Paul Krugman, "Obama Gets Real": Krugman Gets Delusional

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Obama Gets Real" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/06/opinion/krugman-obama-gets-real.html?hpw&rref=opinion&_r=0), devoted to the president's December 4 remarks on economic mobility, Paul Krugman declares :

"Mr. Obama laid out a disturbing — and, unfortunately, all too accurate — vision of an America losing touch with its own ideals, an erstwhile land of opportunity becoming a class-ridden society. Not only do we have an ever-growing gap between a wealthy minority and the rest of the nation; we also, he declared, have declining mobility, as it becomes harder and harder for the poor and even the middle class to move up the economic ladder.

. . . .

Now, however, we have the president of the United States breaking ranks, finally sounding like the progressive many of his supporters thought they were backing in 2008. This is going to change the discourse — and, eventually, I believe, actual policy."

Now compare Krugman's claims with the text of an editorial on Wednesday entitled "Keeping Shareholders in the Dark" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/opinion/keeping-shareholders-in-the-dark.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0), in which The New York Times acknowledged:

"Protecting investors and ensuring proper corporate governance are the essence of the mission of the Securities and Exchange Commission. But you wouldn’t know that from the recent actions of the agency and its chairwoman, Mary Jo White.

Last week, the S.E.C. unwisely removed from its regulatory agenda a plan to consider a rule to require public companies to disclose their political spending — even though the case for disclosure is undeniable. Basic investor protection requires that shareholders know how corporate executives are spending shareholder money. Good corporate governance requires that companies are transparent about their use of corporate resources. Shareholders know this and have demanded disclosure."

Indeed, Mary Jo White, who was nominated by Obama earlier this year to replace Elisse B. Walter as Chairwoman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, is not actively seeking to require public companies - such as Goldman Sachs - to disclose their political spending.

The president is "breaking ranks, finally sounding like the progressive many of his supporters thought they were backing in 2008"? Pardon my French, but this is bullshit.

Wendy Sherman on PBS NewsHour: Iran's Arak Reactor Not for Peaceful Purposes

Yesterday, in an interview on PBS NewsHour (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec13/sherman_12-04.html), Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, one of the architects of Obama's "agreement to agree" with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/12/thomas-friedman-bibi-and-barack-sequel.html), who previously negotiated America's farcical agreement to restrict North Korea's nuclear weapons program, acknowledged that Iran's Arak Reactor is not for peaceful purposes:

GWEN IFILL: Is it fair to say that, as difficult as it was getting to this first step, as you call it, that it will be 10 times as difficult getting to the next one?

WENDY SHERMAN: I think getting to a comprehensive agreement will be very, very difficult.

GWEN IFILL: Does that include dismantling, full dismantling?

WENDY SHERMAN: This includes a lot of dismantling of their infrastructure, because, quite frankly, we're not quite sure what you need a 40-megawatt heavy water reactor, which is what Arak is, for any civilian peaceful purpose.

And yet, as part of his secret negotiations with Khamenei in Oman, Obama conceded that Iran, as part of an initial agreement, could continue to build the Arak reactor, capable of producing enough plutonium for two atomic bombs each year, without any restrictions whatsoever. Only owing to French objections, when Obama's secret agreement was brought for approval to the P5+1 in Geneva, was it deemed necessary to address the Arak reactor.

Nevertheless, pursuant to the Geneva "agreement to agree," Iran can:

• continue to enrich uranium (see: http://www.voanews.com/content/rouhani-iran-will-never-stop-enrichment/1798585.html);
• continue to build its reactor in Arak (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/27/us-iran-nuclear-arak-idUSBRE9AQ0U120131127), intended to produce enough plutonium for two atomic bombs each year;
• continue to build components for the Arak reactor off-site (see: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-says-work-to-continue-at-arak-nuclear-reactor-site/).

Just as bad, Obama abandoned American hostages held by Iran (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/12/03/obamas-iran-deal-left-pastor-behind/).

Meanwhile Britain's Foreign Service has sent a diplomat, Ajay Sharma, to Tehran for the first time since late 2011 (see: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ajay-sharma-makes-first-visit-to-iran-as-non-resident-charge-daffaires). After his visit, Sharma joyously declared:

"I had a good first visit back to Tehran today and want to thank the Iranian authorities, particularly my counterpart Mr Habibollahzadeh, for facilitating the trip. I held detailed and constructive discussions with the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs about taking forward our bilateral relationship on a step by step and reciprocal basis. I also visited our Embassy compounds to assess the damage caused in 2011.

. . . .

I intend to visit Iran regularly to continue the step by step process of improving relations between our two countries."

Not on the agenda of Britain's non-resident charge d’affaires during his trip to Iran was a visit to Evin Prison, where Iran continues to torture Baha'is, Kurds, Sunnis, Christians, homosexuals and political dissidents.

