Romney a worthless toad

Mitt Romney will never become president. It’s just that simple. Sadly, like other millionaires, his ego is leading him astray. He’s thinking he can run again, and this keeps him from doing things that would be far more helpful for the party, namely, running for Kennedy’s Senate seat.

Mitt Romney won’t run for Ted Kennedy’s seat

Responding to speculation that Romney may be interested in the seat — which he challenged Kennedy for in 1994 — Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Romney’s political action committee, told POLITICO that the former one-term governor has no interest in campaigning to replace Kennedy.

“Gov. Romney’s focus right now is on helping other Republicans run for office, and that is how he will be spending his time,” he said.

Nonsense. His focus is on continuing his delusion that he can win the presidency.

The “fools gold” of high progressive taxation

California provides an object lesson in why steep progressive tax rates are a bad idea. The state is awash in cash in boom years, and when recessions hit, the funds don’t just shrink. They dry up.

Of course, this is exacerbated by the fact that during the boom years, the politicians shower rich, greedy public employees with payroll, pension, and pork that no state or nation can sustain.

If Obama succeeds in his tax hikes on “the rich,” he will only make matters worse.

Rise of the Super-Rich Hits a Sobering Wall

The relative struggles of the rich may elicit little sympathy from less well-off families who are dealing with the effects of the worst recession in a generation. But the change does raise several broader economic questions. Among them is whether harder times for the rich will ultimately benefit the middle class and the poor, given that the huge recent increase in top incomes coincided with slow income growth for almost every other group. In blunter terms, the question is whether the better metaphor for the economy is a rising tide that can lift all boats — or a zero-sum game.

Only an idiot thinks it is a “zero-sum” game. Language deficiencies or not, at least Bush understood that we have “grow the pie higher.”

Some economists say they believe that the contrasting trends are unrelated. If anything, these economists say, any problems the wealthy have will trickle down, in the form of less charitable giving and less consumer spending. Over the last century, the worst years for the rich were the early 1930s, the heart of the Great Depression.

Other economists say the recent explosion of incomes at the top did hurt everyone else, by concentrating economic and political power among a relatively small group.

“I think incredibly high incomes can have a pernicious effect on the polity and the economy,” said Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist. Much of the growth of high-end incomes stemmed from market forces, like technological innovation, Mr. Katz said. But a significant amount also stemmed from the wealthy’s newfound ability to win favorable government contracts, low tax rates and weak financial regulation, he added.

You don’t do that by allowing the rich to game the system, but you don’t do it by taxing them too much either. The rich will always find a way to avoid the worst taxes. Only an idiot works to punish them.

In the three decades after World War II, when the incomes of the rich grew more slowly than those of the middle class, the top marginal rate ranged from 70 to 91 percent. Mr. Piketty, one of the economists who analyzed the I.R.S. data, argues that these high rates did not affect merely post-tax income. They also helped hold down the pretax incomes of the wealthy, he says, by giving them less incentive to make many millions of dollars.

Since 1980, tax rates on the affluent have fallen more than rates on any other group; this year, the top marginal rate is 35 percent. President Obama has proposed raising it to 39 percent and has said he would consider a surtax on families making more than $1 million a year, which could push the top rate above 40 percent.

What any policy changes will mean for the nonwealthy remains unclear. There have certainly been periods when the rich, the middle class and the poor all have done well (like the late 1990s), as well as periods when all have done poorly (like the last year). For much of the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, both the middle class and the wealthy received raises that outpaced inflation.

Yet there is also a reason to think that the incomes of the wealthy could potentially have a bigger impact on others than in the past: as a share of the economy, they are vastly larger than they once were.

In 2007, the top one ten-thousandth of households took home 6 percent of the nation’s income, up from 0.9 percent in 1977. It was the highest such level since at least 1913, the first year for which the I.R.S. has data.

The top 1 percent of earners took home 23.5 percent of income, up from 9 percent three decades earlier.

If it appears that I’m overusing the word “idiot,” blame the article. Who thinks like this?

In the three decades after World War II, when the incomes of the rich grew more slowly than those of the middle class, the top marginal rate ranged from 70 to 91 percent. Mr. Piketty, one of the economists who analyzed the I.R.S. data, argues that these high rates did not affect merely post-tax income. They also helped hold down the pretax incomes of the wealthy, he says, by giving them less incentive to make many millions of dollars.

Why on earth would you want to destroy the incentive to earn more? No one is arguing for letting the rich game the entire society in their favor (something Democrats allow as much as Republicans), but the fact is that the more rich you have, the more money you have for necessary government services. (and fat pensions and early retirement aren’t necessary)

The best tax system is one that taxes many things, all at very low rates. This isn’t rocket science.

Palin correct about “Death Panels”

Whatever one thinks of Palin and the furor over her “Death Panel” comments, the fact is that she’s right on the specific issue. So are the hard right conservatives who use monikers like “party of death” to describe the Democrats.

If Democrats want to run on heated rhetoric like “Republicans want to poison your water,” then calling Democrats “the party of Death” is fair game as well. For evidence, we can start with former Governor Richard Lamm (and honest man, at least) back in 1984.

GOV. LAMM ASSERTS ELDERLY, IF VERY ILL, HAVE ‘DUTY TO DIE’

[ DISPLAYING ABSTRACT ]Elderly people who are terminally ill have a ”duty to die and get out of the way” instead of trying to prolong their lives by artificial means, Gov. Richard D. Lamm of Colorado said Tuesday. People who die without having life artificially extended are similar to ”leaves falling off …

All the back-pedaling blather about “context” can’t hide the fact the rationing health care for the elderly is one of the few ways to actually “cut costs.” It is no surprise then, that along with promoting Abortion, the left sees throwing Grandma and Grandpa off the bus as a good way to “conserve resources” for their contingent of narcissistic yuppies.

