November 29, 2012

TOWNHALL
Poll: Majority Says Federal Government Shouldn't Be Responsible for Healthcare
by Guy Benson
November 28, 2012

Since most of the data in post-election polling has offered little beyond a parade of ugly news, here's a glimmer of hope from Gallup:

For the first time in Gallup trends since 2000, a majority of Americans say it is not the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage. Prior to 2009, a majority always felt the government should ensure healthcare coverage for all, though Americans' views have become more divided in recent years...Republicans, including Republican-leaning independents, are mostly responsible for the drop since 2007 in Americans' support for government ensuring universal health coverage. In 2007, 38% of Republicans thought the government should do so; now, 12% do. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners there has been a much smaller drop, from 81% saying the government should make sure all Americans are covered in 2007 to 71% now.

A look at the trendlines:

Americans also remain overwhelmingly opposed to the imposition of a government-run, single-payer healthcare system, which very much remains leftists' endgame:

One thing that has not changed is that Americans still widely prefer a system based on private insurance to one run by the government. Currently, 57% prefer a private system and 36% a government-run system, essentially the same as in 2010 and 2011. Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the percentage of Americans in favor of a government-run system ranged from 32% to 41%.

A few final notes:  (1) Though Gallup's final likely voter poll prior to the election was off by four points, their registered voters numbers were pretty much spot on.  In other words, their LV screen was too restrictive, but their overall data was sound.  (2) Despite a heavily Democratic electorate on election day, a substantial plurality still supported Obamacare repeal, a result that mirrors stable polling trends.  (3) For an idea of what a mind-blowing cluster Obamacare has already become, read this piece by Mary Katharine Ham.  Deadlines keep getting pushed farther and farther back, and the administration has finally issued coverage rules for the state exchanges that are supposed to be up and running in a matter of months.  These rules took 32 months to produce.  An unmitigated mess.

Read more: http://goo.gl/z19yo

THE WEEKLY STANDARD

Are Republicans Learning the Wrong Lessons?

by  Jeffrey H. Anderson

November 28, 2012

As hard as it is to believe, it’s been only a little over three weeks since Election Day. But there are already plenty of signs that Republicans are learning many of the wrong lessons from that debacle. For starters, there’s been a lot of excessive emphasis on racial demographics, which actually changed very little from 2008.  According to exit polling, the portion of Hispanic voters went up just 1 percentage point, the portion of Asian voters went up just 1 point, and the portion of black voters stayed the same.  Meanwhile, the portion of white voters fell 2 points — largely because, as Sean Trende notes, Mitt Romney failed to turn out several million such voters.

Now Senator John McCain says that, when it comes to the life-or-death matter of abortion, Republicans should “leave the issue alone.” Well, it would be hard to have left the issue any more alone than Romney did, and what did it get him? On an issue on which Americans are typically split pretty much right down the middle, exit polling showed that voters favored the legality (59 percent), rather than illegality (36 percent), of abortion in “most” or “all” cases. This suggests that Romney’s silence in the face of Obama’s pro-abortion rhetoric caused some swing voters to shift their position leftward (as people are inclined to do when they hear only one side of an issue advanced) — while millions of pro-life voters apparently sat this one out.

In truth, the Romney strategy on essentially every issue — and especially on Obamacare — could aptly be summarized as “leave the issue alone.”  Even on the economy, the one issue on which the Romney camp generally seemed eager to engage, the campaign left alone the question of how we got into this mess in the first place.  Relatedly, it left alone the crucially important claim that Bill Clinton made at the Democratic convention:  “Listen to me now.  No president, no president — not me, not any of my predecessors — no one could have fully repaired all the damage that [Obama] found in just four years.”  This, of course, was ridiculous.  FDR had inherited the Great Depression, and yet, in the year that he first sought reelection, real economic growth was over 13 percent — more than six times what it’s been this year under Obama.  But Romney characteristically left that one alone, and — more than three years into the Obama “recovery” — exit polling indicated that voters still blamed George W. Bush (53 percent), not Obama (38 percent), for the stagnant economy.

