Why Is He Running? Just BeKaus

California's next Senator Mickey Kaus gets some attention from Deborah Soloman of the NY Times Magazine:

Questions For Mickey Kaus

The Blogging of the Candidate

By DEBORAH SOLOMON<

After years of sitting in a room in Southern California writing a blog for Slate magazine, you’re planning to challenge Senator Barbara Boxer in the Democratic primary in California in June. What led you to get into politics? 

I’ve been a blogger since 1999, and it hasn’t done the job. In California, the Democratic Party is worse than it was when I started. The only thing left is the interest groups. It used to be a functioning party independent of labor, and now that has atrophied.

Mickey's Manifesto was presented at The Huffington Post over the weekend (Briefly, he will be going after liberal sacred cows like a Hindu on a bender.  Well, he phrases it differently...).  Why is he declaring there and not Slate?  We get a clue:

Now that you’re running, can you continue to write for Slate, which is owned by The Washington Post and may not want to be issuing paychecks to political candidates? 

I’m certainly going to blog during the campaign. The question is whether it’s for Slate or whether it’s not for Slate.

Dems who find Obama insufficiently cerebral will flock to Mickey's banner.

Comments

[Thomas Collins]

It sounds as if Mr. Kaus is attempting to run on a moderate/left platform that is sympathetic but not beholden to labor unions and other Dem factions. If he manages to topple Boxer, it would have national reverberations. Although I wish him well, I think the sclerotic sacred cows in the Dem party are too well protected for him to shake things up much. I hope I am wrong.

As far as his blogging goes, I always appreciate the way in which he makes his points without demonizing those who disagree with him, without inventing straw man arguments to blow away, and without the Obama those here and those there and I'm the transcendent Aristotelian mean phoniness.

Unlike Babs, Kaus would be someone I'd be pleased to refer to as "Senator."

[Jane]

All I can say is Hallelujah - we really needed a new thread.

[Thomas Collins]

Kaus will have to come from behind. So, with the hope that this brings him good luck, I am LUNing Zenyatta's great comeback win in the Santa Margarita Handicap at Santa Anita. Zanyatta was last at the quarter poll, and made up an eight length deficit to win the race.

[Strawman Cometh]

Rove is on cspan taking calls.

[Jane]

I just watched David Axelrod lie thru his teeth on every single issue to Tapper.

Tapper didn't call him on one lie.

How disappointing.

[Thomas Collins]

Minus 15. see LUN.

[Danube of Thought]

Gibbs says they'll have the votes by the end of the week.

[Thomas Collins]

Tea or coffee? See LUN (via Instapundit).

The Fox News reporter stated that the coffee party folks had declined an invitation to appear on Fox. I guess lefty astroturfers prefer the lefty media cocoon.

[Elroy Jetson]

Gibbs is full of it, unless they caught 10 congress critters over the weekend in bed with a live girl or a dead boy....
Or is it the other way around?

[centralcal]

I see via Tops tweets, that Monica Conyers has been appointed a new lawyer for her appeal.

On Fox recently, I thought Megyn Kelly said as part of her plea bargain, if she was sentenced to less than 60 months (or some number that was greater than the sentence she actually received) that she could not appeal. Anybody here know?

[centralcal]

Also, on topic, as a resident of California, I am no more enthused over Kaus as my Senator, than I am of Boxer or Feinstein. I like him kinda sorta as a blogger, but that's all.

California needs a clean sweep - state and federal - and I know we probably won't achieve it.

[Jane]

Centralcal,

That was my understanding too. And why does she need an appointed lawyer? She surely can afford to pay.

IMX rarely do you use the same lawyer for the primary case and the appeal.

I tried a lot of cases, and never argued an appeals case. That's Clarice's bailiwick. Dot might be fluent in both, but that's not the norm.

[BumperStickerist]

Kaus for President!

By 2012 Mickey will have over the required 120 days of Senate duty necessary to hold office - plus he utterly lacks executive experience! Mickey hasn't even have John Kerry's experience of running a cookie store.

.

[mockmook]

I’m certainly going to blog during the campaign. The question is whether it’s for Slate or whether it’s not for Slate.

Dems who find Obama insufficiently cerebral will flock to Mickey's banner.


Posted by Tom Maguire on March 14, 2010

Was that last sentence supposed to show how cerebral Mickey is?

[Clarice]

cc--I find it unlikely that a Republican will win the race. That said, is Mickey or Babara a better choice?