Britain is also brokering discussions between Hezbollah and Obama (see: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-London-is-mediating-indirect-secret-talks-between-US-and-Hezbollah-333245). Of course, Obama doesn't care about the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing by Hezbollah, which killed 241 American servicemen, or the 1994 bombing by Hezbollah of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 and wounding hundreds. Needless to say, both attacks were undertaken at the behest of Tehran.

You see, Obama and friends are determined to dismantle the sanctions program against Iran, and it's all fast becoming lovey-dovey, notwithstanding the executions and assorted other horrors, e.g., stoning to death of women accused of adultery and rape of prisoners, perpetrated by the Khamenei regime.

Do you remember how Obama claimed in March 2012 (see: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/chips-down-israel-back-says-obama-while-reiterating-184525416.html):

"There should not be a shred of doubt by now: When the chips are down, I have Israel's back."

Well, Obama certainly has Israel's back, and he is busy putting a knife into it.

New York Times Editorial, "Keeping Shareholders in the Dark": The Season of Miracles

Miracles do happen! Today, I am in complete agreement with an editorial entitled "Keeping Shareholders in the Dark" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/opinion/keeping-shareholders-in-the-dark.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0), in which The New York Times declares:

"Protecting investors and ensuring proper corporate governance are the essence of the mission of the Securities and Exchange Commission. But you wouldn’t know that from the recent actions of the agency and its chairwoman, Mary Jo White.

Last week, the S.E.C. unwisely removed from its regulatory agenda a plan to consider a rule to require public companies to disclose their political spending — even though the case for disclosure is undeniable. Basic investor protection requires that shareholders know how corporate executives are spending shareholder money. Good corporate governance requires that companies are transparent about their use of corporate resources. Shareholders know this and have demanded disclosure."

Ah yes, Mary Jo White, who was nominated by Obama earlier this year to replace Elisse B. Walter as Chairwoman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Yet another successful appointment by the president, intended to ensure ongoing reform of America's corporate and financial sphere . . . not.

And while we're on the topic of the S.E.C., how about reinstating the Uptick Rule and putting an end to grotesque hedge fund manipulation of the securities markets (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/08/maureen-dowd-summers-of-our-discontent.html)?

Yes, I know, wishful thinking on my part.

Maureen Dowd, "Mommy, the Drone’s Here!": Welcome to Our Brave New World

Are you old enough to remember when the milkman would arrive at your home and deposit glass bottles of milk in a special box outside your door and collect the empty bottles? Do you remember the cream floating at the top of the bottle (I hated it)? Although you might not remember the jokes about how a certain child resembled the milkman, you might have seen the South Park episode in which Kyle concludes that his mother is getting it on with the UPS delivery man.

Well, all of these delivery (pun intended) jokes may soon be coming to an end if Jeff Bezos has his way. In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Mommy, the Drone’s Here!" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/opinion/dowd-mommy-the-drones-here.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd observes:

"The novelty of flying cars never materialized. But flying novels are right around the corner.

If you aren’t nervous enough reading about 3-D printers spitting out handguns or Google robots with Android phones, imagine the skies thick with crisscrossing tiny drones.

'I know this looks like science fiction. It’s not,' Jeff Bezos told Charlie Rose on '60 Minutes' Sunday, unveiling his octocopter drones.

The Amazon founder is optimistic that the fleet of miniature robot helicopters clutching plastic containers will be ready to follow GPS coordinates within a radius of 10 miles and zip around the country providing half-hour delivery of packages of up to 5 pounds — 86 percent of Amazon’s stock — just as soon as the F.A.A. approves."

Query: Will each of us have a special landing pad for such home deliveries?

I order books and DVDs from Amazon. (I don't have a Kindle and like to write notes in my books; the movies I see again and again, and I have never been keen on VOD.) But is there anything I need so urgently that it requires drone delivery?

Perhaps such deliveries will be fuel efficient. Perhaps such deliveries will eliminate jobs and reduce the health care and retirement costs of employers.

Welcome to our brave new world.

Thomas Friedman, "Bibi and Barack, the Sequel": Obama Gives Birth to Rosemary's Baby

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Bibi and Barack, the Sequel" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/opinion/friedman-bibi-and-barack-the-sequel.html?hp&rref=opinion), would-be Middle East expert and Obama cheerleader Thomas Friedman informs us:

"While you need some Obama 'cool' to finalize a deal with Iran, to see the potential for something new and to seize it, you also need some Bibi crazy — some of his Dr. Strangelove stuff and the occasional missile test. The dark core of this Iranian regime has not gone away. It’s just out of sight, and it does need to believe that all options really are on the table for negotiations to succeed. So let Bibi be Bibi (up to the point where a good deal becomes possible) and Barack be Barack and we have the best chance of getting a decent outcome. Had Bibi not been Bibi, we never would have gotten Iran to the negotiating table, but without Barack being Barack, we’ll never get a deal."

