Political Ramblings

[riordan262]

It’s a leader’s job to be skeptical of grand schemes. Sorry, that’s a conservative leader’s job. It is a liberal leader’s job to be skeptical that grand schemes will work as intended. You have to guide and goad and be careful. And this president wasn’t. I think part of the reason he wasn’t careful is because he sort of lives in words. That’s been his whole professional life—books, speeches. Say something and it magically exists as something said, and if it’s been said and publicized it must be real. He never had to push a lever, see the machine not respond, puzzle it out and fix it. It’s all been pretty abstract for him, not concrete. He never had to stock a store, run a sale and see lots of people come but the expenses turn out to be larger than you’d expected and the profits smaller, and you have to figure out what went wrong and do better next time.

Peggy Noonan, "Low Information Leadership." http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/BL-233B-146

[riordan262]

The administration and congressional Democrats seem genuinely surprised that their prized legislation, which was to be the crown jewel of the president's legacy and the culmination of decades of liberal ambition, simply doesn't work. Did these folks ever study history, economics or sociology? If they had, they would have known there was little chance of success for their attempt to snatch one-sixth of our economy and thrust it under a complex set of bureaucratic regulations, market disincentives, higher costs and new taxes.

Pete Du Pont, "The Great Destroyer." http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304465604579217933666283664?mg=reno64-wsj

[riordan262]

[W]hile the president is no doubt very bright, he doesn't seem to have an independent frame of mind. Thus we surmise that college and law school gave him more of an indoctrination than an education. He has strong ideological convictions and considerable political talent, but no expertise, nor even a healthy respect for actual expertise, which today's academic establishment often disparages in favor of ideological correctness.

James Taranto, "War on What?" http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303653004579212051288186292

[riordan262]

The [nuclear negotiation] talks unexpectedly fell apart at the last minute when French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius publicly objected to what he called a "sucker's deal," meaning the U.S. was prepared to begin lifting sanctions on Iran in exchange for tentative Iranian promises that they would slow their multiple nuclear programs. Not stop or suspend them, mind you, much less dismantle them, but merely reduce their pace from run to jog when they're on Mile 23 of their nuclear marathon. It says something about the administration that they so wanted a deal that they would have been prepared to take this one. This is how people for whom consequences are abstractions operate. It's what happens when the line between politics as a game of perception and policy as the pursuit of national objectives dissolves.

Bret Stephens, "Axis of Fantasy vs. Axis of Reality." http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304644104579190024212147260?mg=reno64-wsj

[riordan262]

Mrs. Sundby's crisis is one story among millions, but it illustrates Nietzsche's aphorism that convictions are more dangerous than lies. Critics are rightly noting that Mr. Obama sold reform with the falsehood that Americans could keep their policies if they liked them. But the scary part is that Mr. Obama and his health planners truly believe that everyone should receive the same medical care and pay for it the same way.

"Edie Sundby's Choice." http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303936904579177930307493584?mg=reno64-wsj

[riordan262]

My health-care policy was cancelled, and the Obama administration's explanation that policies are being cancelled because they were "substandard" and issued by "bad apple" insurers is absolutely not true. I had a very comprehensive policy, with a large and solid national health insurer, and the reasons my policy was not "ACA compliant" is because I now have to pay for maternity coverage, general pediatric coverage and pediatric dental coverage, as prescribed by ObamaCare. I'm 55 years old, have no children and don't plan to have children. Clearly, I am beyond childbearing age, and without children. Why would I have to purchase pediatric dental insurance? Or general pediatric care?

James Taranto (quoting Kathleen Crowley), "When Fraud Is Legal"

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304073204579171762226617546

[riordan262]

As its Oct. 1 implementation date arrives, ObamaCare is the biggest bet that American liberalism has made in 80 years on its foundational beliefs. This thing called "ObamaCare" carries on its back all the justifications, hopes and dreams of the entitlement state. The chance is at hand to let its political underpinnings collapse, perhaps permanently. If ObamaCare fails, or seriously falters, the entitlement state will suffer a historic loss of credibility with the American people. It will finally be vulnerable to challenge and fundamental change. But no mere congressional vote can achieve that. Only the American people can kill ObamaCare.

Daniel Henninger, "Let ObamaCare Collapse."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304526204579097443230322758.html

[riordan262]

I've been thinking about the big bad stories of the summer, the cultural ones that disturb people. The sick New York politician who, without apparent qualms, foists his sickness into the public sphere again. The kids who kill the World War II vet because they're bored. The kids who kill the young man visiting from Australia because they too are bored, and unhappy, and unwell. The teacher who has the affair with the 14-year-old student, and gets a slap on the wrist from the judge. The state legislator who's a sexual predator, the thieving city councilor and sure, the young pop star who is so lewd, so mindlessly vulgar and ugly on the awards show. We're shocked. But we're not shocked. And that itself is disturbing. We're used to all this, now, this crassness and lowness of public behavior. The cumulative effect of these stories, I suspect, is that we're starting to fear: Maybe that's us. Maybe that's who we are now. As if these aren't separate and discrete crimes and scandals but a daily bubbling up of the national character.

