believe it is gay marriage.  Their interest won't return to health care coverage until there is a serious effort made to repeal the ACA--and then it will be important to them all over again.

And Americans as a whole are bit like little kids as well.  We tire of our toys--especially those that are "guaranteed rights".  We as a nation have gone to war a few times to protect the rights bestowed upon us by the Constitution.  But when it comes to actually exercising those rights, we fall a little bit short.  The First Amendment guarantees us the right to practice whatever religion we want--but only 80% of Americans belong to a church--and a smaller percentage actually go on a regular basis.  The First Amendment also guarantees us the right to redress our Government, but every year just a handful of people turn out for budget hearings at all levels of government.  The Second Amendment guarantees the right to own a gun--but only 32% of households actually have one (legally).  And the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments guarantee all of us the right to vote for our leaders--yet the average turnout for all elections (not just the Presidential ones) is about one-hird of eligible voters.  What's more, in each of those cases, the percentages have been steadily declining over the years.

So if the Liberals were correct in calling "Affordable Health Care" a "right", Americans will show continuously less and less interest in exercising their "right" to it.  That would mean ObamaCare will result in fewer people going to the doctor and seeking expensive procedures and medicines as time goes on--primarily because you still can't fix laziness and bad habits through legislation--but also because no one would be telling them they can't anymore.

The REALLY Hidden Costs of ObamaCare

The state of California has come up with a novel way to ease concerns about the cost of administering the Affordable Care Act--they aren't going to let anyone know how much is being spent on the program.  The Associated Press reported this week that the amount the state is paying for Covered California will not be subject to open records laws.  As noted in the article, this means hundreds of millions of dollars a year will shielded from public review--and nobody will really be able to tell if the Affordable Care Act is actually making care "affordable".

Supporters of the coverup claim it is necessary to ensure fairness in the bid process for contracts with private companies.  If other firms knew how much the state was paying for Service X, someone could come in with a lowball offer the next time around and "steal" the contract. (Which when you think about it, would save taxpayers money--but the ACA isn't about saving money it's about building a larger Democratic voter base--I mean ensuring everyone gets access to quality health care!!).  Yet, similar bidding processes for things like road construction, public employee health insurance and lottery administration are all subject to open records laws--how is running a health care exchange any different?

What few details have been fleshed out in the report show the extent of "non-medical" expenses the exchanges will generate.  My favorite is $19-million for "marketing".  One would think that if people are so desperate for health insurance coverage that you wouldn't need to run a lot of ads telling them it's available.  Instead, they would be actively looking for any available program on an almost daily basis.

What's most disappointing is that this secrecy measure was included in the original bill creating California's exchange program back in 2010!  Where were the reporters uncovering this coverup back then?  They were probably too excited to tell the stories of how "life changing" the Affordable Care Act was going to be for the millions that won't be footing the bill.  Or maybe, it was just another of those things that we had to "pass the bill to find out what's in it".

Fortunately, we here in Wisconsin won't have to worry about state government trying to cover up the costs of administering ObamaCare.  Governor Walker has told the Federal Government that it can handle all of that exchange work--meaning people in California can help pick up some of that cost as well.  At least they will be able to see how that money is being spent in Washington--since they won't be able to at home.

What Does It Take To Get A Guy Un-Elected Around Here?

I ask that question following yesterday's victory by former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford in a special election for a seat in the House of Representatives.  Sanford is a former governor because he lied about hiking the Appalachian Trail a few years ago and was actually in Argentina to be with his mistress for five days.  Sanford resigned "in disgrace"--only to resurface about four years later to not only win the Republican primary, but to also beat Stephen Colbert's sister in the general election.  The pundits are calling it an "amazing political comeback".  I'm wondering what the hell is the matter with the voters in that district?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  We Americans have a history of holding our elected representatives to the lowest standards.  Ted Kennedy killed a woman and tried to cover it up--and he was never seriously challenged for his Senate seat.  If  Bill Clinton had been eligible to run again in 2000--do you think Democrats would have passed on nominating him again?  Jesse Jackson, Jr was overwhelmingly voted back into Congress last year--despite being indicted on campaign fraud charges.  Newt Gingrich left his cancer-stricken wife for a much younger woman--and people were still giving him campaign cash and voting for him in primaries last year.  John Edwards is probably looking at that and thinking "Maybe I shouldn't throw out all of those yard signs and campaign funds request forms just yet."

And this is not just a national political phenomenon.  We have state legislators with OWI, disorderly conduct, domestic abuse and prostitution offenses on their records--all of which occurred during their terms in office!  And then there are Mayors with multiple drunk driving offenses and City Council members with criminal trespassing offenses and even restraining orders against them--yet they continue to go back to City Hall as "representatives of their communities".

I find these politicians to be the biggest benefactors of "party identity politics".  They continue to win not because people see their ideals in them--but rather because they have the capital "D" or "R" next to their names.  It's like voters say, "Yeah, I know he's a sleazeball.  But he's the sleazeball of MY party--and there's no way I'm letting the sleazeball of the other party take that seat!"