Choice, Liberal Style

Just in case you had any doubts:

Reid said he thinks the country has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program “Nevada Week in Review.”

“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said.

When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.” (LV Sun)

Major health insurance companies–Blue Cross, Aetna, United, Humana–have decided not to participate in various states in the Obamacare health-insurance exchanges that will be the only place Americans will be able to buy a health insurance plan using the federal subsidies authorized under the Obamacare law.
In Connecticut you had 6 choices. Now you’ll have 3.
That’s your “expanded” choice, Liberal Style.
 
Mind you, when I started this blog nearly years ago I came to the conclusion that this all ultimately led to driving the Insurance Companies out of business so you only had Mama Government to depend on anyhow.
That’s the Liberal definition of Choice. You choose what they want you to choose.
Nothing else. They know best.

If You Like Your Doctor,’ Hope Your Insurer Is Participating in the Exchange

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period,” Obama said on June 15, 2009.

“If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period,” he said.  “No one will take it away. No matter what.”

That promise, however, has been revised by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which now says, “you may be able to keep your current doctor” in the health insurance marketplace.

“Most health insurance plans offered in the Marketplace have networks of hospitals, doctors, specialists, pharmacies, and other health care providers,”HHS said on its website for the health reform law.  “Networks include health care providers that the plan contracts with to take care of the plan’s members.”

“Depending on the type of policy you buy, care may be covered only when you get it from a network provider,” they said. (CNS)

DON’T MAKE TOO MUCH NOW, YA HEAR…

Millions of families could be facing a bizarre situation: If they earn one extra dollar a year, their insurance costs will climb by thousands. It’s just one of the many perverse outcomes ObamaCare will create.

Whenever the topic of ObamaCare costs comes up — something that is occurring with increasing frequency as insurance companies start to announce sky-high ObamaCare rates for next year — backers boast about subsidies.

Who cares if premiums are high, they say, since many will get subsidies through an ObamaCare exchange. (TAXPAYER FUNDED OF COURSE!) But what ObamaCare groupies fail to consider is that these subsidies phase out, and do so in a way that will be extraordinarily punishing for many families.

As Terence Jeffrey explained on CNSNews.com, a middle-class family earning just one more dollar could, because of the way the subsidies are structured, end up paying thousands of dollars more for health insurance.

Jeffrey discovered this when he plugged sample income data into the Kaiser Family Foundation’s “Subsidy Calculator.”

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

A 56-year-old couple with two kids and $110,280 income would be right at the limit for ObamaCare subsidies, according to that calculator. (Subsidies phase out on incomes over 400% of poverty.) Even so, if they bought a $19,832 “Silver” plan through an ObamaCare exchange, they’d get $9,355 in premium subsidies.

But if their income were to climb to $110,281, their subsidy would drop to zero.

It’s even worse than that. ObamaCare also subsidizes out-of-pocket costs for lower-income families who buy Silver plans. And these, too, go away as income climbs.

A Commonwealth Fund report shows what this will mean to a family at the edge of the ObamaCare cliff. Once it goes over the income limit, its out-of-pocket maximum jumps from $8,066 to $12,100.

In other words, a family that has big medical bills and gets a tiny raise could suddenly face more than $13,000 in additional premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.

There are mini-cliffs along the way, too, as the premium and out-of-pocket subsidies step down at various incomes.

Let’s say a family making $55,125 buys a $9,000 plan in an ObamaCare exchange. If its income climbs to $55,126, the premiums shoot up $1,800 and the out-of-pocket maximum jumps $2,000, according to a separate analysis by the American Cancer Society.

As a result, ObamaCare will create a huge incentive for millions of families either to hide income, earn it underground, or turn down a raise in order to avoid getting hit with these huge leaps in insurance costs.

But at least they won’t be “rich” assholes.

Oh, and many of them won’t have to worry about the cliffs of doom because they’ll be working part-time because their boss can afford them otherwise.

Utopia.

And this is only the first step to a much better Complete Government Control.

Rejoice.

This is on top of the many other unfortunate economic incentives ObamaCare will create.

Employers who want to avoid or minimize the massive cost of the employer mandate, for example, will do well to cut part-time hours to below 30 a week, since ObamaCare considers 30 hours full-time work. Many are already taking this step.

