Via Glenn, Byron York highlights a new Brookings Institute study that attempted to gauge the redistribution of income under ObamaCare. The headline - the bottom two income deciles benefit, on average, while the top 80 percent of earners experience mild losses.
That is not protecting the middle class. The estimated impact is for 2016 (.pdf), so Dems might - might! - dodge this until the law takes full effect delivers its full impact.
The picture tells the story:
Wow. Glenn nails it: YOU DON’T WANT TO BE WAGE SLAVES, DO YOU? AND WHAT MAKES WAGE SLAVES? WAGES! AllahP is insightful as usual, and Groucho is funny as usual.
And let's note that this is the average result (mean? median?) within each decile. From the summary:
Executive Summary
1. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) will improve the well-being and incomes of Americans in the bottom fifth of the income distribution. Under our broadest and most comprehensive income measure we project that incomes in the bottom one-fifth of the distribution will increase almost 6%; those in the bottom one-tenth of the distribution will rise more than 7%. These estimated gains represent averages. Most people already have insurance coverage that will be left largely unaffected by reform. Those who gain subsidized insurance will see bigger percentage gains in their income.
I should add that this report will not necessarily reconcile with the latest CBO report, which got headlines with its projection that lower income groups would cut back their hours worked in order to collect more subsidies. I don't believe the Brookings team attempted to model the slacking effect; from their paper:
We focus on five effects. First, we estimate the likely impact of the Medicaid expansion. Second, we estimate how many and which workers will become newly eligible for employer- sponsored health insurance because of new coverage mandates on medium-size and large employers. Third, we show how many and which people will enroll in subsidized and unsubsidized insurance plans marketed through newly established state insurance Exchanges. Fourth, we measure the distributional impacts of mandated reductions in government subsidies for Medicare preferred provider organizations and HMO plans under Finally, we estimate the distributional impacts of new taxes imposed by the ACA. These include penalty taxes levied on nonpoor people who decline the offer of affordable insurance and on employers who do offer affordable coverage to their employees. These taxes also include new Medicare taxes on capital and labor income of people with high income.
So, here is a plot twist I have not seen discussed elsewhere: per CBO, the work cutback will represent about 1.5% to 2% of hours worked but only 1% of wage compensation, since the cutback will occur among the lower-earning folks eligible for subsidies (see p. 133 of the .pdf).
However, per this Economic Policy Institute chart based on the authors' "analysis of Kopczuk, Saez, and Song (2010) and Social Security Administration wage statistics", we glean that the bottom two quintiles only take about 11% of wage income. So if CBO-projected 1% reduction in wage income falls entirely upon those two quintiles, it is an income reduction of roughly 9% for that group.
I would not take that calculation to the bank, but it is surely something to keep in mind - whether a 1% reduction in national income does or does not sound huge, it is a lot for a group only collecting about 11% of national income (pre-transfers and benefits, presumably). FWIW, Table H-2 from the Census Bureau has the two lowest quintiles getting 11% of "Aggregate Income" in 2012. If someone wants to tell me whether that is before or after adjusting for taxes and transfers I am all ears - their website makes clear they look at both, but what am I looking at? [CBO figures on p. 11 have "market income" for the bottom two quartiles at about 10%, but market income includes business income, capital income, capital gains and other stuff. So 1% of wages would be less than 1% of aggregate market income.
PILING ON: Per the Heritage Foundation blog the recent Fed beige book has lots of ACA gloom from businesses.
In a survey of CFOs the Duke University B-school found that "44 percent are considering reducing health benefits to current employees due to Obamacare".
What was that book Hayek wrote?
Brookings? didn't they just hire a new sanitation worker or something?
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | February 05, 2014 at 01:10 PM
Shouldn't we have an opposition party to make these points?
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 05, 2014 at 01:12 PM
Face it, Obama's whole regime has been a moral hazard.
Posted by: Deliberate moral treachery. | February 05, 2014 at 01:12 PM
We used to work 6 days a week, entrepreneurs still work 7 days a week.
