Paul Krugman, "Obamacare Hits a Bump": How About Falls Into a Sinkhole?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Obamacare Hits a Bump," Paul Krugman begins:

"More than two and a half years have gone by since the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, went fully into effect. Most of the news about health reform since then has been good, defying the dire predictions of right-wing doomsayers. But this week has brought some genuine bad news: The giant insurer Aetna announced that it would be pulling out of many of the 'exchanges,' the special insurance markets the law established."

Whoa, Aetna is the only bad news? As reported by Javier E. David in an August 6, 2016 CNBC article entitled "Obamacare users in New York brace for double-digit 2017 premium hikes":

"Come 2017, thousands of New York's Obamacare users will wake up to double-digit premium hikes, the latest group of consumers affected by Affordable Care Act cost increases as insurers hemorrhage money from healthcare exchanges.

In a statement on Friday announcing 2017 premiums, NY's Department of Financial Services (DFS) said after weighing insurer requests, the state settled on an average hike of 16.6 percent for individual exchange users in the state, while small group users will see a lower average increase of over 8 percent."

This comes on the heels of a July 19, 2016 Los Angeles Times article entitled "California Obamacare rates to rise 13% in 2017, more than three times the increase of last two years" by Melody Petersen and Noam N. Levey.

Problems only in New York and California? I don't think so. As we are told by Sally C. Pipes and Thomas W. Smith in an August 17, 2016 CNBC piece entitled "Aetna's Obamacare pullout means the 'insurance death spiral' has arrived":

"Insurers that haven't pulled out of Obamacare are requesting premium hikes averaging 24 percent next year. And some states have it far worse. Many Georgians could see a hike of 65 percent. The 600,000 Texans enrolled in Blue Cross Blue Shield may face a 59 percent premium increase."

Krugman goes on to say in his opinion piece:

"This doesn’t mean that the reform is about to collapse. But some real problems are cropping up. They’re problems that would be relatively easy to fix in a normal political system, one in which parties can compromise to make government work. But they won’t get resolved if we elect a clueless president (although he’d turn to terrific people, the best people, for advice, believe me. Not.). And they’ll be difficult to resolve even with a knowledgeable, competent president if she faces scorched-earth opposition from a hostile Congress."

Ah yes, a "knowledgeable" and "competent" Hillary, who has suddenly decided that the Clinton Foundation will no longer accept foreign and corporate donations if she is elected president.

Got it: It was okay for the Clinton Foundation to receive foreign and corporate donations while she was secretary of state, and it is okay for the Clinton Foundation to receive donations while she is a candidate for president, but these donations will no longer be accepted after January 20, 2017.

Or stated otherwise, if foreign governments and corporations wish to influence the executive branch of America's government after Hillary's election, they had best make their donations NOW.

Disgusting.

Los Angleles Times, "U.S. stockpiles powerful bunker-buster bombs in case Iran nuclear talks fail": A Warning to Iran

As the new deadline of July 7 nears, it is apparent that talks between the P5+1 and Iran are less than lovey-dovey. In a Los Angeles Times article entitled "U.S. stockpiles powerful bunker-buster bombs in case Iran nuclear talks fail," W.J. Hennigan writes:

"U.S. officials have publicized the new [bunker-busting] bomb partly to rattle the Iranians. Some Pentagon officials warned not to underestimate U.S. military capabilities even if the bunker-busters can't eliminate Iran's nuclear program.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggested at the same Pentagon news conference Thursday that airstrikes might be ordered multiple times if Iran tries to build a bomb."

Odd! Why the need for this veiled threat? What more can Obama concede to Khamenei? As Charles Krauthammer writes in a powerful, widely circulated Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history":

"In pursuit of his desire to make the Islamic Republic into an accepted, normalized 'successful regional power,' Obama decided to take over the nuclear negotiations. At the time, Tehran was reeling — the rial plunging, inflation skyrocketing, the economy contracting — under a regime of international sanctions painstakingly constructed over a decade.

Then, instead of welcoming Congress’ attempt to tighten sanctions to increase the pressure on the mullahs, Obama began the negotiations by loosening sanctions, injecting billions into the Iranian economy (which began growing again in 2014) and conceding in advance an Iranian right to enrich uranium.

It’s been downhill ever since. Desperate for a legacy deal, Obama has played the supplicant, abandoning every red line his administration had declared essential to any acceptable deal."

Obama was given Krauthammer's essay to read, and it obviously has him worried, given that the deal with Iran - which will be signed (or "agreed to" without signatures) - must be submitted for Congressional approval. Obama is headed for stormy battles in the House and the Senate, and he might well be forced to veto a Congressional resolution of disapproval, something that the first invertebrate to occupy the Oval Office is not keen on doing.

