Curious as to why the Obama administration is so ignorant of economics? The graph below shows the proportion of experience in the private sector of cabinet members appointed by their respective presidents.

A cost the state will be unwilling to pay once it subsidizes all of healthcare.

Apparently the administration has promised to underwrite the development of oil reserves off the coast of Brazil.

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

Its odd because democrats won’t allow for the development of our off shore oil reserves but they actively fund, with US taxpayer money, other countries oil reserves. Not sure what to make of this.

And the left wants us to pay the mother of all tax hikes to pay for universal healthcare which recent polls indicate only 35% of the citizenry support.

* An income surtax on taxpayers earning more than $500,000 a year,[1]
* An excise tax on high-cost “Cadillac” health insurance plans that cost more than $8,500 a year for individuals or $21,000 for families,[2]
* An excise tax on medical devices such as wheelchairs, breast pumps, and syringes used by diabetics for insulin injections,[3]
* A cap on the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance without offsetting tax cuts,[4]
* A limit on itemized deductions for taxpayers with a top income tax rate greater than 28 percent,[5]
* A windfall profits tax on health insurance companies,[6]
* A value-added tax, which would tax the value added to a product at each stage of production,[7]
* An increase in the Medicare portion of the payroll tax to 3.4 percent for incomes great than $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married filers),[8]
* An excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages including non-diet soda and sports drinks,[9]
* Higher taxes on alcoholic beverages including beer, wine, and spirits,[10]
* A tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage of up to 2.5 percent of their adjusted gross income,[11]
* A limit on contributions to health savings accounts,[12]
* An 8 percent tax on all wages paid by employers that do not provide their employees health insurance that satisfies the requirements defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services,[13]
* A limit on contributions to flexible spending arrangements,[14]
* Elimination of the deduction for expenses associated with Medicare Part D subsidies,[15]
* An increase in taxes on international businesses,[16]
* Elimination of the tax credits paper companies take for biofuels they create in their production process–the so-called “Black Liquor credit,”[17]
* Fees on insured and self-insured health plans,[18]
* A limit or repeal of the itemized deduction for medical expenses,[19]
* A limit on the Qualified Medical Expense definition,[20]
* An increase in the payroll taxes on students,[21]
* An extension of the Medicare payroll tax to all state and local government employees,[22]
* An increase in taxes on hospitals,[23]
* An increase in the estate tax,[24]
* Increased efforts to close the mythical “tax gap,”[25]
* A 5 percent tax on cosmetic surgery and similar procedures such as Botox treatments, tummy tucks, and face lifts,[26]
* A tax on drug companies,[27]
* An increase in the corporate tax on providers of health insurance,[28] and
* A $500,000 deduction limitation for the compensation paid by health insurance companies to their officers, employees, and directors.[29]

I am going to spend my time before this historic vote to highlight some very important numbers, so every member of this chamber understands what they are voting to advance. Make no mistake, our actions today will not be without consequences. History and our future generations will judge us on this. Here are some numbers:

· 0 – the number of provisions prohibiting the rationing of health care.

· 0 – the number of government-run entitlement programs that are financially sound over the long-term.

· 10.2 percent – our national unemployment rate, the highest in 26 years.

· 70 – total number of government programs authorized by the bill.

· 1,697 – times the Secretary of Health and Human Services is given authority to determine or define provisions in this bill.

· 2,074 – total pages in this bill.

· 2010 – the year Americans start paying higher taxes to pay for this bill

· 2014 – the year when this bill actually starts most of the major provisions of this bill

· $6.8 million – cost to taxpayers per word

· $8 billion – the total amount of new taxes on Americans who do not buy Washington-defined health care.

· $465 billion – Cuts in Medicare at a time when it faces a $38 trillion unfunded liability to finance more government spending.

· $494 billion – total amount of new taxes in this bill

· $2.5 trillion – the real cost of the bill

· $12 trillion – our total national debt

I want to be the Secretary Health of Human Services if this thing passes. Imagine the power I would have.

Campaign finance reform leads to suppression of freedom of speech.

According to an ABC report:

ABC News’ Jonathan Karl reports:

What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform?

Here’s a case study.

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)

Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.

How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

Regardless of political persuasion, all voters should object to this kind of law making. However, large legislation like this will necessarily have these kind of things in it. For that reason its hard for me to understand why the default position of most voters, is to support more legislation. Why aren’t more voters by default libertarian?

Lyndsey Graham does a great job of showing why fighting terrorism with law enforcement is problematic.

Jammie wearing fool details what is left out of an AP story reporting on a healthcare bill:

Of course what the Associated Press does not even mention in their story is probably the most relevant part:

In general, do you support, oppose or neither support nor oppose the health care reform plans being discussed in Congress? (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE Is that strongly support/oppose or somewhat support/oppose?

To no surprise that’s opposed by 43-41%. Eleven percent neither support or oppose and 4% “don’t know.”

Why does the AP select the question about support when other people are paying for it over the question that asks generally if the people support the legislation. If, the data showed a majority supported the healthcare legislation but only a minority supported it if the rich had to pay for it, would the AP still run with the same headline or would the headline emphasize that the majority supported healthcare? Liberal bias dictates whats parts of the polling data are to be highlighted and which are to be downplayed.

The poll also asks which is not even mentioned by the news story:

Would you favor, oppose, or neither favor nor oppose a law that would require every person to have health insurance, and pay money to the government as a penalty if they
do not, unless the person is very poor?

The outcome: 28% favor it while 64% are opposed. In point of fact, this provision was in the house bill. Which effectively means, according to this poll, that the healthcare passed by congress, is opposed by a large majority of those polled. This is not even mentioned in the story. The attitude towards the current legislation on healthcare reform that was passed in the house was deemed not important enough to be mentioned by a story supposedly reporting on the attitudes of citizens towards healthcare reform. That my friends is what is called liberal bias in mainstream press.

Can you imagine in 2005 the AP ignoring poling data that showed strong disapproval of increasing troop levels in Iraq. I can’t either.

James Taranto rightly characterizes the administration decision to try several terrorists in civilan courts as being merely a show trial.

As Morris Davis, a retired military prosecutor, argued the other day in The Wall Street Journal, under the administration’s plan, “the standard of justice for each detainee will depend in large part upon the government’s assessment of how high the prosecution’s evidence can jump and which evidentiary bar it can clear.” Detainees will get a “fair trial” in civilian court only if their conviction is assured. By implication, that suggests that detainees who go before military commissions will get an unfair trial. Presumably the administration would deny this and say the commission trials will be fair too. But if so, why is such a trial not good enough for Khalid Sheikh Mohammad?

The answer seems to be that the administration is conducting a limited number of civilian trials of high-profile terrorists for show, so as to win “credibility” with the international left. These trials will differ from an ordinary show trial in that the process will be fair even though the verdict is predetermined. But people who wrongly think that either military commissions or detention without trial are unjust will not be satisfied with some detainees getting civilian trials–unless, of course, they are simply eager to be impressed by Barack Obama.

To select only the terrorists you believe will be convicted in a civilian court while keeping the rest in military tribunals is not justice. This seems like a bad move by the administration.