Companies also have an incentive to keep their full-time workforce below 50 people, since going over that exposes them to the employer mandate and potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in new costs.

And as the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s James Capretta explains, ObamaCare will encourage employers to avoid hiring low-income families. Why? Companies pay a penalty only if a worker gets subsidized coverage in an ObamaCare exchange. Since wealthier families don’t get subsidies, the company won’t face any fines.

As a result, ObamaCare will end up hurting the very middle class families it was supposed to help.

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!  A Liberal “feel good” policies goes bad. Never saw that coming. I know they don’t. And I also know, they don’t care.

Anyone who thinks this all can be fixed with more tinkering to the law is missing the point. Whenever the government gets involved in a marketplace, it creates distortions that ripple across the economy. And these distortions almost always end up making the country less productive, less efficient and less prosperous.

The only way to avoid the perverse incentives that ObamaCare will create is to get rid of the law entirely.

But it’s the Holy Grail of The Left. Imagine the power of life and death at your command….

The Doctor: Davros, if you had created a virus in your laboratory, something contagious and infectious that killed on contact, a virus that would destroy all other forms of life, would you allow its use?
Davros: It is an interesting conjecture.
The Doctor : Would you do it?
Davros: The only living thing, a microscopic organism reigning supreme… A fascinating idea.
The Doctor : But would you do it?
Davros: Yes… Yes…
[raises hand as if holding the metaphorical capsule between thumb and forefingers]
Davros: To hold in my hand a capsule that contains such power, to know that life and death on such a scale was my choice… To know that the tiny pressure of my thumb, enough to break the glass, would end everything… Yes, I would do it! That power would set me up above the gods! AND THROUGH THE DALEKS, I SHALL HAVE THAT POWER!

Now just substitute Harry Reid for Davros and ObamaCare for Daleks….

Enjoy. 🙂

 
 
 

The Pork Sleighs Me

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Some Christmas Pork over the Crony Barrel:

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s $60.4 billion request for Hurricane Sandy relief has morphed into a huge Christmas stocking of goodies for federal agencies and even the state of Alaska, The Post has learned.

The pork-barrel feast includes more than $8 million to buy cars and equipment for the Homeland Security and Justice departments. It also includes a whopping $150 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out to fisheries in Alaska and $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in DC.

An eye-popping $13 billion would go to “mitigation” projects to prepare for future storms.

Other big-ticket items in the bill include $207 million for the VA Manhattan Medical Center; $41 million to fix up eight military bases along the storm’s path, including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; $4 million for repairs at Kennedy Space Center in Florida; $3.3 million for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center and $1.1 million to repair national cemeteries.

Budget watchdogs have dubbed the 94-page emergency-spending bill “Sandy Scam.”

Matt Mayer of the conservative Heritage Foundation slammed the request as an “enormous Christmas gift worth of stuff.”

“The funding here should be focused on helping the community and the people, not replacing federal assets or federal items,” he said.

Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste! 🙂

Mark Steyn:

A few years ago, my small local hospital asked a Senate staffer if she could assist them in obtaining federal money for a new building. So she did, expediting the process by which that particular corner of northern New Hampshire was deemed to be “under-served” and thus eligible for the fed gravy. At the ribbon-cutting, she was an honored guest, and they were abundant in their praise. Alas, in the fullness of time, the political pendulum swung, her senator departed the scene, and she was obliged to take a job out of state.

Last summer, she returned to the old neighborhood and thought she’d look for a doctor. The sweet old guy with the tweed jacket in the neatly painted cape on Main Street had taken down his shingle and retired. Most towns in the North Country now have fewer doctors than they did in the 19th century, and the smaller towns have none. The Yellow Pages lists more health insurers than physicians, which would not seem to be an obvious business model. So she wound up going to the health center she’d endowed so lavishly with your tax dollars just a few years earlier.