Well, unbeknownst to Tom Terrific, there is no agreement with Iran. Barack Obama agreed to agree with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei, and as every first year law student knows from his course in contracts (but not including Harvard-educated, Constitutional lawyers), an agreement to agree is void and unenforceable.

Why is Obama's deal an agreement to agree? Simple. As reported by The Washington Free Beacon's Adam Kredo (http://freebeacon.com/deal-or-no-deal/):

"Even as Iran and the P5+1 announced late Saturday night that they had reached a six-month interim deal that curbs Iran’s nuclear program while giving Tehran the ability to continue some uranium enrichment activities, it is now clear that the six-month freeze will not go into effect until the P5+1 negotiators and Iran agree to a final plan to implement the interim agreement.

'Technical details to implement the Joint Plan of Action must be finalized before the terms of the Plan begin,' a senior administration official told the Washington Free Beacon on Monday. 'The P5+1 and Iran are working on what the timeframe is.'

Congressional sources confirmed that the freeze would not actually begin until the parties agree to sign a supplemental agreement that puts the framework into effect.

That means the six-month clock referenced by the administration and media has not yet started. Iran can continue its most controversial nuclear activities as negotiators work to finalize the interim deal reached over the weekend."

That's right: There is an unenforceable agreement to agree between Obama and Khamenei.

Worse still, Obama gave away the farm in order to reach this unenforceable agreement. It has now been acknowledged that pursuant to this "deal" Iran can:

• continue to enrich uranium (see: http://www.voanews.com/content/rouhani-iran-will-never-stop-enrichment/1798585.html);
• continue to build its reactor in Arak (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/27/us-iran-nuclear-arak-idUSBRE9AQ0U120131127), intended to produce enough plutonium for two atomic bombs each year;
• continue to build components for the Arak reactor off-site (see: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-says-work-to-continue-at-arak-nuclear-reactor-site/).

Just as bad, Obama abandoned American hostages held by Iran. As observed by Commentary's Jonathan Tobin (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/12/03/obamas-iran-deal-left-pastor-behind/):

"It turns out that the Mojtaba Atarodi, an Iranian scientist who was arrested in the U.S. back in 2011 for his work in trying to purchase equipment for the regime’s nuclear program, was set free in April of this year as part of the price paid by the U.S. for the start of the secret back-channel talks that led to the recent agreement. Along with three other Iranians involved in similar activity, Atarodi was sprung. According to the Daily Mail, in return President Obama got the negotiations he wanted as well as the release of two lost American hikers who were imprisoned when they strayed over the country’s border. But three Americans, including [American Pastor Saeed] Abedini and retired FBI agent Robert Levinson and former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati, remain in Iranian custody (Levinson disappeared in Iran and is unaccounted for). If the president has chosen to ignore the plight of these Americans who have been wrongfully imprisoned by a tyrannical regime and left them to rot in Iranian jails, then the U.S. embrace of Iran is even more disgraceful than even its most strident critics had thought."

Yes, Obama's negotiations in Oman gave birth to a tragedy, yet Thomas Friedman would still have us know that his beloved president is "cool."

Right about now, I need something to "cool" my furor over the Obama administration's asininity and ineptitude.

New York Times Editorial, "Fast Recovery for Health Care Website": Papering Over a Fraud

Imagine that you are an Amazon customer interested in purchasing a book. You go to the Amazon website, but are placed on a "queue" and told to wait, or, to come back later when fewer people are visiting the site. Afterwards, you somehow successfully place your order, but you are informed that there is a significant chance that this order will never be processed or that the wrong book will be sent to you. Would you tolerate this? Not for an instant. And yet Obama and friends are doing this to persons seeking to obtain health care insurance, while claiming that significant progress has been made in repairing their website.

This is a fraud on the American public.

In an editorial blithely entitled "Fast Recovery for Health Care Website" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/opinion/fast-recovery-for-health-care-website.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0), The New York Times proudly informs us of progress involving the Obamacare website, but delicately hints at problems involving Obamacare's "back-end systems":

"On Sunday, the administration issued a progress report asserting that the system was running smoothly for a vast majority of users, that the site was now working more than 90 percent of the time, and that consumers were getting much better feedback from the site than before. Thanks to software and hardware improvements, the average page is loading in less than a second compared with an average of 8 seconds in late October, and the number of frustrating error messages that block people from using the site has fallen below 1 percent.

. . . .

The big challenge ahead is to upgrade the back-end systems that transmit information to insurance companies so that they can complete the enrollment process. Consumers have until Dec. 23 to sign up for policies effective on Jan. 1, leaving only three weeks to solve the back-end problem. In some cases, insurers have no record of some people who think they have enrolled or have received inaccurate or incomplete information for some enrollees. One big problem is that some insurers say they have not been told what subsidies a customer will get and what premium should be paid by the customer.