Posted by: Entrepreneurs? How 20th Century of you. | February 05, 2014 at 01:14 PM
For Obama/Jarret, this is a feature not a bug. They do believe this is a good thing. Seriously.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | February 05, 2014 at 01:17 PM
http://peskytruth.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/how-the-rnc-has-screwed-us-all-but-milo-spills-the-beans/
Posted by: Threadkiller | February 05, 2014 at 01:18 PM
O-care belief
Don'T worry, now you can be happy." More free time and we pick up the tab by granting you subsidies.Why do I feel like we are going the way of Greece and Spain? Next we will be taking siestas in the afternoon The solid work ethic of we and our forefathers is dead.
Posted by: maryrose | February 05, 2014 at 01:20 PM
Bohica for the Middle Class. Bend over, here it comes again.
Posted by: matt | February 05, 2014 at 01:22 PM
"I'm a complete fan of the Affordable Care Act, but now I can't sleep at night," Nelson said. "I can't imagine this is how President Obama wanted it to happen."
... "You phuked up, you trusted us" --- Eric "Otter" Stratton (Delta House President)
Posted by: Neo | February 05, 2014 at 01:25 PM
And I always thought that freedom was a foreign concept for the Democrats. Now we can be free from work. Yippee!
Posted by: Frau A. Neuman | February 05, 2014 at 01:26 PM
Can't wait to see how they spin this:
"Adding to a devastating CBO report of how Obamacare could damage the economy, a Duke University survey of top companies found that 44 percent are considering reducing health benefits to current employees due to Obamacare, confirming the fears of millions of American workers. In its December survey of chief financial officers around the country, Duke also found that nearly half are 'reluctant to hire full-time employees because of the Affordable Care Act.'"
Posted by: Danube on iPad | February 05, 2014 at 01:28 PM
Germany will probably bail out Greece for a third time. The Greek man on the street said, "Everyone knows the Germans *like* to work."
Can we get some of Angela's stash, too?
Posted by: Frau Wohlfahrt | February 05, 2014 at 01:33 PM
"You phuked up, you trusted us" --- Eric "Otter" Stratton (Delta House President)"
"Why don't you go ahead and die now."
Dr. Ezekiel 'Mengele' Emanuel
(Death Panel Chairman)
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | February 05, 2014 at 01:34 PM
Frau-- not until after Greek Banks 'bail-in' rich depositors. It's the Blitzkrieg again, only without ze panzers.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | February 05, 2014 at 01:36 PM
DoT-- doyou have a link to that?
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | February 05, 2014 at 01:36 PM
Smug liberal trope: Vote Republican, It Beats Thinking!
New, reality-based trope: Vote Democrat, It Beats Working!
Posted by: lyle | February 05, 2014 at 01:37 PM
Here's a link with DoT's quote
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | February 05, 2014 at 01:47 PM
The UN now wants to subvert the Catholic Church. These quotes directly from the document.
"The Committee recommends that the Holy See undertake a comprehensive
review of its normative framework, in particular Canon Law, with a view to ensuring
its full compliance with the Convention."
"The Committee welcomes the information provided by the Holy See during the
interactive dialogue that it has initiated a review of its legislation with a view to
withdrawing the discriminatory expression “illegitimate children” which can still be found in Canon Law, in particular Canon 1139. While also noting as positive the progressivestatement delivered in July 2013 by Pope Francis, the Committee is concerned about theHoly See’s past statements and declarations on homosexuality which contribute to the social stigmatization of and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adolescents and children raised by same sex couples."
"The Committee recommends that the Holy See bring all its laws and regulations, as well as its policies and practices, in conformity with article 2 of the Convention and promptly abolish the discriminatory classification of children born out of wedlock as illegitimate children. The Committee also urges the Holy See to
make full use of its moral authority to condemn all forms of harassment,
discrimination or violence against children based on their sexual orientation or the
sexual orientation of their parents and to support efforts at international level for the decriminalisation of homosexuality."
"The Committee also regrets that
the Holy See did not provide precise information on the measures taken to promote equality between girls and boys and to remove gender stereotypes from Catholic schools textbooks."