They gave her the usual form to fill in, full of perceptive inquiries on her medical condition: Do you wear a seat belt? Do you own a gun? How many bisexual men are you now having sex with? These would be interesting questions if one were signing up for eHarmony.com and looking to date gun-owning bisexuals who don’t wear seat belts, but they were not immediately relevant to her medical needs. Nevertheless, she complied with the diktats of the Bureau of Compliance, and had her medical records transferred, and waited . . . and waited. That was August. She has now been informed that she has an appointment with a nurse-practitioner at the end of January. My friend pays $15,000 a year for health insurance. In northern New Hampshire, that and meeting the minimum-entry requirement of bisexual sex partners will get you an appointment with a nurse-practitioner in six months’ time.

Why is it taking so long? Well, because everything in America now takes long, and longer still. But beyond that malign trend are more specific innovations, such as the “Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology,” which slipped through all but unnoticed in Subtitle A Part One Section 3001 of the 2009 Obama stimulus bill. Under the Supreme National Coordinator, the United States government is setting up a national database for everybody’s medical records, so that if a Texan hiker falls off Mount Katahdin after walking the Appalachian Trail, Maine’s first responders will be able to know exactly how many bisexual gun-owners she’s slept with, and afford her the necessary care.

This great medical advance is supposed to be fully implemented by 2014, so the federal government is providing incentives for doctors to comply. Under the EHR Incentive Program, if a physician makes “meaningful use” of electronic health records, he’s eligible for “bonuses” from the feds — a mere $44,000 from Medicare, for example, but up to $63,750 from Medicaid. If you have a practice at 27 Elm Street and you’re treating the elderly widow from 22 Elm Street, she’s unlikely to meet the federally mandated bi-guy requirement, but you can still qualify for bonuses by filing her smoking status with Washington. For medical facilities in upscale suburbs, EHR is costly and time-consuming, and, along with a multitude of other Obamacare regulatory burdens, helping drive doctors to opt out entirely: My comrade Michelle Malkin noted the other day that her own general practitioner has now switched over to “concierge care,” under which all third parties (whether private insurers or government) are dumped and a patient contracts with his doctor solely through his checkbook. Some concierge docs will even make house calls: Everything old is new again! (For as long as the new federal commissars permit it.)

But in the broken-down rural hinterlands, EHR and other novelties make it more lucrative for surviving medical centers to prioritize federal paperwork over patient care. For example, there’s a lot of prescription-drug abuse in this country, and so the feds award “meaningful use” bonuses for providing records that will assist them in determining whether a guy with a prescription for painkillers in New Hampshire also has a prescription for painkillers with another doctor over the Connecticut River in Vermont. So in practice every new patient in this part of the world now undergoes a background check before getting anywhere near a doctor. It doesn’t do much for your health, but it does wonders for an ever more sclerotic bureaucracy.

Hence the decay of so many “medical” appointments into robot-voiced box-checking. At the doctor’s a couple of months back, the nurse was out to lunch, and so the receptionist-practitioner rattled through the form. In the waiting room. “Are you sexually active?” she asked. “You first,” I replied. I hope I didn’t cost her the federal bonus.

But don’t worry, it’s totally secure. Carl Smith Jr. was the first physician in Harlan County, Kentucky to introduce EHR. “Because of this technology,” Dr. Smith says, “we can send the patient’s prescription electronically by secure e-mail to pharmacies.” Wow! “Secure e-mail”: What a concept! It’s a good thing the e-mail is secure at American pharmacies because nothing else is. Last Christmas, while guest-hosting at Fox News in New York, I had a spot of ill health and went to pick up a prescription at Duane Reade on Sixth Avenue. The woman ahead of me was having some difficulties. She was a stylish lady d’un certain age, and she caught my wandering eye. After prolonged consultation with the computer, the “pharmacist” informed her (and the rest of us within earshot) that her insurer had approved her Ortho but denied her Valtrex. I was thinking of asking her for cocktails at the Plaza, when I noticed the other women in line tittering. It seems that Ortho is a birth-control pill, and Valtrex is a herpes medication.

So good luck retaining any meaningful doctor-patient confidentiality in a system in which more people — insurers, employers, government commissars, TSA Obergropinführers, federal incentive-program auditors — will be able to access your medical records than in any other nation on earth.