Shmuley Boteach, "The New York Times Censors Anti-ISIS Ad": Times Readers Mustn't See the Knife Used to Kill Foley

As reported in a Breitbart article entitled "The New York Times Censors Anti-ISIS Ad" by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, The New York Times refused to run an advertisement if it showed the knife used by the ISIS murderer to decapitate James Foley. Rabbi Boteach writes:

"Our organization, This World: The Values Network, was forced to remove the photograph and replace it with one without a knife in order to have the ad appear this Tuesday in The New York Times."

Apparently, sensitive Times readers must not be allowed to be visually reminded of the manner in which Foley was executed.

Rabbi Boteach goes on to say:

"Yet, the NYT's response was a lot better than The Los Angeles Times which demanded the removal of a second image that depicted Hamas terrorists standing alongside hooded alleged collaborators which they were about to execute."

On the other hand, on April 18, 2012 The Los Angeles Times published photos of American soldiers posing with the remains of Afghan suicide bombers.

Excuse me, but I think an explanation from the editors of The Los Angeles Times is certainly in order.

New York Times Editorial, "Stop Hiding Images of American Torture": Stop Hiding the Videotape of Obama Honoring Khalidi

In an editorial entitled "Stop Hiding Images of American Torture," The New York Times concludes:

"Images of war are frequently appalling, and the safety of American citizens and soldiers is vitally important. But the greatest threat to that safety lies not in the photographs of horrific behavior; it lies in the fact of the behavior itself. The treatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was a shameful episode in U.S. history.

America reinforces its values and thus its security by being transparent about even the worst abuses of those values, not by hiding the evidence deep in a file drawer."

In response, I have two thoughts:

On April 18, 2012 The Los Angeles Times published photos of American soldiers posing with the remains of Afghan suicide bombers. On the other hand, The Los Angeles Times is keeping a 2003 videotape of Obama toasting Rashid Khalidi in a vault, not a "file drawer." Isn't it high time for The Los Angeles Times to release this videotape, which reveals the candid thoughts of America's commander-in-chief?

In addition, if The New York Times wishes to publish photographs of "horrific behavior" by American troops, perhaps they might first want to publish pictures of the decapitation of James Foley? Indeed the pictures of Foley's decapitation are horrifying beyond words, but perhaps they would go a long way toward placing Obama's golf game, minutes after his speech condemning Foley's execution, in perspective.

In fact, out of deference to Foley's family, I wouldn't want these pictures on the front page of The New York Times or any other newspaper. Some images are just too horrible to be exposed in this manner.

But does The New York Times truly seek transparency? Rubbish! They cannot acknowledge their own mistakes, and they are certainly not about to print anything that might besmirch their beloved president.

Paul Krugman, "Lessons From a Comeback": California Dreaming

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Lessons From a Comeback" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/01/opinion/krugman-lessons-from-a-comeback.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman asks, "is California still the place where the future happens first?" Commending Governor Jerry Brown for pushing through tax hikes that have given rise to a projected budget surplus, Krugman writes:

"Again, however, reports of the state’s demise proved premature. Unemployment in California remains high, but it’s coming down — and there’s a projected budget surplus, in part because the implosion of the state’s Republican Party finally gave Democrats a big enough political advantage to push through some desperately needed tax increases. Far from presiding over a Greek-style crisis, Gov. Jerry Brown is proclaiming a comeback."

Those tax increases? As observed by The Sacramento Bee (http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/12/high-income-californians-may-pay-nations-highest-tax-rate.html) in December 2012:

"Thanks to passage of Proposition 30 last month, high-income Californians would pay the nation's highest marginal income tax rates -- nearly 52 percent -- if President Barack Obama and Congress fail to make a deal to avoid the so-called 'fiscal cliff,' according to a new study.

. . . .

Proposition 30 added three percentage points to the marginal state income tax rate for California's highest-income taxpayers, bringing it to 13.3 percent. That action raised California over other high-tax jurisdictions to a marginal rate of 51.9 percent, slightly higher than New York City's level. Hawaii was the only other place with a calculated rate above 50 percent."

But not to worry, says Krugman: "serious studies have found very little evidence either that tax hikes cause lots of wealthy people to move or that state taxes have any significant impact on growth."

Unemployment in California? Down to a "mere" 9.6% (see: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/29/business/la-fi-california-jobs-20130330), among the highest rates in the country.