As a result of Romney’s failure to make the case on essentially any issue — either against Obama’s abysmal record or on behalf of his own proposals — we ended up with this very strange result:  In an election pitting perhaps the most liberal president in American history against a moderate Republican who was never fully trusted by the conservative wing of his own party, likely voters polled by Pew Research less than two weeks before the election said that Obama (50 percent), not Romney (38 percent), takes the “more moderate positions.”  And in an election pitting a Democratic president who rammed Obamacare through on a straight party-line vote and then spent the next two years demagoguing Republicans, versus the former Republican governor of heavily Democratic Massachusetts, likely voters in that same poll said that Obama (47 percent), not Romney (41 percent), was more “willing to work with leaders from the other party.”

As such polling suggests, Republicans didn’t lose this election because of demographics, and they didn’t lose it because of the positions they took on the issues.  They lost it because they failed to make the case against Obama or on behalf of their own ideas and principles.  As a result, they failed to rally independents to their side to the extent that they should have, and they failed to turn out their own base.  Far from leaving key issues alone in the future, Republicans need to engage the American public on matters of importance and make their case in persuasive language.

Read more: http://goo.gl/Z8EUE

AMERICAN THINKER
The Governing Class and the Decline of America
by Steve McCann
November 29, 2012

The United States will not reverse its descent into the abyss of financial and societal bankruptcy until the current political and governing establishment is replaced. That will not happen until the American people, who have been deliberately ill-educated and deceived, experience first-hand the early stages of the turmoil and suffering extant in Europe and elsewhere.

While professing to care for the interests of the average person, the underlying motivation for the vast majority of the governing class or Establishment is first and foremost self-aggrandizement and the acquisition of wealth. While a few may be motivated by ideology, the preponderance are not.

There are no offices on Connecticut Avenue in Washington D.C. with signs reading "The Republican Establishment" or the "The Democratic Establishment"; rather it is an amalgam of like-minded groups with one common interest: the control of the government purse-strings and the attendant power contained within.

The Republican and Democratic political establishments are made up of the following:

1) many current and nearly all retired national office holders whose livelihood and narcissistic demands depends upon fealty to Party and access to government largesse;

2) the majority of the media elite, including pundits, editors, writers and television news personalities based in Washington and New York whose proximity to power and access is vital to their continued standard of living;

3) academia, numerous think-tanks, so-called non-government organizations, and lobbyists who fasten onto those in the administration and Congress for employment, grants, favorable legislation and ego-gratification;

4) the reliable deep pocket political contributors and political consultants whose future is irrevocably tied to the political machinery of the Party; and

5) the crony capitalists, i.e. leaders of the corporate and financial community as well as unions whose entities are dependent on or subject to government oversight and/or benevolence .

The current iteration of the Democratic establishment was begun during Franklin Roosevelt's 12 years in office as the Party chose to follow the lead of those such as Benito Mussolini in Italy, who promoted government as the source of all salvation and survival. This philosophy fit in nicely with those whose egos and drive was directed toward the aggregation of power and wealth.

The Republican members of the governing class, with the exception of the presidency of Ronald Reagan and the Republican controlled House of Representatives from 1995 to 1998, have been content since 1946 to merely slow down the big-government policies of the Democrats, while publically decrying their tax and spend policies. However, in truth, many have been comfortable with reaping the financial and ego-gratifying rewards of such indifference.

Since the1950's this overall scenario has been tolerated and generally ignored as the nation was experiencing overwhelming and seemingly endless prosperity. The Democrats, with the tacit consent of the Republican establishment, promoted an ever-increasing litany of government programs to ostensibly help the people, under the rubric that the nation could not only afford it but was, in fact, obligated to guarantee a "decent" standard of living for everyone. Further, in the 1960's the American left, as the Republican establishment turned a blind eye, began to dominate the education agenda. The public's children were no longer taught American history and the importance of individual liberty; instead, the basics of capitalism and wealth creation were demonized. Additionally, the essential characteristic of a flourishing republic -- a society wedded to honor, decency and integrity -- was demeaned and ridiculed.

Thus the citizenry has become more willing to not only vote for whoever promises the most financial security, but they are now easily susceptible to unconscionable demagoguery and are increasingly tolerant of dishonesty as well as unethical behavior. Today, with the advent of welfare, food stamps, near endless unemployment benefits, free health care (Medicaid), and a myriad of other state and federal programs, the Democrats have succeeded in creating a virtually permanent voting bloc. One the Republican Establishment now claims, if they wish to win future elections, they must pander to as part of a new strategy of inclusion. Yet, by their acquiescence and indifference over the years, they helped create their electoral dilemma.