No foreigner can even understand the American “health care” debate, which seems to any tourist casually surfing the news channels to involve everything but health care. Since the Second World War, government medical systems have taken hold in almost every developed nation, but only in America does the introduction of governmentalized health care impact small-business hiring practices and religious liberty, and require 16,500 new IRS agents and federal bonuses for contributing to a national database of seat-belt wearers. Thus, Big Government American-style: Byzantine, legalistic, whimsical, coercive, heavy on the paperwork, and lacking the one consolation of statism — the great clarifying simplicity of universal mediocrity.

As I wrote a couple weeks ago, Obamacare governmentalizes one-sixth of the U.S. economy — or the equivalent of the entire French economy. No one has ever attempted that before, not even the French. In parts of rural America it will quickly achieve a Platonic perfection: There will be untold legions of regulators, administrators, and IRS collection agents, but not a doctor or nurse in sight.

Michelle Malkin: Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General acknowledged that the incentive system is “vulnerable to paying incentives to professionals and hospitals that do not fully meet” the program’s quality assurance requirements. The federal health bureaucracy “has not implemented strong prepayment safeguards, and its ability to safeguard incentive payments postpayment is also limited,” the IG concluded.

Translation: No one is actually verifying whether the transition from paper to electronic is improving patient outcomes and health services. No one is actually guarding against GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). No one is checking whether recipients of the EMR incentives are receiving money redundantly (e.g., raking in payments when they’ve already converted to electronic records). No one is actually protecting private data from fraud, abuse or exploitation.

But not doing it, or doing it more rationally of course, is, you guessed it “racist” “sexist” “bigotry” and “trying to kill grandma.”

America in the 21st Century, what a Kingdom of Bureaucracy. The Bureaucrat is King and you’re just a smelly, nasty, demanding little serf who just wants to annoy them.

Congrats. It’s what you voted for Amerika. 🙂

 

 

 

 

It Pays to be Illegal

Quick Aside: if you get a chance watch TORCHWOOD: Miracle Day, there’s a lot in there about manipulation of language for economic and political advantage. Torchwood: Children of Earth is a nice nasty allegory about how far a government could go.

Now back to the regularly scheduled rant…

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

If the federal government had actually wanted to encourage illegal immigration, wouldn’t a big tax credit be the way to bring them in? Lucky us, that’s what the IRS is doing — and with our money.

A blistering Treasury Department audit released Friday found that “individuals not authorized to work in the United States were paid $4.2 billion in refundable credits.” Those credits are meant to zero out any taxes paid by the poor, and often amount to checks as high as $1,000, courtesy of other taxpayers.

In the last five years, some 2.3 million illegal immigrants decided they, too, were “entitled” to that money, and the IRS paid them. Word got out and the payouts to illegals grew fourfold over the last five years.

The Treasury report noted that paying these credits to illegals is explicitly prohibited by U.S. law, which holds that those unauthorized to work here cannot receive federal benefits.

The IRS claims it’s not its job to check the immigration status of those requesting U.S. money (easily done if a filer has a valid Social Security number instead of a “taxpayer ID”).

Just like the Justice Department. Funny That…

The tax agency apparently thinks laws only apply to people it audits — not politically sensitive illegal aliens.

So now we have the sorry spectacle of $4.2 billion in money from law-abiding taxpayers flowing to law-breaking foreigners who belong in other countries.

No wonder the U.S. has some 12 million illegal immigrants, rolling in by the thousands daily in part from the well-established human smuggling rackets controlled by Mexico’s drug and crime cartels.

No economic phenomenon ever happens without vast sums of money involved. IRS tax credits are just such a big-money incentive, the Treasury report found.

“(T)he payment of Federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the United States without authorization, which contradicts Federal law and policy to remove such incentives,” the report said.

This could explain why in recent years millions of illegal immigrants are going beyond just the old trick of having anchor babies with automatic U.S. citizenship to win benefits. They’re now bringing their foreign-born kids over, too. All that “free” education, “free” medical care, “free” legal aid and now “free” tax credits add up.

And you get to pay for it! Oh, and if you object– YOU’RE A RACIST!!  🙂

As much as the open-borders lobby insists that illegal immigrants are only here to work and produce, this report shows they’re also here to drain and consume.

So much for that liberal dismissive hoary of “doing jobs Americans won’t do” if they are getting paid under the table AND getting IRS rebates to boot! They are doing BETTER than WE would at those jobs!