If those problems can’t be fixed quickly, the administration will need to find alternate ways for people to enroll and get subsidies without going through the website."

Hmm. There has been progress involving the Obamacare website? In fact, the repair of the website is no more than a gimmick. As observed today in a Washington Post article entitled
"Health-care enrollment on Web plagued by bugs" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-care-enrollment-on-web-plagued-by-bugs/2013/12/02/e3021b86-5b79-11e3-a49b-90a0e156254b_story.html?hpid=z1) by Amy Goldstein and Juliet Eilperin (my emphasis in red):

"Federal health officials announced Sunday that they had met that goal. By 6 p.m. Monday, the Web site had had close to 800,000 unique visitors — one of the administration’s targets for the site’s performance — and was set to pass that mark by the end of the day, according to administration officials. And the site processed 18,000 enrollments in the most recent 24-hour period, nearly double the previous record.

Still, not all was smooth. By mid-morning Monday, some Americans trying to use the Web site were running into a logjam. And by late morning, when the number of people on the site was roughly 35,000 — or 15,000 fewer than administration officials had said it could handle — some consumers encountered a 'queue,' a new feature intended for times when the site was too crowded. The feature limits the number of people on the site and notifies others by e-mail when it’s a better time to log in."

Okay, the website no longer crashes. Instead, visitors are placed on a queue. Cute.

However, far more worrisome are problems involving the Obamacare "back-end systems." As was reported yesterday in a New York Times article entitled "Insurers Claim Health Website Is Still Flawed" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/02/business/white-house-praises-gains-on-health-site.html?hpw&rref=health&_r=0) by Robert Pear and Reed Abelson:

"Weeks of frantic technical work appear to have made the government’s health care website easier for consumers to use. But that does not mean everyone who signs up for insurance can enroll in a health plan.

The problem is that so-called back end systems, which are supposed to deliver consumer information to insurers, still have not been fixed.

. . . .

The issues are vexing and complex. Some insurers say they have been deluged with phone calls from people who believe they have signed up for a particular health plan, only to find that the company has no record of the enrollment. Others say information they received about new enrollees was inaccurate or incomplete, so they had to track down additional data — a laborious task that would not be feasible if data is missing for tens of thousands of consumers.

In still other cases, insurers said, they have not been told how much of a customer’s premium will be subsidized by the government, so they do not know how much to charge the policyholder."

Or stated otherwise, the Obamacare website can cause you to believe that you have enrolled in a health care plan, although there is no assurance whatsoever that this is the case. As reported today by Amy Goldstein and Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post in an article entitled "Health-care enrollment on Web plagued by bugs" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-care-enrollment-on-web-plagued-by-bugs/2013/12/02/e3021b86-5b79-11e3-a49b-90a0e156254b_story.html?hpid=z1) (my emphasis in red):

"The enrollment records for a significant portion of the Americans who have chosen health plans through the online federal insurance marketplace contain errors — generated by the computer system — that mean they might not get the coverage they’re expecting next month.

The errors cumulatively have affected roughly one-third of the people who have signed up for health plans since Oct. 1, according to two government and health-care industry officials."

Simply stated, this is fraud.

Obamacare: A Fraud on Consumers

Although the Obama administration is saying that it has met its Sunday deadline to enable 80 percent of users to purchase health care insurance packages online, the outlandishness of this claim is patent. As reported today in a New York Times article entitled "Insurers Claim Health Website Is Still Flawed" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/02/business/white-house-praises-gains-on-health-site.html?hpw&rref=health&_r=0) by Robert Pear and Reed Abelson:

"Weeks of frantic technical work appear to have made the government’s health care website easier for consumers to use. But that does not mean everyone who signs up for insurance can enroll in a health plan.

The problem is that so-called back end systems, which are supposed to deliver consumer information to insurers, still have not been fixed.

. . . .

The issues are vexing and complex. Some insurers say they have been deluged with phone calls from people who believe they have signed up for a particular health plan, only to find that the company has no record of the enrollment. Others say information they received about new enrollees was inaccurate or incomplete, so they had to track down additional data — a laborious task that would not be feasible if data is missing for tens of thousands of consumers.

In still other cases, insurers said, they have not been told how much of a customer’s premium will be subsidized by the government, so they do not know how much to charge the policyholder."

Or stated otherwise, the Obamacare website can cause you to believe that you have enrolled in a health care plan, although there is no assurance whatsoever that this is the case.

In the private sector, this would be deemed a fraud, i.e. the sale of goods and services without knowing if they are deliverable.

Query: If you think you have health care coverage, yet you don't, and a health care problem arises in the future, who is responsible?

But why worry?  The Obama administration is trying its very best, so let's cut it some slack, right?