"The Committee is concerned that the Holy See restrictively interprets children’s
right to express their views in all matters affecting them, as well as their rights to freedom of expression, association and religion."
"The Committee strongly urges the Holy See to cooperate in studies to determine the root causes of the practice of anonymous abandonment of babies and expeditiously strengthen and promote alternatives, taking into full account the right of children to know their biological parents and siblings, as enshrined in article 7 of the Convention.
The Committee also urges the Holy See to contribute to addressing the abandonment of babies by providing family planning, reproductive health, as well as adequate counseling and social support, to prevent unplanned pregnancies as well as assistance to families in need, while introducing the possibility of confidential births at hospitals as a measure of last resort to prevent abandonment and/or death of a child."
The Committee urges the Church to..."Explicitly oppose all corporal punishment in childrearing, in the same
way it opposes torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment;
(b) Amend both Canon Law and Vatican City State laws to explicitly prohibit all corporal punishment of children, including within the family;
(c)Establish mechanisms to effectively enforce this ban in all Catholic
schools and institutions working with and for children as well as on the territory of
the Vatican City State and to ensure accountability for violence against children; and
(d)Make use of its authority to promote positive, non-violent and
participatory forms of child-rearing, and ensure that an interpretation of Scripture as
not condoning corporal punishment is reflected in Church teaching and other
activities and incorporated into all theological education and training."
"The Committee is however concerned about the situation of adolescents recruited by the Legion of Christ and other Catholic institutions who are progressively separated from their families and isolated from the outside world. While taking note of the Holy See’s response which highlights parental rights and duties to choose schools and seminaries for their children, the Committee also notes that in November 2013, the President of the French conference of bishops recognized the manipulation of individual consciences in some Catholic institutions and congregations."
"The Committee urges the Holy See to adopt a policy for the deinstitutionalization of children placed in Catholic Church-run institutions and for the reunification with their families, where possible. The Committee also recommends that the Holy See take all necessary measures to ensure as a matter of priority that children under the age of three are not placed in institutions.
The Holy See should also enact guidelines for the placement, adequate periodic review and monitoring of placements of children in all alternative Catholic care settings to guarantee the application of standards and to prevent abuse. In doing so, the Holy See should take into account the Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children annexed to the United Nations General Assembly resolution 64/142 of 20 December 2009."
"The Committee urges the Holy See to review its position on abortion which
places obvious risks on the life and health of pregnant girls and to amend Canon 1398
relating to abortion with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services can be permitted."
"The Committee is seriously concerned about the negative consequences of the Holy
See’s position and practices of denying adolescents’ access to contraception, as well as to sexual and reproductive health and information."
"Assess the serious implications of its position on adolescents’ enjoyment
of the highest attainable standard of health and overcome all the barriers and taboos
surrounding adolescent sexuality that hinder their access to sexual and reproductive
information, including on family planning and contraceptives, the dangers of early
pregnancy, the prevention of HIV/AIDS and the prevention and treatment of sexually
transmitted diseases (STDs)"
"Guarantee the best interests of pregnant teenagers and ensure that the
views of the pregnant adolescent always be heard and respected in the field of
reproductive health."
Posted by: matt | February 05, 2014 at 01:54 PM
"Well, If people don't have access to doctors or don't have insurance at all, they'll have an incentive to take better care of themselves. And isn't personal responsibility what you gosh darned wingnuts are always harping on?"
You know this is coming...
Posted by: Eric in Boise | February 05, 2014 at 01:56 PM
Well they can just follow the example of peace keepers in the Congo, Shirley they can't be serious.
Posted by: narciso | February 05, 2014 at 02:07 PM
One thinks they are picking Brave New World, rather than Orwell, as their preferred text.
Posted by: narciso | February 05, 2014 at 02:08 PM
The Brookings study will ring no bells on the plantations unless a method can be devised to translate a BOzocard into a forty with the same ease as an EBT card.
It's gonna take Klein/Yglesias level stupidity to score this study a political winner.
