Obama stash

A client of mine tried to pay his bill with this:

He said that he used to support the President but was now "scared to death of all of the spending."

I politely informed him that his problems with the administration had nothing to do with spending. His real problem is that he is a right-wing racist extremist who believes the President was not born in the United States.

The hilarious Mark Styen

From Mark Steyn on today's Rush Limbaugh program, commenting on that Frank Rich column:

Frank Rich attributed opposition to the health care reform to us angry white male's homophobia. That's right, the reason we object to this multi-trillion dollar spending and unconstitutional power grab is because we are uncomfortable with Barney Frank's gayness. That's the argument being advanced by the NY Times.

I am anxiously waiting to hear from David Brooks and Peggy Noonan on how harmful Frank Rich is to the Democrats and how "he has long appeared to be insane".

Obama: Opposition to health care was pure politics

In an interview on Monday with the Today Show's Matt Lauer, the President argued that opposition to his Health Care legislation was pure politics.

I think that the Republican Party made a calculated decision, a political decision, that they would not support whatever we did.

Well, I give him credit for not perpetuating the racism/extremism narrative. But it does contradict some of what he said after the health care summit last month, when he acknowledged that there were "legitimate philosophical differences" between Republicans and Democrats.

Another day and another column calling me a racist extremist

This is getting old:

March 26: Extremists Have Taken Control of GOP
March 27: Tea Partiers = George Wallace + KKK
March 28: Anger is Rooted in Racism, Not Health Care
March 29: Tea Party activism is not about political dissent - It's about vile, storm trooper sound bites

Imagine what it would be like if health care had not passed.

I am starting to like the Glenn Reynolds approach - just start calling them hateful, bigoted extremists. It will drive them crazy.

[Update]
March 30 : What's the matter with white people

Learn from compassionate liberals for only $50,000 per year

Here’s a story to keep in mind the next time you are hit up for your alma mater’s annual fundraising drive. This morning the Boston Globe reports that the number of colleges in the Boston area that charge over $50,000 in tuition, room, board, and mandatory fees is expected to double in the 2010-2011 this year.

Tufts, Boston University, Boston College, Smith, Mount Holyoke, and Babson reached the $50,000 milestone in 2009-2010. Next fall they’ll be joined by Harvard, MIT, Wellesley, Brandeis, Brown, Dartmouth, and Holy Cross. And this is not just a northeastern phenomenon – according to a story published last November in the Chronicle of Higher Education, schools all over the country charge at least $50,000 per year, including Georgetown, George Washington, Vanderbilt, Carnegie Mellon, Tulane and University of Southern California — 58 schools in all. In the 2008-2009 school year the number was 5.

Many of these schools no doubt have generous financial aid programs to lower the cost for some students. But these elite institutions pride themselves on being impeccably liberal, more compassionate, kinder, and gentler than for-profit corporations, who are assumed to be rapaciously money-grubbing. And yet these educators have no problem raising their prices more quickly and to a greater extent than IBM or Apple or AT&T would ever dream.

What makes this all the more galling is that these universities have some of the largest endowments in the country. And this is even after those endowments took a big hit in the recession, in one case (Harvard) as large as 30%. (The decreases were due in part to the colleges’ reckless investment strategies, which were similar to the ones for which private investment firms have been excoriated). In other words, while their tuition goes through the roof, these schools are sitting on a heck of a lot of cash.

Here are endowments of some of the $50k schools as of the end of FY 2009, ranked according to a 2010 study by the National Association of College and University Business Officers.

1. Harvard $25.7 billion

4. M.I.T. $8 billion

8. Columbia $5.9 billion

9. Northwestern $5.4 billion

11. U of Chicago $5.1 billion

17. Washington University in St. Louis $4 billion

18. Cornell $4 billion

21. Vanderbilt, $2.8 billion

22. Dartmouth $2.8 billion

23. U.S.C. $2.7 billion

24. N.Y.U $2.1 billion

26. Brown $2 billion

40. Boston College $1.34 billion

44. Wellesley $1.26 billion

49. Tufts $1.1 billion

50. Smith $1.1 billion

65. Boston University $892 million

Which raises the question: why give your charitable donation to a wealthy university, when there are so many worthy organizations that are in much greater need?

(via Newsalert and Instapundit)

Nice movie reference, Mr. President

Earlier this week, President Obama told the 55% of Americans who oppose his health care bill, and the 62% who want the GOP to continue to fight against the bill, to "bring it on".

I wonder if this was just a tounge-in-cheek reference to the 2000 movie "Bring It On" starring Kirsten Dunst. You know, the cheerleading mini-epic that spawned four straight-to-DVD sequels, as well as the gymnastics spinoff "Stick It" starring academy award winner Jeff Bridges. If you haven't seen "Bring It On", just turn on ABC Family any Sunday afternoon and it will probably be on.

If I am wrong, and it was not a clever reference to the movie "Bring It On", I would have to assume that he's just a complete jerk.

More on that over at NRO.

Like I said...

...Reaganesque?

Read more here.

Unindexed

From the Reconciliation bill's list of revenue provisions:

Unearned Income Medicare Contribution on 3.8% on investment income for taxpayers with AGI in excess of $200K/$250K (unindexed).

Definition of unindexed: sooner or later, everyone pays.

The "ensuring value for premium payments" provision

In the health care bill, there is a provision called “ENSURING VALUE FOR PREMIUM PAYMENTS”, which requires plans in the individual and small group market to spend 80 percent of premium dollars on medical services. According to the website PatientPowerNow.org:

Depending on how actuarial value is calculated, HSA-qualified plans (those with high deductibles) may become illegal. This is especially true if the calculation does not include contributions to an HSA.

But I thought if I liked my plan that I would be able to keep it?

In addition, the bill requires that new private plans exclude preventive services from deductibles. So even if I am lucky enough to keep my high deductible plan, I can only keep it until the moment I have to change insurance plans, at which time I will be forced to buy one of the more expensive, government approved plans.

Let freedom ring!

[Update]
Don't you just love this idea that a politician is capable of "ensuring value" based on a mathematical formula. The applications for this idea are endless.

The "most powerful woman in American History"

In this interview, ABC News' Diane Sawyer asks Nancy Pelosi for her reaction to being called the "most powerful woman in American History" by the Economist magazine.

I agree, she is very powerful, in a King George III kind of way.

I need to find the transcript, but I am sure Diane Sawyer also asked Pelosi what she thought about her 11% favorability rating.