Insty notes something that seems to have been obvious from the towh=nhalls earlier this year---Feingold will lose if Tommy Thompson runs against him.

C'mon TT.

[Clarice]

The Hill:
ouse Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Sunday that Democrats don't have the House votes to pass the healthcare bill.

"If she had 216 votes this bill would be long gone," Boehner said of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on CNN's "State of the Union."

The Democrats "tried to pass it in September, October, November, December, January, February," Boehner said. "Guess what? They don't have the votes."

[centralcal]

Well, Clarice I will cross the vote bridge, when I come to it, like I did when John McCain was running and then won the primary. Sure, I would vote against Boxer - no doubt about it. Enthusiastically, no.

There is a lot of anger roiling in the Central Valley and it includes a large number of Hispanics (legals, mostly) over the imposed water shortage (no, NOT drought related, politics related) and the loss of work. Many were die hard Dem voters dating all the way back to Cesar Chavez. This summer when they had marches, etc. (remember Hannity covered one such), I actually feared for Jim Costa's well being - he is the Democrat congresscritter for the area.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this plays out in certain districts in November.

[Clarice]

Michael barone:

The Republicans for the last two decades have been a party whose litmus tests have been cultural issues, especially abortion. The tea partiers have helped to change their focus to issues of government overreach and spending. That may be a helpful pivot, given the emergence of a millennial generation uncomfortable with crusading cultural conservatism. It's not clear whether the tea partiers' influence on Republicans will last as long as the antiwar cohort's imprint on Democrats. But their concern -- the fact that government spending is on a trajectory to increase far beyond revenues -- seems likely to persist. In which case a spontaneous movement that no one predicted and that no one person led could end up, again, reshaping one of our great political parties.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Tea-party-brings-energy_-change-and-tumult-to-GOP-87511912.html#ixzz0iAPU7DBv >tea party

[Melinda Romanoff]

clarice-

It will depend on turnout for Thompson. If it's close, Southeast Wisconsin will steal it.

[sbw]

Cerebral, huh. Isn't that from the Latin, cerealis meaning "of Ceres," the goddess of agriculture, or like the Augean Stables, full of horse manure.

Alternative definitions include cultivated grains like oats, as in having brains the consistency of oatmeal.

[Clarice]

The Corner:
On Meet the Press this morning, Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn was asked: "as of this morning do you have the votes that you need?" He replied: "No, we don't have them as of this morning, but we've been working this thing all weekend."

[Stephanie]

To Slate or not to Slate - that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outraged liberals, Or to take arms against a sea of teabaggers And, by opposing, end them.

[NewHopeGeorgia]

Kaus is trying to do the corporations better than Obama. He's not doing the 'we must help unions, America's history and muscles thing' and then axing the corporation cause he wants to appoint the President there. He's not selling that the corporation didn't do what it was told by dems like that rich guy who buys trains now cause it's national security america's muscles; Obama.

Obama isn't interested in these things, like banks, but has other people take care of them as he gets his crowns, statues and quakes from the poor natives he is trying to help with health care and education loans that he must take care of us for. He still hates Japan or is it an American people thing now and not Obama anymore, like that Kaus guy..........

[Ranger]

The problem with a guy like Kaus is he is essentially a Ben Nelson type of Democract. He claims to be reasonable and that he's not in the tank for the Dem special intersts, but when it comes time to vote, he will vote the Dem party line... because what's the other option? Vote with the Republicans? Can't do that, what smart person would ever do that?

If the seat has to be held by a Dem, I'd rather have it held by a Dem that can't pretend to be a moderate (or a decent human being for that matter).

A vote for the Slaughter rule is a vote for the Senate bill, as is.

A vote for the Slaughter rule is a vote for the Cornhusker Kickback.

A vote for the Slaughter rule is a vote for every corrpt deal cut to get this thing to the House floor.

[centralcal]

Just now on Fox, they said the Dems are 5 votes short.

[Clarice]

Jean asked for a citation to the post I made earlier. I said that my husband had carefully read the Senate Bill and it provides that if even one of his employees takes a govt insurance subsidy despite the fact that he provides insurance for all his employees, he will have to pay a fine of $750 per employee.
Here is it H.R. 3590 (the Senate ill) provides in Sec 1513 that the Internal Revenue Code shall be amended to include Sec 4980H (c) and that provision is the one at hand.