How have all these promises and deceptions perpetrated on the American people placed the nation's financial future in jeopardy? Since 1956 the United States has seen a phenomenal growth in its Gross Domestic Product from $3,700 Billion (inflation adjusted) to $16,100 Billion (+335%). However, government spending at all levels has grown from $978 Billion (inflation adjusted) to $6,400 Billion (+554%) and the nation's debt, $2,250 Billion in 1956 (inflation adjusted) is now $16,300 Billion (+625%). (source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com)

As of today, the nation's true indebtedness (promises that have been made for spending obligations, less all the taxes the Treasury expects to collect) exceeds $222,000 Billion. The indebtedness to Gross Domestic Product ($16,100 Billion) is a staggering 13.8 to 1. The United States is not facing bankruptcy, it is bankrupt.

Yet there is no sense of urgency or desire on the part of the governing class to level with the American people. This nation is living on the residue of the economic growth begun in the 1950's and accelerated in the 1980's. That tidal wave of prosperity has ebbed. The United States has entered into a death spiral of unrestrained spending, excessive taxation, printing near worthless money, and stagnant economic activity. Rather than be straightforward with the populace, the governing class is content to paper over the problem by the usual shell games of phony long-term spending cuts, more borrowing, and prevarications about the efficacy of raising taxes on "the rich."

The true nature of the GOP establishment's motivation has been exposed by their reaction to the Tea Party movement. This grassroots rebellion was the first manifestation of the awareness by a large portion of the American public of the nation's problems and ultimate consequences. Despite the overwhelming success of the Tea Party working within the Republican Party in the 2010 mid-term elections, nearly all of the Republican elites downplayed their success and fell-in with the mainstream media and the Democrats in their well-worn and gratuitous aspersions against these concerned and patriotic Americans. The Tea Party movement poses a threat to not only the accumulated power of the governing class but their livelihoods, thus the concerted effort to marginalize them by any vile or preposterous means possible.

The United States finds itself in a circumstance once thought unthinkable. An ill-educated and near morally bankrupt society increasingly made up of those dependent on government combined with a governing class whose primary interest is themselves. The nation cannot, therefore, make any meaningful course correction unless and until the people finally understand they have been lied to and conned by the current establishment. That will, in all likelihood, not occur until America faces imminent collapse and the citizenry turns on those who brought the nation to its knees.

Read more: http://goo.gl/VYDg0

November 26, 2012

REAL CLEAR POLITICS
ObamaCare Faces the Implementation Iceberg
by Paul Howard and Stephen Parente
November 26, 2012

Defenders of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, can be forgiven for some post-election triumphalism. But their joy is likely to be short lived. Because the law put off implementation of most key provisions until after the 2012 election, voters cast their ballots on November 6 without knowing what Obamacare’s true effect will be on their tax bills, insurance costs, or access to care.

Delaying implementation until 2014 helped the president win re-election, but now the bill is coming due. The administration can’t forestall Obamacare’s massive regulatory impact any longer, and the result will keep Congress and the media occupied for months and years to come.

The administration has just begun to issue guidance (proposed rules) to the insurance industry on Obamacare’s most important (and expensive) insurance market “reforms.” Insurance plans must have clarity on these issues if they are to develop and price plans for the individual and small group markets both inside and outside of the exchanges.

Right now, insurance companies don’t have answers to some of the most critical questions. Dozens of other smaller, but still important rules are also outstanding from HHS that will affect what kinds of plans are available on the exchanges, and how much they will cost insurers and taxpayers.

Some of the recently issued rules, particularly on community rating (charging the same price to everyone regardless of health status) and limiting the premium difference between older and younger applicants are likely to increase prices for young people – and over half (55%) of the uninsured are under age 35.

If prices rise sharply for this group, they’re much less likely to buy coverage, since Obamacare lets them buy insurance for the same price even after they become sick. And if young people pass up coverage, the rates will rise for everyone else in the exchange – and for taxpayers who are footing the final bill.

The administration’s “damn the torpedoes” attitude toward implementation of Obamacare also ignores the significant amount of time it will take for stakeholders to comment on provisional regulations and for HHS to issue its final rules. Keep in mind that the law requires exchanges to begin enrolling people by next October.

To call this deadline ambitious given the enormous uncertainty facing the industry and state regulators is a massive understatement.

