"I Don't Mind A Parasite. I Object To A Cut-Rate One."
*In an article earlier this week, James Oliphant of the National Review pointed out that President Obama has begun to “say goodbye.” In his article, Oliphant provides his observations of the President and his party as Mr. Obama’s time in the White House winds down. Here are a few of the highlights:
“Because you can find anything on the Web, you can easily search and pull up a running clock that tells you just how long, to the second, Barack Obama has been president. It moves in real time. It only feels like it's speeding up.
Constrained by crises over which he has little power to impact events, hemmed in by a divided Congress more interested in scoring points with voters than in legislating, and watching as his potential successor assumes more and more of the political spotlight, Obama may be receding into history more quickly than either he or his aides ever anticipated.
It was impossible to listen to the president's speech Thursday at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library in Texas without hearing the trace of the valedictory. Certainly, it was not intended to be so—and Obama didn't deliver it as such. (Bill Clinton does wistful; Obama may not have that gear.) But his remarks were less a clarion call to action than a stern statement of principle, his mouth fixed flat for most of the address, his face betraying the weariness of almost six years of incessant conflict.
His demeanor matched that of his White House, dogged, hunkered down, like Butch and Sundance in Bolivia, surrounded by an increasingly tuned-out public, opportunistic Republicans, often feckless Democrats, and a skeptical press corps. For some time now, as Obama's approval rating has fallen and his political capital has dried up, his supporters have insisted that the long view will vindicate him, as if a contemporaneous verdict on his stewardship cannot be trusted. (And again, Friday, he vowed outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would go "down in history" for her work to pass and implement Obamacare, despite the fierce criticism she faced.)”
For the entire article, see: http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/obama-begins-to-say-good-bye-20140411
“Go down in history,” indeed. If she does, it will be history written by Chris Berman of ESPN fame, who will describe her tenure as one characterized by incessant “bumbling, fumbling, and stumbling” through the ObamaCare roll-out fiasco.
*A recent Pew Poll demonstrates the staying power of the ObamaCare issue in the upcoming November elections. As relayed by RealClearPolitics in a “Tsunami Alert”:
“How big is ObamaCare in this year’s midterms? More than 80 percent of respondents in a new poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for USA Today said that a candidate’s stance on the troubled health law is important to them, with 54 percent saying it is “very important.” The worst news for Democrats is that among the majority of registered voters who said the law was “very important,” there were twice as many opponents as there were supporters. “
For the poll, see: http://www.people-press.org/2014/04/10/more-republicans-see-health-care-stance-as-very-important-to-midterm-vote/
*Sticking with ObamaCare - the New York Times just posted an interesting article on their web site titled “Census Survey Revisions Mask Health Law Effects” which declares:
“The Census Bureau, the authoritative source of health insurance data for more than three decades, is changing its annual survey so thoroughly that it will be difficult to measure the effects of President Obama’s health care law in the next report, due this fall, census officials said.”
Those Census Bureau officials also said:
““(I)t is coincidental and unfortunate timing” that the survey was overhauled just before major provisions of the health care law took effect. “Ideally,” it said, “the redesign would have had at least a few years to gather base line and trend data.”
Hmmmmm….so it’s simply ”coincidental and unfortunate timing” that the effects of ObamaCare will be “difficult to measure” (or will be “masked” as the NY Times puts it) in a report that is due out just prior to the November elections? If you believe that one, I have some prime real estate to sell you in the middle of the Okefenokee Swamp.
*An article in the American Thinker correlates statistics which reveal that food stamp recipients outnumbered women who worked full-time in 2011 and 2012. The article points out that these statistics – taken alone - don’t “really say much,” but when you connect the dots you get the following:
“The Department of Agriculture’s website lists the annual average number of food stamps participants going back to 1969. That year, there were only 2,878,000 people on food stamps. Since then, food stamps participants have increased by 44,758,000—or about 1,552 percent.
In 1969, there were 15,678,000 women who worked full-time, year-round in the United States. Through 2012, their numbers had increased by 28,381,000—or about 181 percent.
That 1552% increase in food stamp recipients since 1969 shows just how much Congress has changed the eligibility requirements for the program. And those changes reflect how much the economy, the family, and opportunities for women have changed in the last 45 years. There are fewer good paying jobs that pay a "living wage" - in Chicago, it takes a job paying $20.35 an hour to keep a family of 4 above the poverty level. A single mother has little chance of escaping poverty and more than 4 million of them and their children need assistance.
The number of female headed households continues to increase. While statistics show that being married gives a family a far better chance of escaping poverty, the number of poor women who marry continues to fall. The correlation between those receiving SNAP benefits and the total number of working women will continue to worsen as long as good paying jobs remain scarce and families continue to break apart.
Perhaps that's the way to look at these two statistics - a barometer of the social health of US families. And it's not a pretty picture.”
So much for the “War On Poverty” (or for the “wars on women” for that matter). Until we get at the ROOT of the problem – our society’s War On FAMILIES – we will only be throwing money at the symptoms. Things will only get worse.
*Finally – here’s something for people like Jimmy and me to look forward to:
“A new study has found that men become more unhappy when they reach age 70.
Researchers at Oregon State University found that perceptions of unhappiness or dealing with “hassles” increases once men are about 65-70 years old.”
To this news I say: Oh, goody……
Blog has been viewed (324) times.