AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Clearly, if government spending stays the same, and TAX RATES are decreased, then government deficit spending may or may not remain the same. People will have more to spend and may spend more thereby increasing the incomes of some people such that TOTAL TAXES collected may actually increase and deficit spending thereby decreased.

Don't you know that every relationship has a linear nature? Especially tax stuff!

T
K
O

HARDEST HIT BY OBAMACARE

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on November 30, 2009.


The "health-care reform" bills in Congress would hit 39 states hard with new expenses, by raising Medicaid eligibility above the cur rent income cutoffs.

The only states that won't have to raise eligibility because of the Senate bill are Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont and Wisconsin (plus the District of Columbia). And the House bill would force even Massachusetts and Vermont to pay more.

Hardest hit would be Texas ($2,750 million a year in extra state spending under the Senate bill), Pennsylvania ($1,450 million), California ($1,428 million) and Florida ($909 million). Who knows if Florida could avoid imposing an income tax if it has to meet so high an unfunded mandate?

The required increases in state spending are likely to be quite high in some states whose senators are swing votes on ObamaCare:

* In Arkansas, home to swing Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, the annual increased state spending would come to $402 million (not counting the federal share) -- about a 10 percent increase in the state budget, which is now $4 billion a year.

* In Louisiana, whose Sen. Marie Landrieu sold her vote on a key procedural motion in return for more Medicaid funding, the increase would come to $432 million (a 5 percent hike in state spending) -- more than wiping out the extra funds she got in return for her vote.

* In Sen. Evan Bayh's Indiana, spending would go up by $586 million a year, a rise of 4 percent.

* In Sen. Ben Nelson's Nebraska, the added state spending would be $81 million a year, a 2 percent increase.

The Sebate ObamaCare bill would cost North Dakota, home of Sens. Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan, $14 million. South Dakota, represented by Sen. Tim Johnson, would have to boost Medicaid spending by $33 million.

The Medicaid-expansion provisions of the Senate bill are complex. In the first year of the program (2013), states must enroll anyone who earns less than 133 percent of the poverty level in their programs. For a family of four, the national average poverty level in 2009 is $22,000 a year. So any family that size that makes less than $29,000 would be eligible for Medicaid.

Many states, particularly in the South, actually have Medicaid cutoffs below the poverty level. Arkansas, for example, cuts off its Medicaid eligibility at only 17 percent of poverty level, and in Louisiana it goes up to only 26 percent. For these states, the spending increase required by the new bill is huge.

For the first three years of the program (2013-15) the federal government would pay for all of the costs of the Medicaid expansion. But, starting in the fourth year of operation -- 2016 -- the average state would be obliged to pay 10 percent of the extra cost.

For Democrat governors, this provision means sudden death. Particularly in states with limited Medicaid coverage, it would require huge tax increases.

And your point is?

Wilso, put aside the stupid accusations and think for yourself! Are the poor in North Korea--not yet murdered by their government--better or worse off than the poor in the USA?

"mm, about the only thing that Cuba can grow or make that is any good at all is cigars. Yep, thats about it. Pretty sad, and it should be ample proof that centrally planned economies do not work hardly at all. Actually Cuba is just one of many many examples. If Obama and Congress would simply open their eyes wide enough to observe the obvious all around them, both now and in history, we could have some hope that this administration and Congress would cease and desist from their foolhardy initiatives. "

Pretty sad, and it should be ample proof that centrally planned economies do not work hardly at all. Actually Cuba is just one of many many examples.

Buckley, thou shouldst be living at this hour!
January 18, 2009 @ 3:17 am · Filed by Geoff Nunberg under Language and advertising, Language and politics


If you want a sense of just what a hole the right finds itself in these days, consider the recent press release from the anti-abortion American Life League headed "KRISPY KREME CELEBRATES OBAMA WITH PRO-ABORTION DOUGHNUTS." It goes on to say:

The next time you stare down a conveyor belt of slow-moving, hot, sugary glazed donuts at your local Krispy Kreme you just might be supporting President-elect Barack Obama's radical support for abortion on demand… The doughnut giant released the following statement yesterday:

Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American's sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies " just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet "free" can be.

…The unfortunate reality of a post Roe v. Wade America is that "choice" is synonymous with abortion access and celebration of 'freedom of choice' is a tacit endorsement of abortion rights on demand…. Celebrating [Obama's] inauguration with "Freedom of Choice" doughnuts " only two days before the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to decriminalize abortion " is not only extremely tacky, it's disrespectful and insensitive and makes a mockery of a national tragedy.

A number of anti-abortion bloggers have joined the ALL in urging readers to make their indignation known to the company, while others have confined themselves to suggesting that the promotion was at best clueless. "To a majority of Americans," the commenter on one blog wrote, "the words ['freedom of choice'] do not connote liberty, or 'tasty goodies' or patriotism at all. These words are synonymous with the painful tragedy of abortion."

And conservatives wonder why their movement is in trouble?


"Freedom of choice": for more than a century, conservatives have been proudly marching under that device, for better or worse. It was in the name of workers' freedom of choice that they opposed compulsory Social Security contributions, the 40-hour week, and the closed and union shop; in the name of the consumer's freedom of choice that they opposed protectionism and truth-in-packaging regulations; in the name of hotel and restaurant owners' freedom of choice that they opposed laws prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations; in the name of the patient's freedom of choice that they've opposed single-payer health care; in the name of parents' and students' freedom of choice that they've supported school vouchers. And above all, they've persistently " and properly " extolled freedom of choice as the motor force of capitalism, "the immutable law of the free marketplace," as George Romney said in a 1959 Rambler advertisement.

And now after thirty years of conservative ascendancy, a donut company uses "Freedom of Choice" in a promotion and the only thing that comes to the mind of numerous people who style themselves "cultural conservatives" is the slogan used by abortion rights groups? Karl Rove has got a lot to answer for.

January 18, 2009 @ 3:17 am · Filed by Geoff Nunberg under Language and advertising, Language and politics

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1030