Posted by: Account Deleted | February 05, 2014 at 02:09 PM
Steyn was riffing on the climate hubs, two of them, happen to be the first states in
the electoral roller derby, Iowa and New Hampshire.
Posted by: narciso | February 05, 2014 at 02:13 PM
Honestly! I feel as if I am Alice In Wonderland! Pitiful.
Posted by: polly | February 05, 2014 at 02:13 PM
Well the Python sketch with the albatross certainly,
Posted by: narciso | February 05, 2014 at 02:15 PM
Phillip Klein reminds of the Federal Debt Bomb. This is worse than the Cold war Nukes-- 'duck and cover' provided more protection from Nukes than we have from this Debt Bomb:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/federal-debt-may-be-forgotten-but-its-far-from-gone/article/2543461?custom_click=rss
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | February 05, 2014 at 02:15 PM
matt
Memo to: the UN
Start with the muzzies. Mmmkay?
Posted by: henry | February 05, 2014 at 02:16 PM
matt,
Saw that. I have often wondered if someone like a Rand Paul would run for President on a platform that would include exiting the UN if that would be a winning proposition. It is collectively the most anti-American, anti-christian and anti-Western values organization in the world and that includes Al Queda.
They kept the report secret until they released it at a presser where the Vatican's Ambassador to the UN was present. They didn't even give him a head's up. A real gay liberation led gotcha moment. Same people that populate the Nobel Peace Prize committees.
'Nuf said.
Posted by: Jack is Back! (But in Typhus Hell) | February 05, 2014 at 02:18 PM
Ah, Henry Aaron, we know him from other 'Troy McClure' production, like it's just a Flesh wound, back in December, and 'really it didn't even nick' the skin, back in October.
Posted by: narciso | February 05, 2014 at 02:20 PM
OT -
Spotted online:
Posted by: Frau Gar Nichts | February 05, 2014 at 02:22 PM
Did I just walk into a screening of 'Wild in the Streets' and no one told me?
Posted by: narciso | February 05, 2014 at 02:25 PM
Climate-- another month, still no warming. satellite temp anomaly .29C, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere. 15 full years of no warming now. The best interpretation of the satellite #s is that the 1998 'Super' El Nino, stepped up temps and they stayed there to date. CO2 rising, but not doing anything. Skydragon has been slain by the data. Next Theory please: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2014-0-29-deg-c/
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | February 05, 2014 at 02:26 PM
Damn you Thai pad!
Posted by: Beasts of England | February 05, 2014 at 02:33 PM
Yep-- a brilliant comment of mine was eaten as well. What was it?
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | February 05, 2014 at 02:34 PM
Oh-- I remember. Dead Senate dems walking: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-05/vulnerable-senate-democrats-urge-keystone-xl-approval.html
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | February 05, 2014 at 02:34 PM
matt @ 1:54 -
Luna latrantes canes non curat
...a little more refined than the middle finger salute.
Posted by: Frau Fliegende Feige | February 05, 2014 at 02:38 PM
TM:
FWIW, Table H-2 from the Census Bureau has the two lowest quintiles getting 11% of "Aggregate Income" in 2012. If someone wants to tell me whether that is before or after adjusting for taxes and transfers I am all ears - their website makes clear they look at both, but what am I looking at?
I'll defer to Rick for a ruling on the best source for numbers, but I've been using the CBO (hey, if we're looking at them for Obamacare stats, why not for income distribution).
According to their Dec 2013 report (on 2010 income and taxes) (PDF)...
Bottom Quintile:
Before Tax Income*: 14.7% (Table 1)
After Tax Income**: 17.2% (Table 1)
All Federal Taxes: 4.2% (Table 3)
Individual Income Taxes: -9.1% (Table 3)
And while we're at it....
