filed under: dignity and probity

Hasn't the Secret Service learned from their boss that you don't mix business and pleasure when on the tax payer dime? link link

filed under: mulligan

I wrote a little piece in And this week that argued the case of SCOTUS v. POTUS... not an earth-shaking piece, just a little look-see into what the President and his men were saying about the court in the wake of the healthcare case.

Now comes word that the Supreme Court didn't understand the provisions of the law.  And apparently the President's man didn't either, since he forgot, according to the article, to argue the Administration's case for "the bronze plan" in his defense. (The bronze plan is a catastrophic plan that is "skinny." It's low cost. It is lean.

Maybe Verilli was out playing golf with the President when this was covered in their Court prep day.  It sounds like now they want a mulligan.

But I guess my question would be: if I held one guy up for a thousand dollars and another guy up for a hundred... wouldn't I have robbed them both?  In other words, if something is illegal (read: unconstitutional), does it matter that it's going to cost you less?

The key sentence in the article: "The minimum that people will be required to buy under the health reform law is clearly a catastrophic plan," said Levitt.

The key phrase: "people will be required to buy"...

The bronze plan... ahh, the gilded age.

filed under: macaca

see the link. read about what she said. watch her apology. watch to see what happens.

that is all.

filed under: causes for cynicism

The President told reporters this week that what leads to a sense of cynicism among the American electorate is the fact that they report the news as though both parties are equally at fault for the mess we are in and the intransigence of our debate on issues. He went on to point out a number of items that were once Republican ideas that he has embraced, only to find that the Republicans have moved the goalposts, listing among those critical items such things as the budget and the individual mandate in his healthcare policy. (link) I do not disagree as far as he goes. But I would add that at least part of my own cynicism is that fact that he himself ran against the individual mandate when he was a candidate (link), pointing out that if the answer was to require people to buy insurance, we could solve homelessness buy requiring people to buy houses. So did he have a change of heart, or was he (is he) merely saying whatever he needs to say to increase his own power?

Unfortunately, none of the reporters in the room asked this question.