Archive for 2014

SO I JUST LOOKED UP MY KLOUT SCORE AND IT’S 80. Is that good? Is it good for anything?

DEEP-STATE DIRTY TRICKS IN WISCONSIN: Wis. police chief pleads no contest in Tea Party flap. “A police chief in Wisconsin pleaded no contest Friday to a charge that he signed a local Tea Party leader up on gay dating, pornography and federal health care websites.”

MARY POPPINS QUITS: The Rebuttal From Remy. “Tell me what do you folks pay? Well, that’s awkward.”

ANOTHER WINNER? DELICOUSNESS! Everyone Wins When You Buy a Rotisserie Chicken. “Rotisserie chickens have been around for a while. I used to bypass them and roast my own, until I noticed something: The rotisserie chickens were actually cheaper than buying and roasting my own.”

POINTS & FIGURES: Corporate Tax Inversions and Politics.

You want to talk “economic patriotism?” Economic patriotism means not turning the US economy and government into an unAmerican slough of cronyism, graft, and redistribution. President Obama is an economically unpatriotic President.

FRANK J. ONCE AGAIN IS OUTDONE BY REALITY: When the U.S. Almost Nuked the Moon. “Sensing that national morale was low after the Soviets launched Sputnik, the U.S. government coined a plan: they’d nuke the Moon, causing an explosion so big that it’d be visible from Earth. They hoped the explosion would not only boost the confidence and approval of Americans, but serve as a show of power to the Soviets.”

WELL, WELL, WELL: Senate Hearing: Tax Credits are available for State Exchanges Only. Senator Baucus explains how The Affordable Care Act sets conditions where Tax Credits are available for State Exchanges Only. The discussion is a bit confusing, but he’s saying that this is under the Finance Committee’s jurisdiction because the tax credits are an incentive to adopt state exchanges. You can read more about that here, in footnote 136. Thanks to InstaPundit commenters R.C. Dean, and ThomasD for pointing this out in the comments to this post.

WHO ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE — ME, OR YOUR LYING EARS? Gruber: My 2012 remarks were “a speak-o — you know, like a typo.”

This answer is not a “speak-o” any more than the statutory language on subsidies and exchanges was a “typo.” Gruber explained the coercive policy correctly and in detail, along with the stakes involved in seeing the coercion succeed. It’s not a case of just using the wrong terminology, like “market” instead of “exchange.” Gruber clearly understood the statute at this time — in January 2012 — to provide the arm-twisting needed to get states to launch their own exchanges by stiffing consumers in states without them, which would then create more pressure on those states to get them the federal subsidies that they were funding but not receiving.

That is exactly what the plaintiffs argued in Halbig, and what the court ruled to be the intent of Congress as well as the statutory reality of the ACA. Just because that arm-twisting policy failed in its goals doesn’t mean it wasn’t deliberate, rational, and very much a part of the ObamaCare strategy then, and it doesn’t make it a “typo” now — or a “speak-o” either.

You can watch the video and see if it seems like a “speak-o” to you. More background here.

UPDATE: And here’s Gruber saying the same thing on another occasion. Meanwhile, Vox has been spinning the “mistake” angle. Oops.

See, the problem with Ezra, Gruber, and these other lefty “wonks” is that a real wonk is supposed to (1) understand the policy better than anyone else; and (2) care about getting the policy right more than about partisan political posturing. Double fail, here. But then, Ezra’s having a bad year.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Still more on Gruber. “I’ll just add that for all the left-wing pundits who called the plaintiff’s arguments in Halbig vs. Burwell ‘ridiculous’ and such, I’ll gladly barbecue some crow for you.”

MORE: Making the rubble bounce.

YEAH, PRETTY MUCH: Is Every Speed Limit Too Low? “Over the past 12 years, Lt. Megge has increased the speed limit on nearly 400 of Michigan’s roadways. Each time, he or one of his officers hears from community groups who complain that people already drive too fast. But as Megge and his colleagues explain, their intent is not to reduce congestion, bow to the reality that everyone drives too fast, or even strike a balance between safety concerns and drivers’ desire to arrive at their destinations faster. Quite the opposite, Lt. Megge advocates for raising speed limits because he believes it makes roads safer.”