Highest Quintile:
Before Tax Income*: 51.9%
After Tax Income**: 47.2%
All Federal Taxes: 68.8%
Individual Income Taxes: 92.9%
And the ever-dreaded Top 1 Percent:
Before Tax Income*: 14.9%
After Tax Income**: 11.5%
All Federal Taxes: 24.2%
Individual Income Taxes: 39.0%
--------------------
*Before-tax income is the sum of market income and government transfers. Market income is composed of labor income, business income, capital gains, capital income (excluding capital gains), income received in retirement for past services, and other sources of income. Government transfers are cash payments and in-kind benefits from social insurance and other government assistance programs.
**After-tax income is the sum of market income and government transfers, minus federal tax liabilities. Federal taxes include individual and corporate income taxes, social insurance (or payroll) taxes, and excise taxes
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | February 05, 2014 at 02:39 PM
Politico is in on the act now:
Looks like it still may be to big to view without right clicking.
Posted by: Jack is Back! (But in Typhus Hell) | February 05, 2014 at 02:57 PM
So, the December CBO numbers readily show the redistribution from the top quintile to bottom quintile. No surprise there. Brookings tells us that ObummerCare will result in more redistribution from the middle 3 quintiles to the bottom quintile. So Obummer lied when he said he's 'spread the wealth around' instead he's spreading the misery around to the middle class. Nice one Barry.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | February 05, 2014 at 02:59 PM
I have yet to hear of a credible Obamacare winner.
1.
They work less than 40 hours a week.
They don't make much otherwise no subsidy.
They are over 40 and lost their original insurance
they have no need for contraception or pre-natal care but must carry it.
they live in Oregon and have been cheated by the person in charge of the exchange.
According to Obama and Carney that person is a winner.
This is a pretty low bar even for them
Posted by: maryrose | February 05, 2014 at 03:00 PM
"Executive Summary
1. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) will improve the well-being and incomes of Americans in the bottom fifth of the income distribution. Under our broadest and most comprehensive income measure we project that incomes in the bottom one-fifth of the distribution will increase almost 6%; those in the bottom one-tenth of the distribution will rise more than 7%."
So...7.2% is "more than 75", but 5.3% is "almost 6%"
Go Brookings. Say hi to Ben for us.
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 05, 2014 at 03:03 PM
"Duke also found that nearly half are 'reluctant to hire full-time employees because of the Affordable Care Act.'"
We few, we happy few, can now pursue our dreams of art history. We shall overcome.
Posted by: MarkO | February 05, 2014 at 03:04 PM
Speaking of Hillary, this came by email:
"Who said it?
1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
A. Karl Marx B. Adolph Hitler C. Joseph Stalin D. Barack Obama E. None of the
above
2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the
few, and for the few...... And to replace it with shared responsibility, for
shared prosperity."
A. Lenin B. Mussolini C. Idi Amin D. Barack Obama E. None of the above
3) "(We).....can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something
has to be taken away from some people."
A. Nikita Khrushev B. Josef Goebbels C. Boris Yeltsin D. Barack Obama E. None
of the above
4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a
little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground."
A. Mao Tse Dung B. Hugo Chavez C. Kim Jong Il D. Barack Obama E. None of the
above
5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
A. Karl Marx B. Lenin C. Molotov D. Barack Obama E. None of the above
6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most
profitable sector in
(the) entire economy that they are being watched."
A. Pinochet B. Milosevic C. Saddam Hussein D. Barack Obama E. None of the above"
All of the above quotes are from Hillary.
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 05, 2014 at 03:06 PM
"75" was "7%"
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 05, 2014 at 03:07 PM
the Duke study DoT referenced above
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/duke-university-study-obamacare-impacts-full-time-hiring-fuqua-school-of-business-december-11-2013-nearly-half-of-companies-reluctant-to-hire-full-time-employees-shift-to-part-time-workers/
press release http://www.cfosurvey.org/14q1/PressRelease.pdf
it is about 6 weeks old and unsurprising.
Posted by: rich@gmu | February 05, 2014 at 03:10 PM
OL:
She is a socialist through and through.
New rumor that Bill had an affair with Elizabeth Hurley back in the day.Supposedly Sizemore,a rather questionable actor is touting this information.Can you say 'Hillary as a victim 5 times without stopping...