It also exposes their “zero sum” mindset, as it becomes clear that rationing and allocating resources by bureaucrats is far more preferred than allowing a dynamic society create more resources.

Need more proof? Here it is.

The Death Book for Veterans

If President Obama wants to better understand why America’s discomfort with end-of-life discussions threatens to derail his health-care reform, he might begin with his own Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He will quickly discover how government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.

Last year, bureaucrats at the VA’s National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, “Your Life, Your Choices.” It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA’s preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated “Your Life, Your Choices.”

Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.

“Your Life, Your Choices” presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political “push poll.” For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be “not worth living.”

They think we all have a duty to die. Actually, it is our duty to get mad and electorally destroy these people. Stop calling talk radio and watching Fox. Start organizing your precinct.

Obama blatantly lying to Americans

Obama keeps saying his plan (actually the House Democrat plan as well) won’t cost your current health insurance. Nonsense.

He also told the crowd at his recent town hall that he doesn’t support single payer. He’s a liar.

You aren’t going to be able to keep your health insurance. The current bill will provide too many incentives for you business to keep it. Your employer will drop your coverage simply because it will be in their financial interests to do so.

President’s coverage promise no keeper

President Obama promises that, if health-care reform is enacted, people will be able to keep their current coverage.

“I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren’t listening: If you like your health-care plan, you keep your health-care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health-care plan,” he said Saturday in a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colo., much as he said Friday in Belgrade, Mont., and earlier in the week in Portsmouth, N.H.

However, under legislation drafted by House and Senate Democrats, that would not necessarily be true.

Obama’s promise is not just at odds with legislative proposals — it is also at odds with reality. Under the current system, employers can drop coverage, alter benefit packages and switch insurers. In addition, as the president has noted, people who lose or leave their jobs can lose their health plans; that is one of the fundamental problems the legislative proposals address and one of the main arguments for reform.

But in the campaign to overhaul health care, Obama’s promise may serve to reassure people anxious about change. As he said at a news conference on July 22, people may favor the devil they know over the devil they don’t

.

Dear Democrats – Don’t be Scum!

Fixing Health Care isn’t rocket science. Smart people across the political spectrum get it. Only liars support the extremes. Please read the entire article. It’s worth it.

How American Health Care Killed My Father

Almost two years ago, my father was killed by a hospital-borne infection in the intensive-care unit of a well-regarded nonprofit hospital in New York City. Dad had just turned 83, and he had a variety of the ailments common to men of his age. But he was still working on the day he walked into the hospital with pneumonia. Within 36 hours, he had developed sepsis. Over the next five weeks in the ICU, a wave of secondary infections, also acquired in the hospital, overwhelmed his defenses. My dad became a statistic—merely one of the roughly 100,000 Americans whose deaths are caused or influenced by infections picked up in hospitals. One hundred thousand deaths: more than double the number of people killed in car crashes, five times the number killed in homicides, 20 times the total number of our armed forces killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another victim in a building American tragedy.

Like every grieving family member, I looked for someone to blame for my father’s death. But my dad’s doctors weren’t incompetent—on the contrary, his hospital physicians were smart, thoughtful, and hard-working. Nor is he dead because of indifferent nursing—without exception, his nurses were dedicated and compassionate. Nor from financial limitations—he was a Medicare patient, and the issue of expense was never once raised. There were no greedy pharmaceutical companies, evil health insurers, or other popular villains in his particular tragedy.

[Bruno's comment - Obama and the Democrats are human scum for attempting to blame the 1000s of decent people in these industries - that's right - SCUM!]

I’m a Democrat, and have long been concerned about America’s lack of a health safety net. But based on my own work experience, I also believe that unless we fix the problems at the foundation of our health system—largely problems of incentives—our reforms won’t do much good, and may do harm. To achieve maximum coverage at acceptable cost with acceptable quality, health care will need to become subject to the same forces that have boosted efficiency and value throughout the economy. We will need to reduce, rather than expand, the role of insurance; focus the government’s role exclusively on things that only government can do (protect the poor, cover us against true catastrophe, enforce safety standards, and ensure provider competition); overcome our addiction to Ponzi-scheme financing, hidden subsidies, manipulated prices, and undisclosed results; and rely more on ourselves, the consumers, as the ultimate guarantors of good service, reasonable prices, and sensible trade-offs between health-care spending and spending on all the other good things money can buy.

By what mechanism does society determine that an extra, say, $100 billion for health care will make us healthier than even $10 billion for cleaner air or water, or $25 billion for better nutrition, or $5 billion for parks, or $10 billion for recreation, or $50 billion in additional vacation time—or all of those alternatives combined?

The answer is, no mechanism at all. Health care simply keeps gobbling up national resources, seemingly without regard to other societal needs; it’s treated as an island that doesn’t touch or affect the rest of the economy. As new tests and treatments are developed, they are, for the most part, added to our Medicare or commercial insurance policies, no matter what they cost.

Health Insurance Isn’t Health Care

How often have you heard a politician say that millions of Americans “have no health care,” when he or she meant they have no health insurance? How has a method of financing health care become synonymous with care itself?

The reason for financing at least some of our health care with an insurance system is obvious. We all worry that a serious illness or an accident might one day require urgent, extensive care, imposing an extreme financial burden on us. In this sense, health-care insurance is just like all other forms of insurance—life, property, liability—where the many who face a risk share the cost incurred by the few who actually suffer a loss.