But the real kicker? As recently observed by The Los Angeles Times in an article entitled "California's debt still a heavy cloud over state's future" (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/13/local/la-me-state-debt-20130114):

"Sacramento is legally obligated to pay many billions of dollars withheld from schools, local governments and healthcare providers as lawmakers struggled repeatedly to balance the books. It owes Wall Street more per resident than almost every other state. And it has accumulated a crushing load of debt for retiree pensions and healthcare, now totaling more than taxpayers spend each year on all state programs combined.

. . . .

When he released his budget plan, Brown vowed to knock down the state's 'wall of debt.' He presented a timeline for repaying nearly $28 billion the state owes to government programs that it raided for cash or deprived of funds over the years, as well as some bonds sold to balance the budget.

. . . .

But numerous reports by state agencies, think tanks and academics have shown the wall of debt to be many stories higher than $28 billion — hundreds of billions of dollars over the next few decades. Brown's repayment plan does not significantly reduce the sizable debt to Wall Street or account for promises the state has made to its current and future retirees but is not setting enough money aside to cover."

Now go back and read Krugman's op-ed one more time. Does the word "debt" appear even once in his opinion piece? Afraid not. A "wall of debt"? What, me worry?

California could be "the place where the future happens first?" It could well be, but it's not going to be pretty.

Charles Blow, "The Real Obama": Chuck Hagel, "Let the Jews Pay for It"

"Tonight, I’ll lay out additional proposals that are fully paid for and fully consistent with the budget framework both parties agreed to just 18 months ago. Let me repeat – nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime. It’s not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth."

- President Barack Obama, 2013 State of the Union Address

Over the course of his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama emphasized the need to increase federal spending on education, infrastructure and green energy, and he claimed that this would not increase America's deficit "by a single dime." These are all noble objectives, but where in his speech did he explain how he intended to pay for all of this?

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, "The federal government ran up a $293 billion deficit in the first quarter of fiscal 2013." As such, the annual federal budget deficit is well on its way to topping $1 trillion for the fifth-straight year. If you believe that Obama's plans are not going to increase the deficit, you are surely also a believer in the Tooth Fairy.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Real Obama" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/opinion/blow-the-real-obama.html?_r=0), Charles Blow writes:

"Is this the real Barack Obama? I hope so. I like this one.

The president used Tuesday’s State of the Union address to detail a vision of America’s future, and his second term, in which the country is not in perpetual war, government plays an expansive role, Congressional obstruction is named and shamed and he is bold and unapologetically progressive.

This is how politicians who needn’t worry about re-election look: more like themselves."

Blow also doesn't trouble himself with the question of who is going to pay for Obama's "unapologetically progressive" program. The problem is that someone ultimately must pay for it.

Which brings us to Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense. As reported by Adam Kredo of The Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/the-saga-of-hagel-and-haifa/):

"Hagel, who served as president and CEO of the World USO from 1987 to 1990, expressed intense opposition to the USO Haifa Center during a tumultuous 1989 meeting with Jewish leaders, according to multiple sources involved in the fight to keep the post open.

'He said to me, ‘Let the Jews pay for it’,' said Marsha Halteman, director for military and law enforcement programs at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which led the battle to keep USO Haifa operational."

"Let the Jews pay for it"? Is this also indicative of what underlies the "real" Obama?

We have also learned from Alana Goodman of The Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/arab-american-group-wont-release-hagel-tape/) that Republican senators are demanding additional disclosure of material from Hagel:

"Among the requested materials: the full text and details of several speeches Hagel failed to report to the Senate Armed Services Committee that have since been uncovered.

Fox News Channel on Tuesday reported on two speeches Hagel failed to disclose as requested, including one given in 2008 to the annual conference of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC).

The ADC is a controversial nonprofit whose conference last year featured speakers prominent in the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement targeting Israel. The 2012 conference also featured an award presentation celebrating an author whose essays include one titled, 'Zionism is a form of racism.'

The ADC also has not disclosed the full video of Hagel’s 2008 speech, while refusing to release its tax records as required by federal law."

According to Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/12/hagel-omitted-two-speeches-on-middle-east-from-senate-disclosure-forms/):

"An Obama administration official who has worked with the senator during his confirmation process maintained that Hagel has gone 'above and beyond' the Senate’s requirements, by supplying to the Armed Services Committee whatever evidence he could find – prepared remarks, transcripts and the like – for both formal and 'informal' speeches.

Apprised by Fox News of the two speaking dates from 2008, however, the official appeared not to have heard about them. The aide later responded that Hagel did not disclose these two speaking events because neither were formal speeches. 'It’s simply not true to suggest there was any attempt to hide anything,' the aide told Fox News. 'One event was at an academic institute – Georgetown, a Jesuit university. The other was with an organization that combats discrimination.'"