Peggy Noonan, "Work and the American Character."

[riordan262]

There’s a trillion dollars of college debt on the books, and we’re still pushing a four-year degree like it’s some sort of golden ticket. Dozens of states are facing massive shortages in the skilled trades, but we still talk about trade schools as “alternatives for the academically challenged.” And now, with record high unemployment and Detroit flat broke, you want to focus on the problem of ...“bad jobs?” Can you imagine our grandparents bemoaning the existence of “unpleasant” work? Can you imagine the greatest generation agreeing that some jobs were just “not worth having?”

Mike Rowe.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=645614772115336&set=a.151342491542569.29994.116999698310182&type=1

[riordan262]

We have 115,520 janitors in the United States with bachelor's degrees or more. Why are we encouraging more kids to go to college?

Allysia Finley, "Richard Vedder: The Real Reason College Costs So Much."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324619504579029282438522674.html

[riordan262]

What really sets medical insurance apart from other forms of insurance is that it covers routine expenses as well as catastrophic ones. Imagine if homeowner's insurance covered not just major damage but every minor repair or upgrade, every visit from a plumber or electrician, every paint job (including the cost of paint). Medical insurance works like that, which is why even people who've never had a life-threatening or otherwise catastrophic illness or injury have typically filed many claims. By mandating coverage for even more routine expenses--contraceptives being the highest-profile example--ObamaCare makes health insurance even less like "insulation against the inevitable," in Klein's description.

James Taranto, "The ObamaCare Prisoner's Dilemma."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324108204579022781775881964.html

[riordan262]

Just as politicians and policy makers are currently blaming these new technologies for destroying jobs, once the technologies start creating jobs, those in Washington will inevitably take credit. These types are best advised to clear a path and stay out of the way.

Andy Kessler, "Robots, 3-D Printers, and Other Looming Innovations."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324653004578649980459642530.html

[riordan262]

Republicans might recall that it was an attempt by liberals at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in 2008 to silence a critical documentary about Mrs. Clinton, "Hillary: The Movie," that became the basis for the landmark Citizens United Supreme Court case on political speech. Liberals have spent three years denouncing that 2010 decision and trying to silence or harass conservative political groups via the IRS, SEC and FEC. This is not behavior the GOP should emulate.

"The Priebus Ultimatum."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323514404578652322422880626.html

[riordan262]

[E]veryone in America knows health care is a complicated and complex subject, that a national bill will have 10 million moving parts, and that when a government far away—that would be Washington, D.C.—decides to take greater control of the nation’s health care it will likely get many, maybe a majority, of the moving parts wrong. A bill that is passed and is meant to do A will become Law U—a law of unforeseen, unplanned and unexpected consequences. And that’s giving Washington the benefit of the doubt, and assuming they really meant to honestly produce Law A.

Peggy Noonan, "The High Cost of Obamacare."

http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2013/08/13/the-high-cost-of-obamacare/

[riordan262]

So the White House is once again rewriting the law unilaterally, much as it did by suspending ObamaCare's employer mandate for a year. For this White House, the law it wrote is a mere suggestion. The lesson for Americans is that Democrats who passed ObamaCare didn't even understand what they were doing to themselves, much less to everyone else. But you can bet Democrats will never extend to ordinary Americans the same fixes that they are now claiming for themselves. The real class divide in President Obama's America is between the political class and everyone else.

"Congress's ObamaCare Exemption."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324635904578644202946287548.html

[riordan262]

Politicians can't dictate course syllabi or reading lists in higher education. But nor should faculty be allowed to engage in indoctrination and professional irresponsibility without being held to account. And yet, over the past 50 years, that is essentially what has happened. The greatest threat to academic freedom today is not from outside the academy, but from within. Political correctness and "speech codes" that stifle debate are common on America's campuses. The assumption seems to be that the purpose of education is to induce correct opinion rather than to search for wisdom and to liberate the mind.

Benno Schmidt, "Mitch Daniels' Gift to Academic Freedom."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324809004578637713582677352.html

[riordan262]

The problem, as ever, is that Mr. Obama simply can't get over his ideological fixation to keep tax rates as high as possible. We say "ideological" because his own advisers concede that a 35% rate hurts U.S. business competitiveness. Even Japan, the last high-rate holdout among rich countries, is cutting its corporate rate. But recall the famous moment in the 2008 campaign when then Senator Obama was asked by ABC's Charlie Gibson if he would support higher capital gains tax rates even if they raised less revenue than lower rates. Mr. Obama said yes.

"Obama's 'Grand Bargain' With Obama."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323854904578638043969528444.html