I believe employees are eligible for subsidies if they earn less than $88,000 per year (though I haven't double checked that). In essense this will force most employers to drop their insurance because the already high cost of insurance will be substantially increased by a $750 fine for every single employee.

[Danube of Thought]

It seems pretty clear that as of this moment the votes aren't there. I would dearly love to know whose votes they are now trying to flip, and how.

Will Nancy bring it to a vote knowing that it won't pass? And if not, what will she do?

[Clarice]

Here BTW is the url for the Bill and the relevant section quoted above.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:6:./temp/~c1119ClLci:e460952:

[centralcal]

Ranger, exactly. We already have Diane Feinstein - who has somehow over the years pretended to be moderate, whatever the hell that means to the muddle.

However, very recently, she was caught in a big lie and broken promise about the water issues here and I think forever lost Hispanic/farm worker support for her too. I am hoping with each slap in the face from their Democrat leaders, they leave the Democrat party forever more. Local talk radio (conservative) beats the water drum daily and it is having impact.

[Clarice]

Here's the language most relevant:

c) Large Employers Offering Coverage With Employees Who Qualify for Premium Tax Credits or Cost-sharing Reductions-
`(1) IN GENERAL- If--
`(A) an applicable large employer offers to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2)) for any month, and
`(B) 1 or more full-time employees of the applicable large employer has been certified to the employer under section 1411 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as having enrolled for such month in a qualified health plan with respect to which an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid with respect to the employee,
then there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable payment equal to the product of the number of full-time employees of the applicable large employer described in subparagraph (B) for such month and 400 percent of the applicable payment amount.
`(2) OVERALL LIMITATION- The aggregate amount of tax determined under paragraph (1) with respect to all employees of an applicable large employer for any month shall not exceed the product of the applicable payment amount and the number of individuals employed by the employer as full-time employees during such month.
`(d) Definitions and Special Rules- For purposes of this section--
`(1) APPLICABLE PAYMENT AMOUNT- The term `applicable payment amount' means, with respect to any month, 1/12 of $750.
`(2) APPLICABLE LARGE EMPLOYER-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `applicable large employer' means, with respect to a calendar year, an employer who employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees on business days during the preceding calendar year.

[Ranger]

I think Nancy is envisioning a repeat of the Medicare Drug Plan, where the Republican's pushed it to the floor knowing they were a few votes short, and then held the vote open to preasure the last few over the line. I don't see that working this time. You have members like Gifford from Tucson, AZ, who is a hard core lefty that won claiming to be a Blue Dog. She voted yes the first time, but Tucson is a huge retiree town, and there is no way she wins in November voting for half a trillion in Medicare cuts and having all here retiree voters lose their Medicare Advantage, while Florida gets to keep access to it.

I would love to see Nancy hold for vote open for hours trying to get those last few votes and fail. She made a huge issue of how much of a dirty trick it was when the Rs did it.

[Clarice]

I will post an analysis by a tax group respecting the above provisions which indicates to the contrary tht the employer in the ase i mentioned will only pay the LESSER of $3k per each employee who takes the public subsidy or $750 for each employee on his payroll.

[narciso]

So one get's penalized for providing coverage, who thought that was a good idea, this will be a disincentive, again a bug not a feature

[Clarice]

UPDATE: My husband cannot find that analysis and does not recall at which stage of the negotiations it was made, BUT THE $3 K per employee language is NOT in the final bill--only the $750 per every employee is.

[Rick Ballard]

A bump of the Jay Cost whip count. Just to clarify for passers by - Dems hold 253 of a total 431 seats (4 seats are vacant). 216 votes are needed to revive the corpse of the HCR albatross. 38 Democrat Nay votes are needed to heave the albatross overboard. Cost identifies 27 firm Nays plus 29 more Nays who may be susceptible to a naked Rahm Emanuel, prog threats and/or union thuggery.

IMO - should the Dem buggery/thuggery squad fail to move the necessary votes, the prog wing will declare against Slaughter the Dem House in order to provide cover to the centrists against the prog nutters.

[Pops]

It was prety clear this AM that although the fight is happening in the House...the kicker is the House members want absolute assurance that 51 Democrat Senators are going to committ to passing the reconciliation.

Everyone should be calling, e-mailing their Democrat Senators and telling them making such assurances is nothing short of taking a bribe for your vote. You are currupting the system by committing to passing legislation you haven't even seen in trade for them voting for a bill they don't want.

