Cash for Clunker (in)Competence

At a time when -- one would think -- the Obama Administration would be pulling out all the stops to prove their thesis that government solutions lower costs and deliver better service, Administration supported government programs don't seem to be faring too well:

Hundreds of auto dealers in the New York area have withdrawn from the government's Cash for Clunkers program, citing delays in getting reimbursed by the government, a dealership group said Wednesday.

The Greater New York Automobile Dealers Association, which represents dealerships in the New York metro area, said about half its 425 members have left the program because they cannot afford to offer more rebates. They're also worried about getting repaid.

And Obama expects us to believe claims that expanding government involvement in the health sector will improve quality of care and reduce costs?

Obama's Negatives Continue to Build

Obama scores a -9 in Rasumssen's latest Presidential approval tracking poll:

That the strongly disapproves and strongly approves both ticked up in this latest poll may suggest that the middle is tipping toward strongly disapprove.  The data also suggest public opinion is trending against Obama.. This tweaking of Rasmussen's graph emphasizes Obama's reversal of fortune:

Apple is Enablng 2009 to be 1984

Apple's famous '1984' ad concluded, "On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce MacIntosh. You'll see why 1984 won't be like "1984":


Scott Ott illustrates how Apple is enabling 2009 to be like "1984". Yep, there's an app for that:

The Health Care Diversion: It's the Economy, Stupid

One has to wonder: Is the Democrat's emphasis on health care a diversionary tactic? Sure, there is room for improvement in the U.S. health care system. Is a whole-sale make-over of the U.S. health care system needed? I don't read the tea leaves that way.

The momentum for whole-sale reform of the U.S.'s health care system is premised on a sour U.S. and world economy. The logic may go thus: The more people there are out of work, the more people there are that may be interested in government health care. Hence, the Obama administration has incentive to delay the recovery of the U.S. economy to increase the likelihood of passing government-run health care. My intent here is not to be conspiratorial. However, Rahm Emmanual's infamous, "Don't waste a 'serious crisis" comment, affords a basis for skepticism. The depressed U.S. economy affords just such a 'crisis' that can be 'leveraged.'

Issues with the U.S. health care system are meaningfully a function of the state of the U.S. economy. The healthier the U.S. economy, the more wealth there is available in the private sector. Wealth in the private sector reflects job creation, salary and benefits expansion, increased charitable giving to non-profit hospitals and other community support organizations, and greater freedom of individual choice. These, collectively, reduce the need for government involvement in health care.

The current government efforts to reconfigure the U.S. health care system reflect an attempt to address perceived systemic symptoms without an initial diagnosis. Proposed measures are akin to treating a fever generated by a bacterial infection with an ice-pack. The ice-pack is noticeable, and appears to offer relief, yet has no therapeutic impact on the underlying infection.

The considerable effort pouring into health sector reconfiguration focuses on a symptom that diverts energy and attention away from the underlying weakness of the U.S. economy. The focus on health sector reform is a diversion that pulls energy and focus away from engaging discussion on what is needed to ensure the long-term health of the U.S. economy; to engage entrepreneurial efforts that create jobs; to divert attention away from the fact that the U.S. economy continues to shed jobs.

To reprise a phrase popular with the last Democrat to occupy the White House: It's the economy, stupid. Getting the U.S. economy back on solid footing would seem to go a long way to improving the health care experience of every U.S. citizen and do so in a way that generates, rather than consumes, wealth and health for all.

The IRS and Your Health Care

William Jacobson shines the light on a provision in draft health care legislation that would put the IRS at the epicenter of the healthcare system:

Under both the House and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee bills released to the public, the Internal Revenue Service will play a key role in monitoring and enforcing health care mandates against individual taxpayers. Yet the introduction of the IRS into the health care system has received scant attention.

The Senate bill imposes a new requirement that all persons who provide health care coverage to others must file a return with the IRS listing the names, addresses, social security numbers, and the coverage period for each person, and "such other information as the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] may prescribe." (Section 161(b) starting at page 107). The bill does not limit what information the Secretary may request, so it is conceivable and likely that information as to the nature of the coverage, the family members included, and other details will be reported to the IRS.

Read the whole thing. Would you want the IRS to be monitoring your health care and have the power to decide whether you have paid properly for care received?

Kindle Reading at the Barnes & Noble Cafe

President Oblivious

Drudge is featuring this stunning interview excerpt of C-SPAN host Steve Scull with President Obama:

SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?

OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we've seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades.

So we've got a short-term problem, which is we had to spend a lot of money to salvage our financial system, we had to deal with the auto companies, a huge recession which drains tax revenue at the same time it's putting more pressure on governments to provide unemployment insurance or make sure that food stamps are available for people who have been laid off.

So we have a short-term problem and we also have a long-term problem. The short-term problem is dwarfed by the long-term problem. And the long-term problem is Medicaid and Medicare. If we don't reduce long-term health care inflation substantially, we can't get control of the deficit.

So, one option is just to do nothing. We say, well, it's too expensive for us to make some short-term investments in health care. We can't afford it. We've got this big deficit. Let's just keep the health care system that we've got now.

Along that trajectory, we will see health care cost as an overall share of our federal spending grow and grow and grow and grow until essentially it consumes everything...

Is Obama suggesting that the current deficits -- deficits created by legislation signed by Obama since he became President -- don't count because they are "not caused by any decisions we've made on healthcare so far."? What does healthcare have to do with the current deficits? Does Obama not realize that his ideas for the healthcare system will further the increase in federal spending on healthcare, further increasing federal obligations and deficits?  Is Obama oblivious to the billions of dollars that have been spent on projects -- like forced lending to financial institutions and purchasing auto companies -- and earmark sweetheart deals for congressional and senate districts are responsible for the current tsunami of federal spending? Is Obama oblivious to how his administrations intervention with the capital markets has poisoned the atmosphere for investment?

Stunning. Simply stunning. President oblivious.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds puts it succinctly:

So we’re out of money because we don’t have national health care? Bogus. I think, instead, that it has something to do with the fact that Obama has been pouring money down a crony-statist rathole at absolutely astronomical and unprecedented rates. Yep, here’s that graphic again. Note that it doesn’t support Obama’s claim at all — but it does support mine.