Gallup: Uninsured Rate Up Since Obama Elected
Roughly 3.6 million more uninsured since Bush administration.
If you move the goalposts far enough, you’re sure to score.
Gallup has a fairly honest headline: “In U.S., Uninsured Rate Lowest Since 2008″. But, hm, what happened in 2008? Let’s keep looking at the chart. The low was 14.4 percent, just before the financial crisis. Makes some sense, I’m sure a lot of people lost health insurance then. At the start of the Obama Administration, the rate was 15.6 percent; the peak was 18 percent — in roughly the third quarter of last year. Remember that, when people were objecting because they’d had their insurance canceled? Harry Reid said all those people were lying, but Gallup says different. In fact, 1 percentage point on this chart is, roughly, 3 million people. The change from Q1 to Q3 was about 2 percent — or roughly 6 million people who became uninsured.
Where have I heard that number before?
And now for the punchline: Since Obama was inaugurated in 2008, the net change is from 15.4 percent uninsured to 15.6 percent. So the net effect has been that by the Gallup Survey the number of uninsured has improved in the last year, but gotten worse since Obama was inaugurated, and is 1.2 percent worse than under Bush.
They like it when you are off by 50% or more.
It also leaves more people working than under Bush.
HOLDER: No, no, I would disagree in the sense that, taking into account resource constraints, it is incumbent upon those of us in the executive branch to make the maximum use of the resources that Congress gives to us. That necessarily means we’re always making choices about the kinds of cases we bring, how we deal with cases we bring…
GOWDY: But you’re already expending the resources of the prosecution or you and I wouldn’t be having the question. This is all about sentencing. I have no qualms if you say I’m gonna decline prosecution. You have an unfettered right to do that.
What I’m saying is you don’t have the right to say, in mandatory minimum cases, don’t tell the grand jury what the drug amount is.
Holder believe his ‘discretion’ gives him the power to ignore the law as long as he can cite ‘resources’ as the excuse. This is exactly the argument Obama is using regarding deportation of illegals. They ignore congressional law and claim they don’t have the resources needed to fully enforce the law. In reality they are pushing their own agendas which, in this case, is trying to keep minorities out of prison even when drug amounts are severe enough that the law demands prison time.
I would add that Holder also seems fairly outmatched in this debate with Gowdy, as he confuses prosecution and sentencing. Not only does Gowdy expose Holder’s motives, he also exposes what a light weight Holder is when it comes to defending his lawlessness.
Obama is the Anti-Bush
Congressman refuses to question Holder, suggests he should be in jail…
Congressman Blake Farenthold refused to question Holder today, suggesting he should be in jail rather than testifying in front of Congress:
I’m committed to maintaining the Constitutional balance of power and the authority that this legislative branch has, and I just don’t think it’s appropriate that Mr. Holder be here. If an American citizen had not complied with one of the Justice Department’s subpoenas, they would be in jail and not sitting here in front of me, testifying.
It looks like Farenthold doesn't understand the first thing about separation of powers.
no understanding of the Constitution
I don't think anyone worships the constitution.