They should demand they publicly assure us they are not making such deals behind closed doors and should demand the vote be on the merits.

[Ranger]

It sounds like it is designed to force employers to offer either more than "minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan" or no coverage at all. So it is designed specificly to force companies to drop coverage so that people start clammoring for a "public option" in the future.

[Pops]

"""On Fox recently, I thought Megyn Kelly said """

This is normal, I've watched Megyn Kelly for years and still don't remember anything she's said..but I keep watching!

[Danube of Thought]

Do we know who the five are?

[Danube of Thought]

Barone:

On Wednesday, the day of Barack Obama’s appearance in St. Louis, 2,225 showed up for a tea party rally in St. Charles County and 2,300 participated in a protest outside a Democratic fundraiser in downtown St. Louis. In contrast, 30 people attended a coffee party gathering in St. Louis on Saturday.

The numbers tell you something. Something that the CNN producers might want to take note of.

[Old Lurker]

Clarice, the math your husband will be forced into is to give each employee a raise equal to the amount his firms pays now FBO each employee, minus the penalty he will have to pay for failing to offer any coverage...and then he will tell each employee "there's your share of the money, you are on your own. That way it is a wash to the firm and he can get back to the business of law and out of the business of hand holding doctor bills. Why would any employer not do that...except for those who will keep some of the net cash.

[Clarice]

Rick: - should the Dem buggery/thuggery squad fail to move the necessary votes, the prog wing will declare against Slaughter the Dem House in order to provide cover to the centrists against the prog nutters.

Excuse me?????

[Ranger]

There is a money making logic to the Senate rule though. If a company doens't offer an exspensive health plan, the company pays the government. If they do offer an exspensive health care plan, then the employee pays the government. If the company offers no plan, the company pays the government. The government gets it cut any way you slice it. The Feds really are turning into a legalized form a organized crime.

[Clarice]

Even if an employer offers more than the minimal essential plan, it seems to me one employee opting for the subsidy triggers the fine.

[Old Lurker]

Pops...those letters from the 51 will be worthless anyway. To work, they would have to say "We promise to vote for the Fixit Bill attached exactly as it is written AND we will vote to defeat each and every attempt by non-signers to ammend, clarify or improve the Fixit Bill as currently written." Without that second part, it is open to any number of poison pills.

[Clarice]

The section (remember it's an amendment to the IR Code) has three sections--one for employers with no plan, one for employers that have a waiting period and one for employers whose plan meets the minimum standards set by the govt.

) Large Employers Not Offering Health Coverage- If--
`(1) any applicable large employer fails to offer to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2)) for any month, and
`(2) at least one full-time employee of the applicable large employer has been certified to the employer under section 1411 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as having enrolled for such month in a qualified health plan with respect to which an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction is allowed or paid with respect to the employee,
then there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable payment equal to the product of the applicable payment amount and the number of individuals employed by the employer as full-time employees during such month.

[Captain Hate]

Tapper didn't call him on one lie.

How disappointing.

I'm not sure why anybody believes Tapper is anything but the enemy. Trusting him is like trusting Stalin.

[Old Lurker]

Ranger cracked the code!

[Ranger]

This:

an applicable large employer offers to its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2)) for any month

makes it sound to me like it only applies to companies that are offering the minimum legal coverage. Of coures, if that is true I see a great oportunity for insurance companies to offer an entire range of policies that offer just above the legal minumum requirements. The law must have a mechanism to prevent that as well I am sure.

[Porchlight]

The Feds really are turning into a legalized form a organized crime.

That plus offering a bigger slice to the existing organized crime rings. I heard not too long ago that Medicare fraud was the new income stream of choice for the mob. Easy and safe, plus there are no fed agencies trained to sniff it out and prosecute.

That's just Medicare. Now imagine what happens when the "business" explodes to cover the rest of the country.

[Clear criminality, probably going to the top. Impeachment fodder.]

Is it just one or are several journalists keeping Gibbs' feet to the fire over Sestak.
=============

[Captain Hate]

This is normal, I've watched Megyn Kelly for years and still don't remember anything she's said..but I keep watching!

I don't think that's fair at all. While I'm not understating her obvious physical awesomeness, she's one of Fox's best interviewers as far as cutting through the BS with dissemblers. If she hosted FNS instead of commie Chris, it would be more awesome than when Tony Snow was the host.

[Old Lurker]

Hey Kim, I ordered the Hockey Stick math thriller you mentioned from Amazon. Can't wait...