So not only do illegal immigrants take jobs from low-skilled Americans, and depress all wages by their willingness to work off the books at lower costs (which are princely sums for the standards of living in the countries they remit money to), they also get big tax credits from other taxpayers, too.

By handing out these freebies indiscriminately, it’s clear the federal government seems to want it that way, making illegal immigration a more attractive option than staying home and emigrating legally.

But as there’s also no free lunch, the IRS is also blithely betraying the people it’s sworn to protect and defend: law-abiding taxpaying U.S. citizens.

“With our debt standing at over $14.5 trillion and counting, it’s outrageous that the IRS is handing out refundable tax credits, which are spending through the tax code, to those who aren’t even eligible to work in this country,” said Utah’s Sen. Orrin Hatch, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.

“The disconcerting findings in this report demand immediate action from Congress and the Obama administration.”

At a time when enforcing the integrity of our border is a major federal failure, the one thing the feds shouldn’t be doing is offering additional incentives to encourage even more illegal immigration.

The fact that they do suggest an out-of-control federal government that wants, that’s right, wants, more illegal mendicants to justify its own gargantuan size.

That’s not an existence worthy of the American people and if the federal government’s minions cannot follow the laws, then it’s time to cut them down to a manageable mission. (IBD)

Comment on IBD: Since the IRS is about to become the “nanny” for Obamacare, perhaps we could put them in charge of rounding up illegal immigrants since they know where they are since they have both address and bank account numbers.

Sorry, the IRS Police will only go after you, the Legal American. Not the future Democrat voters of Amerika.

Amerika, what a country! And you want for more years of this don’t you? 🙂

Political Cartoons by  Bennett

Surprise!

No Media Bias here! 🙂

“Look, he is accusing the tea party because it threatened default, for causing this,” Krauthammer said. “He himself said openly he would veto any debt ceiling extension that wasn’t long enough to get him into 2013. He was going to veto it over the length, which incidentally turns out to be, as you point out, irrelevant. He got what he wanted on length and we still got the downgrade.”

Krauthammer added that he was quick to fault congressional Republicans for the exact same thing he did during these negotiations and raised the question of where exactly the buck stops.

“But here he is accusing others of holding debt as hostage as a bargaining chip when he said he would himself,” Krauthammer continued. “So he’s been completely contradictory. I was sort of stunned by his appearance today. I said, ‘Why did he go out there?’ He went out there with the Dow at minus-400. And after he spoke, it went down minus-600. He looked weak, plaintive and small. I mean weak and plaintive because he comes out there and he blames of course the tea party, Europe, Japan and the Middle East, probably God because he’s the author of earthquakes — everybody except for him.” (DC)

You’re “unfair” or “evil” or “obstructionist”  if you don’t let a Liberal do whatever the hell they want. But when it blows up in their face, they are the “victim” and it’s anyone else fault but theirs.

Oh, and speaking of blowing up in our faces! ObamaCare will cost EVEN More. Surprise!!

So anyone want to kill this entitlement before it become Medicare or Social Security. Certainly, not any liberal.

Federal payments required by President Barack Obama’s health care law are being understated by as much as $50 billion per year because official budget forecasts ignore the cost of insuring many employees’ spouses and children, according to a new analysis. The result could cost the U.S. Treasury hundreds of billions of dollars during the first ten years of the new health care law’s implementation.

“The Congressional Budget Office has never done a cost-estimate of this [because] they were expressly told to do their modeling on single [person] coverage,” said Richard Burkhauser in a telephone interview Monday. Burkhauser is an economist who teaches in Cornell University’s department of policy analysis and management. On Monday the National Bureau of Economic Research published a working paper on the subject that Burkhauser co-authored with colleagues from Cornell and Indiana University.

Employees and employers can use the rules to their own advantage, he said.  “A very large number of workers” will be able to apply for federal subsidies, “dramatically increasing the cost” of the law, he said.

In May a congressional committee set the accounting rules that determine who will qualify for federal health care subsidies under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. When the committee handed down the rules to the Congressional Budget Office, its formula excluded the health care costs of millions of workers’ spouses and children. The result was a final estimate for 2010 that hides those costs.