Posted by: maryrose | February 05, 2014 at 03:10 PM
Let me tell you what I get from this pathetic framing of a disaster and from Obama's serial lying and whining in the Fox interview.
He knows he has the media back in his pocket.
Posted by: MarkO | February 05, 2014 at 03:10 PM
From the panem et circenses department:
George Zimmerman will be boxing DMX* for charity.
*Ironically, DMX is a washed-up rapper, not the type of cough medicine Trayvon was using in his Purple Drank!
Posted by: Beasts of England | February 05, 2014 at 03:11 PM
Too bad. I was hoping for a titanic struggle with heroin. Next time.
Posted by: MarkO | February 05, 2014 at 03:12 PM
JiB, that Politico cartoon is pretty good.
So we seem to be seeing the beginnings of an anti-Hillary backlash from the left.
If they don't want her, whom do they want?
Posted by: Porchlight | February 05, 2014 at 03:12 PM
Marko;
He only thinks he has the media in his pocket. 2014 will tell the true tail. Everyone now knows without a doubt that he is a serial liar. Dana Perino says that by blaming Fox he is shooting down. No other presidents were this petty. It also shows he is very thin-skinned and a bit of a wussy boy. Not attractive qualitis in Ear leader.
My prediction -to bail out vulnerable dims in the senate he approves Keystone sometime this spring to keep them from jumping ship.
Posted by: maryrose | February 05, 2014 at 03:14 PM
should be tale-got distracted by previous Clinton post.
Posted by: maryrose | February 05, 2014 at 03:15 PM
Hillary has gotten ginormus by the way. I just noticed when I saw her walking to a podium recently. She also kind of waddles as she walks.Perhaps it is Christie envy.
Posted by: maryrose | February 05, 2014 at 03:18 PM
Porchlight:
The dems want someone that can deliver them from Obamacare's 7th circle of hell.
Posted by: maryrose | February 05, 2014 at 03:21 PM
Porch,
I think the Dem candidate will be someone unexpected, Deval from MA or some other governor, maybe Booker if they looking for the young vote again.
Posted by: Bori | February 05, 2014 at 03:22 PM
Well, following my theory that democrat candidates are devolving, it has to be someone worse than Obama, which is a tall order. ( gore was worse than Dukakis, Kerry worse than Gore, and Obama was worse than Kerry.)
My two nominations for the candidate are Cuomo, who is thuggish, immoral, and obnoxious
Or Michelle Obama.
Posted by: miss Marple | February 05, 2014 at 03:22 PM
Bori, you think we are ready for a Black Socialist as President?
Posted by: Old Lurker | February 05, 2014 at 03:23 PM
fun with spreadsheets...
got my taxes finished and imagine my surprise that my income fell 17.8% yoy and hours working fell 12.9%. looking over my budget the amount of money is about my total expenses for school (and why do education credits and subsidies phase out when they do...good grief).
Posted by: rich@gmu | February 05, 2014 at 03:27 PM
El ingenioso hidalgo, don Barack de la Mancha.
Posted by: MarkO | February 05, 2014 at 03:27 PM
If they don't want her, whom do they want?
Posted by: Porchlight
Warren or Schweitzer. think the big money will shift to Warren though.
Posted by: rich@gmu | February 05, 2014 at 03:30 PM
Or Michelle Obama.
Or Fauxcahontas
Posted by: lyle | February 05, 2014 at 03:31 PM
Well Warren would fit the Prog Dem bill; she's phony enough and stupid enough to be Soro's dancing chimp.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | February 05, 2014 at 03:31 PM
OL, you mean besides the one we have now? Of course a case can be made that O is more Marxist but at this point what difference does it make?
Posted by: Bori | February 05, 2014 at 03:32 PM
a note about the above is that I didn't include the educational reimbursement as income because it wasn't taxed (and it was less than my expenses anyway). my plan worked though roughly how I thought it would (didn't take as many hours as I wanted and it was more time consuming).
not too shabby.