[I can't believe Sestak hasn't walked it back.]

Who'd dare offer such a plum without the knowledge and permission of the 'decider'?
===============

[Old Lurker]

Yes, it was the r Squared tease that got me.

[narciso]

More like John Reed, Cap, who was surprised at the end of Reds that the Soviets were preaching jihad against the British, in Baku, right around 1921

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

I expect to see some theater that allows cover from the prog wing to be extended to the moderates. The easiest way to do it is for the prog wing to discover principles which do not allow them to vote for a measure which does not include a public option. I just don't see this failing on a tight vote. I don't buy the "only five left" garbage at all. There are around 70 districts where passage of this bill could make the difference between victory and defeat. Cost has 56 of them listed.

It doesn't make any political sense at all for the Dems to allow progs to target moderate Dems for defeat.

[The world owes Steve McIntyre trillions.]

That Montford fella is AKA Bishop Hill, who has a nice blog over there.
==============

[Pops]

By the way, all the so-called journalists who sit and listen to the Democrats bilge about private insurance companies should GOOGLE "Medicare horror stories" or 'Medicad Tragedy' or 'Government healthcare horror stories' and see what's out there with regard to the governments abilitiy to provide coverage, not deny claims, not deny service, to not answer their phones, etc. etc. and start asking these Democrats if they get more calls and letters complaining about private insurance or more about government healthcare and if they get more regarding government problems, why do they keep only bringing up the private care stories?

I suspect you will find their complaints are 100 to 1 about Medicare and Medicaid and not private companies.

[Clarice]

The section Ranger, has three parts--an employer who no coverage; an employer who meets the minimum insurance test, and the employer who has a waiting time for coverage. The question is reading the convoluted language whether the employer's maximum additional costs (over his insurance premiums)is a $3,ooo fine per each employee who opts for the subsidy or a $750 fine for every employee on his payroll. In either case it's a rip off, designed to drive out private health insurance.

[Ranger]

I think the really important thing about this point Clarice is making is not this specific provision, but that the bill is chocked full of this stuff. If it passes people will be finding and point out all this stuff between now and November, and the old Congressional dodge of "well, I just didn't have a chance to read the entire bill" will not fly this time.

I just hope the people running the companies affected by this are smart enough to send out letter in October to all their employees advising them to start shopping for their own health insureance, because once Obamacare is fully implimented, the employer will no longer be providing it.

[These two are the first of many. The IPCC is broken.]

He had the book mostly written when ClimateGate broke, so he added a chapter about it at the end. Steven Mosher and Tom Fuller have also written a book since the break about the emails and their implications.
=========

[Captain Hate]

Yeah narc, that's the better comparison.

[Clarice]

Well, that is true, but it is also true that this is an outrage..the subsidized employee will be paid off by the taxpaying other employees who then will be forced to worse coverage on the govt plan..and there's nothing the employer can do to prevent that short of going out of business.

[Danube of Thought]

I love hearing Axelrod talk about the American people being "entitled to an up-or-down vote." Apparently he has carved out an exception for the house vote on the senate bill.

Ain't it grand what Drudge is doing with Pelosi? Every day brings a new, hideous photo.

[Captain Hate]

I want to restate that the idiocy of having to change our clocks today will be replicated many times over if those gvt a-holes run health care.

[Ranger]

Well, yes, the entire thing is an outrage. It is a plan to destory private healthcare for everyone except those rich enough to pay for it themselves, and those connected enough to get a gold plated government health care package. Everyone else will be shoved into "Medicaid for all" so they can sit in a hospital emergency room for hours and maybe see a state approved doctor once a year outside of emergencies.

[Clarice]

Excuse me, let me correct that--if an employer is over the minimum, and still he has to pay this large fine..say 30 of the 100 employees opt for the subsidy and the fine is $3k per--the employer will just drop his insurance coverage by $90k for the others to cover that.

[narciso]

"By the Old Ones" Cthluthu had fewer tentacles than this thing. This is like EOD
in Marjah or minesweeping, there are a hundred
tripwires in this system. Bringing the IRS that will work well

[Carol Herman]

Seen it with Ross Perot! And, Perot got a lot more attention! People were seen dragging cartloads of signed petitions, to get his name on every ballot. And, then? Perot said "he'd quit." And, then he changed his mind.

The elder Bush still lost. And, Bill Clinton came in. Perot got 19%. Clinton all of 37%.