Many states are still evaluating their options. According to a recent report from Avalere Health, only 20 states are actively building insurance exchanges, with as many as 13 states of those states opting for some sort of partnership model with the federal government. The rest are simply going to allow the federal government to run their exchanges. That’s hardly a winning record for the exchanges, supposedly the crown jewel of Obamacare.

As for the federal exchanges that are supposed to be up and running in states that don’t want to or aren’t ready to operate their own exchanges, the outlook is equally uncertain. As health care consultant Robert Laszewski recently put it, “[T]he Obama Administration has said emphatically that they will be ready [to run federal exchanges], but so far they’ve produced no information about how they are going to do it.”

The virtual veil of secrecy surrounding creation of the federal exchange has led to skepticism that it will be in any position to operate as advertised.

Beyond insurance rules and insurance exchanges, Obamacare faces other enormous uncertainties, like how many states will embrace its Medicaid expansion after the Supreme Court decision last summer allowed them to opt-out. Currently, six states (Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Texas) are saying they’ll sit out the expansion. Large states such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania are on the fence.

Since Medicaid accounts for about half of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, and the exchanges are supposed to facilitate Medicaid enrollment, governors have leverage to push for changes to the program that will help them manage expenses.

So what’s the bottom line? The Obama Administration is just beginning to issue critical guidance to states and insurance companies about how insurance markets and insurance exchanges are supposed to operate. The majority of states aren’t in any position to operate their own exchanges, and the federal government isn’t prepared to step in and operate the exchanges for them—at least not according to the schedule laid out in the ACA. The Medicaid expansion is a giant question mark.

And, we haven’t even mentioned how looming tax and budget negotiations over the “fiscal cliff” and sequestration might affect implementation of Obamacare.

Here’s our prediction. HHS has already pushed the deadline on the state exchanges from December 14, and in some cases to mid-February. We expect that deadline to slide again in the coming months.

But we shouldn’t wait that long to address the underlying problem. Delaying exchange implementation has important federal budget implications, and may make it easier for Republicans and Democrats to agree on serious budget and entitlement reforms. If Republican governors can coalesce around demands for exchange flexibility and Medicaid reform, they can also give their colleagues in Congress more leverage to press for entitlement reforms.

Ironically, the president and his Democratic allies may have to grant more flexibility in operationalizing Obamacare than they ever did while ramming it through Congress in 2010. On the other hand, if Republicans want to maximize their own policy leverage and develop a credible health policy platform for 2016, they will have to figure out an “endgame” for health care reform that increases coverage and lowers costs.

The good news is that we’ll finally get to find out “what’s in” the Obamacare law. Won’t that be fun?

Read more: http://goo.gl/cYpjO

AMERICAN THINKER

The GOP must fight for its principles, or die
by David Garth
November 25, 2012
Today seems to be a day for pessimism.

A quick run around the internet and Twitter can reveal quite a bit. The words being spoken are by no means encouraging.

Moderates are blaming conservatives. Tea Partiers are blaming moderates. Various people are taking broadsides at Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol, Chris Christie, Grover Norquist, and, above all, Mitt Romney. The Paul supporters are promising to withhold any support from the GOP unless they support libertarian ideas. The establishment wants the party to slide to the left in an effort to woo minority voters. Some are saying that it is time to raise taxes, others are furious at the suggestion. Many are claiming that a strong third party is necessary to ensure survival.

It goes without saying that a third party may provide a means to restore America to conservative ideals. It may, however, guarantee that conservatives never win a national election again.

At this moment I am convinced that my party doesn't even know what it believes in anymore.

This is a lot bigger than an election. This is a matter of principle, of ideology. Planks are more than just parts of a ship. A political party must have a clearly defined and articulated set of values. If potential voters are drawn to those values the party wins. If not, they lose.

You never, ever, abdicate your fundamental worldview for a win in an election. This is called selling your soul. What is said about people that do that?

What is wrong with the Republican Party? Why is it that they feel that they have to dance around conservative principles? Which is more important - the principles themselves, or forsaking them for a victory?

It is really a simple premise. You believe that the U.S. Constitution is the rock on which or country is founded. You believe that a large federal government is a threat to individual liberty. You believe that the free enterprise system is the best system to ensure prosperity to the most people possible. You believe that socialism is dangerous.

If you believe it, THEN SAY IT. Plainly. Unabashedly. Without reservation.