Posted by: rich@gmu | February 05, 2014 at 03:34 PM
Warren is a white female version of Obama minus the charisma. I just don't see it. I still think it will be someone younger and unexpected.
Posted by: Bori | February 05, 2014 at 03:34 PM
Bori-- it won't be deval. Obummer has ruined the black socialist brand for a long long time. deval is like Jeb in a sense.
How about that San Antoine Mayor, he's Latino and a faux 'centrist'.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | February 05, 2014 at 03:37 PM
Could also be Evan Bayh which would lure people into thinking he was a centrist. I think he is counting on being Hillary's vp candidate, however.
Posted by: miss Marple | February 05, 2014 at 03:39 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/05/email-irss-lerner-treasury-department-secretly-drafted-new-rules-to-restrict-nonprofits/#!
So much for the Administration talking point that the proposed regulations on social welfare organizations were issued to provide clearer guidance to such organizations in light of the inadvertent delays caused by those back office people in Cincinnati.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | February 05, 2014 at 03:40 PM
"How about that San Antoine Mayor, he's Latino, and a faux 'centrist'."
NK, not to forget that he and his handsome twin brother are both red-diaper babies.
Big.Time.
Posted by: Frau Fliegende Feige | February 05, 2014 at 03:46 PM
Bori-
you aren't thinking in terms of DOOM!!! I surprised we have gotten to this point-a one term disaster wasn't enough so we had to try it for another 4 years.
we don't have an opposition party and the administration is ladling in radicals at all levels of the bureaucracy and into the judiciary. and we may joke about 20 and 30 something's living at home and parttime nation, but this all has consequences beyond the economics of it.
Posted by: rich@gmu | February 05, 2014 at 03:47 PM
I was surprised...jeez.
Posted by: rich@gmu | February 05, 2014 at 03:47 PM
with Dems it doesn't matter what they are, just what they can't be sold as, and their voters aren't very discerning.
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | February 05, 2014 at 03:49 PM
can be sold as...
Posted by: NK(withnewsoftware) | February 05, 2014 at 03:50 PM
That's right rich.
And the idiot community organizer from Chicago is not the captain of the ship.
Posted by: Truthbetold | February 05, 2014 at 03:50 PM
Could also be Evan Bayh which would lure people into thinking he was a centrist. I think he is counting on being Hillary's vp candidate, however.
Ugh.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 05, 2014 at 03:51 PM
My take on the UN Report. LUN.
"You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way!
The Dalai Lama
Posted by: matt | February 05, 2014 at 03:52 PM
"If they don't want her, whom do they want?"
Porch, it may not matter if they *want* her; they mayu be forced to get her by hook or by crook.
HRC! HRC! HRC!
Hillary! Über Alles!
Going to disinfect my keyboard...
Posted by: Frau Fliegende Feige | February 05, 2014 at 03:53 PM
in re: Warren she was able to take the state even though the lies were exposed. even blue collar workers in the state were not phased because she'll "bring home the bacon" and she had the unions in her pocketbook. I wouldn't put money on it at this point but she's got the same sketchy background and the same money contacts O was able to leverage.
and if it gets worse how many people would be willing to try something radically different if it meant giving up lots of benefits.
Posted by: rich@gmu | February 05, 2014 at 04:04 PM
I agree that the prospect of electing a female to President will be strong, it just that I think Hil's opportunity has passed. The only thing that will keep her in the race is the money she can generate but if an alternative is found the votes will follow.
Posted by: Bori | February 05, 2014 at 04:08 PM
Re; the Vatican report, one can't help thinking of that remark of the chaplain of the Saudi version of Annapolis, that surfaced in Dore Gold and made it into Silva's roman a clef,
Posted by: narciso | February 05, 2014 at 04:09 PM
Common Core as propaganda tool:
LUN
Posted by: Frau Fliegende Feige | February 05, 2014 at 04:11 PM
erm, 2000 election
Posted by: Frau Fliegende Feige | February 05, 2014 at 04:11 PM
this was Black Knight Aaron back in December;
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/12/11-parlous-prospects-of-obamacare-aaron
Posted by: narciso | February 05, 2014 at 04:11 PM
rich, Warren also likes to generate the 15-minute Bank hates which many love.