Does politics come with these lessons? You bet. The stories are interesting. Since the first 'progressive,' and, yes, he called himself that, too, was Teddy Roosevelt.

Franklin ran as a progressive demorap. Woodwrow Wilson, who was running in a 3-way race, had Teddy Roosevelt's BULL MOOSE party coming in 2nd. The re-elect fatso, Taft, came in 3rd.

The nice thing about America is that we've seen it all before. Including how some people inherit wealth, but the genetics slide down hill. Just check out the progeny of the bootlegger, Joe Kennedy. You'd be surprised, if you include, how big the knives get when you're running successfully.

Mickey Kaus passes muster? Nah. But by what percentage does he knock out a front runner? Who's running first? First is on second.

[Clarice]

My husband now pays $7k per year for individual coverage and $8 for family coverage..and yet will be forced to pay the fine if even one employee opts for any insurance subsidy.

[Clarice]

**$8K for family coverage**

[Frau Zynisch]

FLOTUS warned us that Barry would make us do things we don't want to do, but will he succeed with all of us?

[Ranger]

What this entire HCR thing should be showing the American people is that the Federal Government sees its role now as inserting itself into any and every peronal relationship a person can have, and extracting a fee from you for the privlidge of being harrased.

[And a Prius ambled up.]

American Thinker has an amusing conservative, Phil Boehnke, reporting from one of yesterday's coffee parties.
====================

[Porchlight]

Who is going to hire anyone who looks remotely like they might opt for the subsidy at some point in the future?

[Ranger]

Clarice,

Tell him not to fight the economic logic. He should simply drop the healthcare, pay the fine, and pocket the difference. Tell his employees that they can choose a job without helth benifits, or no job at all. If they are Obama supporters, he can remind them that this is what they voted for.

[Danube of Thought]

Politico:

Moderate House Democrats facing potentially difficult re-elections this fall have a message for President Barack Obama: don’t call us, we’ll call you.

Interviews with nearly a dozen congressional Democrats on the ballot this year reveal a decided lack of enthusiasm for having Obama come to their districts to campaign for them—the most basic gauge of a president’s popularity.

[Clarice]

I told him, but I doubt the rest of the executive committee would go along with it. At most, they'll up the deductible.A lot.

[Clarice]

Hot Air--Catholic Bishops send message to faithful--church opposes Obamacare.

At last.

[Rick Ballard]

"Who is going to hire anyone who looks remotely like they might opt for the subsidy at some point in the future?"

When the Dems won control of the legislature in November '06 the unemployment rate among blacks was 8.6% (27.6% for teens), today the unemployment rate for blacks is 15.8% (42% for teens). I wonder how much more Dem help they can stand?

[Gmax]

While I rarely disagree with Rick, I am compelled to do so now. Rick you are claiming common sense is going to infuse the Democrat wing of the Democrat Party. The two are not even casually acquainted. Did you see how the progs went after very liberal Bart Stupak for a principaled stand on Life? They will eat their own and then belch loudly.

I personally will be happy to provide the popcorn for the show.

[Ranger]

This situation also is a classic example of how the Dems "help" people. Right now, and employee gets between 7 and 15K in benifits as part of their job. The new rules create an economic logic to end those benifits. The employer could be a decent person and up the employee's pay, but they can only afford to up it by what is left over from the government fine, not the total ammount. And since this amount is pay, it gets taxed as income.

So, single employee was getting 7K tax free in benifits, but now will get 4K in pay, and of they they will only keep 3K, and that will be consumed by the mandate that the employee has to buy their own insurance. Even if they get a subsidy from the government, it won't cover the 7K in lost benifits. But, the Feds get 4K in new taxes, while only paying out maybe 1K in subsidies. Funny how when the Dems decide to "help" people, it usually results in the person being poorer, and the Feds pocketing more taxes.

[Old Lurker]

"I wonder how much more Dem help they can stand?"

Plot that teen employment rate vs the minimum wage to see how much they helped.

That remark is NOT an invitation to wake up Sylvia.

[Old Lurker]

Exactly the math I was leading Clarice's husband to see, Ranger.

"Funny how when the Dems decide to "help" people, it usually results in the person being poorer, and the Feds pocketing more taxes."

There's a joke in there somewhere...

[Clarice]

Its hard to imagine how one can run a ig nusiness, Rick, while hiring no one wh makes under $88K per year.I believe, but can't be sure in this rube goldberg bill that that is the cut off for entitlement to a subsidy.