“This is a very important paper,” Heritage Foundation health care expert Paul Winfree told TheDC. These hidden costs, he said, “will almost certainly add to the deficit, contrary to what the Congressional Budget Office and others have estimated.”

That’s especially important, Winfree added, because Congress’s 12-member “super committee” is about to draft another round of cuts to 10-year spending plans.

Burkhauser says his paper will be expanded later this year because “we have gotten so much heat for this work, that in our final version we are more clearly explaining how we came to find out about the change in the Committee’s [the Joint Committee on Taxation’s] interpretation of the law.”

The president’s health care law provides government subsidies for, among others, private-sector employees who earn between 1.33 times and 4 times the poverty level, and who also spend more than 9.5 percent of their family income on health care.

On May 4, 2010, the Joint Committee on Taxation directed the Congressional Budget Office to ignore family members when determining whether employees actually pay more than 9.5 percent of their household income on insurance.

The instruction was included in a correction of a complex, 150-page March 21 document. The correction read: “ERRATA FOR JCX-18-10 … On page 15, Minimum essential coverage and employer offer of health insurance coverage, in the second sentence of the second paragraph, ‘the type of coverage applicable (e.g., individual or family coverage)’ should be replaced with ‘self-only coverage.’”

Because of this rule change, Burkhauser said, employees who otherwise meet the eligibility requirements to receive the federal subsidy can be denied it, if their own share of the family’s insurance costs total less than 9.5 percent of their families’ incomes.

If theory, he added, “this will mean that millions of families that are not provided with affordable insurance [by companies] will be ineligible to go to the federal exchanges,” he said.

But companies and their employees share great incentives to rearrange workers’ compensation to win more of these federal subsidies, he said.

For example, he explained, an employee can ask his employer to raise the price of company-provided insurance in exchange for an equal increase in salary. In many cases, that would boost the share of his income spent on health insurance to a percentage above the 9.5 percent threshold.

Such an arrangement, Burkhauser added, would make the employee, his spouse, and his children all eligible for federal health care subsidies while enriching both employer and employee — even after the Treasury Department collects fines from U.S. workers.

Burkhauser’s research found that because of the law’s incentives, an extra one-sixth of workers who get their health insurance from employers — or roughly an additional 12.7 percent of all workers — would gain by transfering themselves and their families into the federal exchanges.

Current projections suggest 75 percent of all employees will avoid the federal subsidies and stay in employer-backed health insurance plans. Burkhauser’s estimate, however, suggests that only about 65 percent of employees would have an adequate incentive to remain in privately funded health plans.

The May 4 federal health care rule ignored these incentives, he said, causing the CBO to underestimate the cost of Obama’s program by as much as $50 billion per year. If subsidy costs were to remain consistent, the ten-year total would be $500 billion; the government would likely recoup some of that in noncompliance penalties.

“Every day seems to bring a new Obamacare eruption that demonstrates the law’s authors had no idea what they were doing,” said Michael Cannon. Cannon directs the Cato Institute’s health policy studies program.

“This study shows yet another way that ObamaCare’s cost will be much, much higher than supporters led the American people to believe,” Cannon warned.

“Anyone who’s serious about the federal debt should make Obamacare’s trillion-plus dollars of new entitlement spending the first item to put on the chopping block.” (DC)

“Leadership starts at the top with the presidency. Here he is way into our crisis, way in this issue of the double-dip, low growth rate, high unemployment, instability. After all of this, in office three years and today he says, ‘I will have recommendations on reducing the debt.’ Where was he in December when his own commission reported and he ignored it? Or with the budget in February, which increased our deficit and increased the debt by $10 trillion. All of a sudden he discovers the virtues of presenting the proposal. He has put nothing on the table and he blames everybody else.”

And he’s the victim!
“Don’t you think something slightly pathetic by the way in smart men who claim to be able to run the multi-trillion dollar enterprise that is now the U.S. government saying, ‘Oh no it is not us. It is the guy that runs the hardware store over there. He goes to a tea party rally and the lady who owns the hair salon. They have caused it,’” Steyn said. “Do you understand how pathetic the president of the United States sounds?”(Mark Steyn)

No I don’t think they do. And the Media sure as hell doesn’t care to notice.