Posted by: Frau Fliegende Feige | February 05, 2014 at 04:13 PM
I dunno, there's just so much dirt on her. The MSM can derail her so easily, even more so than last time, because they were still somewhat afraid of her then. They're not afraid of her now.
I'm out of the prediction game since November 2012, but I wonder how we can avoid her.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 05, 2014 at 04:14 PM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/02/more-good-news-cbo-says-o-care-will-reduce-workers-wages-video/
Democrats are going to run on this record?
Posted by: pagar | February 05, 2014 at 04:14 PM
And this was him at the beginning,
http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20130929/NEWS/309290021/Advice-on-health-plan-rollout-Expect-glitches?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7CDW&nclick_check=1
Posted by: narciso | February 05, 2014 at 04:15 PM
"dirt on her" - her being HRC
Posted by: Porchlight | February 05, 2014 at 04:19 PM
...and the electorate will be satisfied with legal pot and will spend those extra hours navigating Big Poverty.
curing sloth and breaking habits of mind that resulted in a trophy case blue ribbons since elementary school and a college degree is going to take more than a few years of living in the rent's basement.
Posted by: rich@gmu | February 05, 2014 at 04:23 PM
in re: Hillary. I was surprised how quickly she imploded when the Hsu (a bizarre story an incurious media didn't bother to explore) was discovered. How quickly will she implode when rich veins of scandal are mined from the Clinton Foundation? Two stories come to mind...where did all that Haiti earthquake relief go and all of her toadies that had double duty at State and the Foundation?
Posted by: rich@gmu | February 05, 2014 at 04:28 PM
Is Huma still
servicingworking for Shrillary?Posted by: lyle | February 05, 2014 at 04:32 PM
her being HRC
Her
Royal
Cankles
Posted by: lyle | February 05, 2014 at 04:34 PM
Warren was paid $300,000 per year to teach one class at Harvard. I want to know what pearls of wisdom were worth that much.
I also would like to point out that much of that $300,000 was paid through student loans and this does not seem very fair to the students nor the taxpayers who also contributed to her salary through Pell Grants.
Posted by: miss Marple | February 05, 2014 at 04:36 PM
The Democrats made 80% or more of Americans losers on an unpopular law, and did not expect negative consequences? Whoa, I bet they don't sell that level of high even in Colorado...
Posted by: GMax | February 05, 2014 at 04:37 PM
if wiki is to be believed she is? wow she started as a white house intern as well...lucky Clenis didn't get his hands on her.
Posted by: rich@gmu | February 05, 2014 at 04:39 PM
I think the voter fraud in 2014 is going to be legendary - because Obama has got to be scared he is going to be impeached,
Posted by: Jane-Rebel Alliance1 | February 05, 2014 at 04:43 PM
So Huma is still swabbing the
dickdeck of the HMS Pantsuit? I thought a chill had descended when she compared her marriage to that of the Clintoons.Posted by: Captain Hate | February 05, 2014 at 04:44 PM
lol. the lives of others...
Posted by: rich@gmu | February 05, 2014 at 04:54 PM
and on top of this health insurance insanity...we all have been paying needlessly high energy prices for YEARS.
Forced to spend our money on health insurance & pay high energy prices (which makes all goods cost more)...no wonder stores are closin' right & left. People don't have the money to spend on THAT stuff anymore.
Posted by: Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself | February 05, 2014 at 05:03 PM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PROPANE_SHORTAGE_DEATH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-02-05-14-06-41
Can you imagine if this was a Republican administration?
Woman dies in Dakotas with no propane to heat home -
"People have been struggling to stay warm as propane prices more than doubled due to a national shortage.
Tribal officials have declared a state of emergency because about 5,000 homes on the reservation are heated by propane. Tribal Chairman Dave Archambault II says many residents are on fixed incomes and can't afford the more expensive fuel."
Posted by: Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself | February 05, 2014 at 05:06 PM