[Porchlight]

Truly, the parade of elements of this bill that are sickening to contemplate is endless. And the most terrifying part is that many of the unintended [sic] consequences won't even be known for years.

[Ranger]

Even if the single employee can find the same coverage for the same price (7K), They only have 3K of their own money, and 1K in government subsidy. The employee ends up 3K in the hole as a result, or they get much worse coverage and break even.

Unfortunately, your average Obama voter thinks they scored, because they got a 4K pay raise, and 1K in "free money" from the government.

[daddy]

Now I don't want anybody to go off half-cocked this morning, but ">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8561814.stm"> this is an ugly chicken.

[Frau Zynisch]

clarice, thanks for the tip last night about the interesting Volokh discussion. It's easy to see how many will still see no difference between passing a "rule" and passing a *law* or "deeming" a Senate bill passed while packaging it with with reconciliation items (which is done *after* a bill has been signed into law by the executive). What will the parliamentarian rule about the reconciliation bit? Or will he be even asked?

Soon we will have Captain Nancy Picard uttering, "Deem it so!"

[Pops]

I loved Dick Turbans excuse this morning:

The Democrats couldn't get anything done the first year because of the Republican filibauster and they won't be able to get anything done in the future if the Republicans continue to filibuster.

Of course the idiot NBC questioner didn't bother pointing out to Turban that they had 60 votes the first year so filibustering was impossible and they claim they can pass bills going forward with 51 votes - thus destroying the need for a filibuster.

So the truth is Mr. Turban that any 'filibuster' is of your own choosing.

I would also like to apoligize to Megyn Kelly. I never meant to make it seem that she wasn't a great interviewer, just that she's soooo distracting. I would like to apologize to her in person, for a long time.

[jimmyk]

Its hard to imagine how one can run a [b]ig [b]usiness, Rick, while hiring no one wh[o] makes under $88K per year.

I don't imagine that $88K figure is indexed for inflation either. If that's the case, then in five or ten years that $88K is going to look even more impossible. In fact, I think a lot of other features of this bill are designed so that over time inflation will magnify the impact. (The "Cadillac tax" provision, for example--with a little inflation, pretty soon most policies will be Cadillacked and subject to the tax.)

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Now I don't want anybody to go off half-cocked this morning, but this is an ugly chicken.

Which one, daddy? The male or the female?

[Clarice]

Nah,Jimmy--How can you say that? LOL

[Pops]

Can someone answer a simple question.

After the House passes the Senate Bill, and the President signs it, why in the world would Harry Reid tear the Senate apart to modify it?

His career is already most likely over.

He would retire with a big win of his signature bill.

It would be clean and simple whereas reconcialiation would be messy, long, difficult require many hours to modify a Bill he has no problem with keeping as it is.

Why would he want to spend all that time away from his family with his wife and daughter being injured.

I just don't see it in him to push this thing after the President signs his bill.

Does someone have any good reason why Reid would put everyone through this ordeal?

[Pops]

Remarks I'd like to hear on the house floor this week from a Republican:

I sympathize with my Democrat colleagues. You're being asked to vote for a bill you don't like and your constituents don't support. You're being asked to trust the Senate after watching all their double dealing to pass a bill. But worst of all, I sympathize with those of you who will vote no - regardless of all that.
For you will have to suffer a naked, swearing Rahm Emmanuel poking you in the House gym.

No mental healthcare can fix that..

[Clarice]

Because his word is his bond?

*she said this rolling on the floor laughing*

[Pops]

Last comment. In addition, Reid supporting reconciliation would be an admission by him that his backroom deals were wrong.

[centralcal]

Went grocery shopping, got beef stew simmering away, and return to find Clarice's husbands revelation is making the rounds on the internet (of course no credit is given to Mr. Clarice, they claim to have discovered it on their own). Ace is covering it via Pajamas media. I was sure it was gonna be a Clarice blog, but it was someone else.

[mefolkes]

Pops, Megyn Kelly earned my respect when she changed her position on the Duke lacrosse players and argued brilliantly and passionately on their behalf. With the character and intellect on display, I felt positively guilt-free about drooling over her beauty. Do you remember when the Dems tried to slander her and Brit Hume by claiming that they were having an affair? The point person in the attempt described those two as "the two least attractive people" at Fox. I was stunned that anyone would dare to utter "least attractive" in connection with a dazzling creature like Megyn Kelly.