An "organization that combats discrimination," yet honors a speaker who claims that Zionism is a form of racism? Yeah, right.

By all means, let's review Hagel's speech before the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which purportedly is in an "archive" in Maryland and unavailable.

Another video which we are not being permitted to see? Does it remind you of something? It should. You will recall that The Los Angeles Times still refuses to release a video of Obama at a party honoring former PLO media spokesman and University of Chicago colleague Rashid Khalidi.

Meanwhile, as Obama continues to pursue abortive talks with Iran over its nuclear weapons development program as long advocated by Hagel [the US "shouldn’t even be thinking about options of bombing Iran" (http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/02/10/hagel-in-2008-video-us-shouldnt-even-think-about-bombing-iran-video/)], The Washington Post is reporting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iranian-buying-spree-raises-concerns-about-major-expansion-of-nuclear-capacity/2013/02/13/2090805c-7537-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html?hpid=z1):

"Iran recently sought to acquire tens of thousands of highly specialized magnets used in centrifuge machines, according to experts and diplomats, a sign that the country may be planning a major expansion of its nuclear program that could shorten the path to an atomic weapons capability."

The "real" Obama? I think I prefer the "unreal" Obama. And yes, I have a sinking feeling that ultimately the Jews will "pay for it."

Time to Release Obama's 2003 Rashid Khalidi Videotape from Los Angeles Times Safe

Given Obama's demands that Romney release more of his tax returns, it's also high time for the president to agree to the release of the videotape of a 2003 banquet at which then-state senator Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian activist. The video, held in a Los Angeles Times safe, has not been shown to the public purportedly for reasons of confidentiality (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-video29-2008oct29,0,7568849.story):

"'The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it,' said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. 'The Times keeps its promises to sources.'"

Sorry, Mr. President, but what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Syria: Obama Again Leads From Behind

As reported by the Los Angeles Times in an article, written by Paul Richter, entitled "U.S. softens its criticism of Syria" (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-syria-20110720,0,5436104.story), the US is now backtracking from its demands for Syrian President Assad to step down. As stated in the article:

"After sharply escalating its criticism of Syria's bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protesters, the Obama administration has abruptly scaled back its condemnations, showing fresh uncertainty about its willingness to confront President Bashar Assad's regime.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton declared last week that Assad's government had 'lost legitimacy,' diplomatic language that implied a break with the government in Damascus. Analysts said they expected the White House to demand Assad's ouster, as it did earlier this year with Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi and former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

But Clinton backed off on Saturday, saying the administration still hopes that Assad's regime will stop the violence and work with protesters to carry out political reforms. On Monday, European Union ministers also called on Assad to implement reforms and made it clear they still hoped he would do so.

. . . .

The change in tone reflects the continuing debate over whether Syria's ruler is likely to survive the current turmoil, and how best to use the limited diplomatic tools available to pressure him."

Given that the number of Syrian civilians butchered by Assad over recent months exceeds 1,400, and with more dead every day, is this the time for Obama to backtrack?

Hezbollah is also now threatening to bombard all Israeli cities, including Eilat, with Scud missiles supplied by Assad (see: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=230286). Does Obama continue to believe that by "making nice" to misunderstood despots, such as Ahmadinejad and Assad, he can somehow influence their behavior and that of their stooges, e.g., Hezbollah's Nasrallah?

Indictments and warrants for the arrest of four members of Hezbollah were recently issued by the UN tribunal investigating the 2005 murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a friend of the US (see: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/07/02/hezbollah-hariri-nasrallah.html). Among those indicted is Mustafa Badreddine, who also participated in the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, which killed 241 Americans. Both bombings were instigated and approved by Syria, but why should this matter to Obama, who continues to procrastinate?

As observed by Max Boot, writing for Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/07/20/u-s-sitting-on-sidelines-about-syria/):

"There might be circumstances where it would be appropriate to risk charges of hypocrisy so as not to undermine a valued ally such as Bahrain. But c’mon, guys, this is Syria we’re talking about–Iran’s ally, Hezbollah’s sponsor. That the administration can’t make up its mind about whether to push for Assad’s removal is beyond appalling. It’s puzzling. This is about as big an opportunity as we have faced in the region in decades–and the administration is sitting on the sidelines, mulling its options."

Actually, it's not puzzling at all. Obama can never decide.

Maybe the brutal events which will occur throughout Syria tomorrow will succeed in penetrating Obama's psyche.