These are the basic premises that our candidates must run on. They must offer examples from history on why they are right. They have to offer facts and solutions. Show the citizenry the record of big government/high taxes versus small government/low taxes. We have proven methods of success - run on them! The truth is more important than egos, more important than electoral success.

This is not the time for moderates or moderation. Republicans must provide a crystal clear alternative to the voters - a leviathan, intrusive federal government or a small, responsive government that believes in the individual and the rights of the individual states. Let the moderates decide what kind of future they want. Because the truth is that if the United States does not rediscover the basic tenets that made us great we are done. If we are at the point where a majority of our citizens are more concerned about getting things than preserving freedom the game is up. We may already be there, the last election said a lot.

So we may have one more chance. Are Republicans going to offer an alternative, or are they going to compromise with the forces and ideals that are causing our demise? The future of our nation is more important than electing a quasi liberal that happens to have an R by his or her name.

Our present situation reminds me of a quote from Abraham Lincoln:

"As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

Did you catch that, Republicans? It is all up to you now. You are the only thing between the United States and the aforementioned suicide. Pull yourself together, gird your loins, and get ready to fight for the principles you supposedly espouse.

Unfortunately, we know what will happen if you don't.

Read more: http://goo.gl/a0F36

THE NATIONAL REVIEW

American Mismatch - There are plenty of jobs in manufacturing, but too few people with the necessary skills.

by Jillian Kay Melchior

November 26, 2012

In September, 238,000 American jobs went unfilled, despite employers’ best efforts. At the same time, unemployment was at 7.8 percent nationally. And believe it or not, this was no statistical oddity.

The manufacturing sector has long had trouble finding skilled applicants for its jobs. Around 48 percent of manufacturing companies are looking to hire, according to the most recent report from ThomasNet, a company that helps connect producers and suppliers. But 67 percent of manufacturing companies see a moderate to severe shortage of skilled workers, and last year, as many as 600,000 jobs went unfilled, according to a report from Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute.

This mismatch embodies the best and worst of American culture. On the one hand, American manufacturers have bested their international competition, becoming even more efficient after their recent struggles. On the other, there’s been a cultural shift that denigrates the value of manufacturing work, instead pushing young people into ever more impractical fields of study.

The manufacturing sector’s triumph is pretty remarkable. The U.S. is the world’s largest manufacturer, contributing 18.2 percent of the total value added in worldwide production. (China, despite its abundance of cheap labor, comes in second at 17.6 percent.) Though other sectors are panicking about a fiscal cliff and putting expansion on hold, American manufacturing is plowing ahead. Ninety percent of manufacturers told ThomasNet they’re optimistic about the future, and 75 percent planned to expand their operations this year.

The manufacturing sector is also almost uniquely good to its employees. “No longer dirty, dark, or dangerous” has become an industry catchphrase. Careers in manufacturing are not, contrary to popular belief, merely monotonous assembly-line work; today, workers have to be good at problem solving, abstract thinking, and technology. And the pay is good. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that a manufacturing worker makes an average of $23.97 on hour as of October 2012. Manufacturing jobs are also more likely to come with good benefits than jobs in other industries, the Brookings Institute has reported. Furthermore, the manufacturing sector offers high-pay positions for people with low educational attainment; one manufacturing firm told National Review Online that it would pay a $54,000 starting salary to a high-school graduate who could competently repair and maintain machinery.

These job perks are partly caused by demand. Older manufacturing workers are retiring fast, and the work has become more high-tech, says Thomas Holdsworth, a spokesman for SkillsUSA, an organization that provides training for high school and college students. SkillsUSA works closely with the manufacturing sector, connecting it with prospective workers.

“We hear about skill shortage and skill gap,” Holdsworth explained. “Manufacturers say . . . ‘We have a shortage of workers, a shortage of people coming into our profession.’”

The skilled-worker shortage is an education problem. High schools have cut their shop classes, and students are pushed to attain at least a four-year college degree, no matter the major, says Linda Rigano, spokesperson for ThomasNet.

In high schools, “there’s been such a focus on — and this is going to sound terrible — kids going to school,” she said. “Not every kid is meant to go to college.” Meanwhile, manufacturing companies “are paying six figures. You’ve got all these kids who are coming out of college, and they can’t find a job. It’s heartbreaking.”

Young people are told that a four-year college degree is a minimal requirement for career success, but the numbers simply don’t bear this out.

Read more: http://goo.gl/8iunv