Sarah sez

.

One in a series that takes a look at some of the wild, zany and madcap things said by the former governor of Alaska.






Palin was talking politics and the consequences of President Obama’s successful re-election bid and with it she gives her insights to opposition to the President and his policies and how she believes a constitutional republic should look when she suggested that perhaps the only thing left for the President to do was to make like “a third-world dictator and throw these guys (the opposition) in jail.”













No, Palin is undergoing chemo or anything like that. The dictatorial-championing guest there on Al Sharpton’s show was dictator-loving former pop sensation, Harry Belafonte.


The clip cut him off so maybe we missed him explain how it is that a 51-48 victory in the popular vote is a mandate. We recall landsides in the electoral college and 20 point margins back in ’80 and ’84 and people were still saying mean and nasty stuff about Reagan and opposing his policies. Maybe ol’ Harry forgot about that.

And for those of you who think Harry has lost it; in actuality what Belafonte is talking about as the ultimate end of progressivism has already been codified in law as the President does indeed have the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without cause via the National Defense Authorization Act.



Politics trumps everything to those on the left. No rational discussion regarding our completely unsustainble entitlement programs can be had because they are the sacred cows of the left and even suggesting some sort of reform measures while their messiah is in office is danm-near treason.

Willing to cede to even modest reforms to Social Security and Medicare is to admit to the defeat of social democracy model for which they fought so hard and which is in process of ruining Europe as we speak. As such, they are completely content to fiddle away as Washington D.C. and soon after, the rest of the country burns.


Jail? We voted ourselves to that.

A few words about the uh... estate tax

.

Let's just get this out of the way upfront: we find the estate tax or, more accurately, the death tax to be morally reprehensible. Despite moral high ground claims by its supporters that they are merely defending democracy by preventing generation-to-generation dynastic wealth or something, it's nothing more than a naked money grab on people's wealth that in many cases has been taxed once already.

And as we're set to go over the fiscal cliff and see the death tax rate increase (currently the death tax is 35% after a $5 million exemption. If no deal is reached between the President and the Republicans, the death tax will shoot up to 55% after only a $1 million exemption), we find that many people's fortune is not liquid or in stock portfolio's rather land and physical assets.




From Fox News:

Rancher Kevin Kester works dawn to dusk, drives a 12-year-old pick-up truck and earns less than a typical bureaucrat in Washington D.C., yet the federal government considers him rich enough to pay the estate tax -- also known as the "death tax."

And with that tax set to soar at the beginning of 2013 without some kind of intervention from Congress, farmers and ranchers like Kester are waiting anxiously.

"There is no way financially my kids can pay what the IRS is going to demand from them nine months after death and keep this ranch intact for their generation and future generations," said Kester, of the Bear Valley Ranch in Central California.

Two decades ago, Kester paid the IRS $2 million when he inherited a 22,000-acre cattle ranch from his grandfather. Come January, the tax burden on his children will be more than $13 million.

For supporters of a high estate tax, which is imposed on somebody's estate after death, Kester is the kind of person they rarely mention. He doesn't own a mansion. He's not the CEO of a multi-national. But because of his line of work, he owns a lot of property that would be subject to a lot of tax.

"Our number one goal is to repeal the estate tax, to get rid of it, not have it for every generation, when I die and my kids die and so on," he told Fox News. "For everyone to have to re-purchase the ranch or farm over and over for each generation, that's inherently unjust. So what we're doing is asking our politicians to understand that and repeal the estate tax."

That, however, is unlikely. Currently, the federal government taxes estates worth $5 million dollars and up at 35 percent. When the Bush-era tax rates expire in January, rates increase to 55 percent on estates of $1 million or more. While some Republicans want to eliminate the death tax entirely, President Obama has proposed a 45 percent rate on estates of $3.5 million and up.

"The idea behind the estate tax is to prevent the very wealthy among us from accumulating vast fortunes that they can pass along to the next generation," said Patrick Lester, director of Federal Fiscal Policy with the progressive think tank -- OMB Watch. "The poster child for the estate tax is Paris Hilton -- the celebrity and hotel heiress. That's who this is targeted at, not ordinary Americans."

We are neither envious nor desirous of Paris Hilton's fortune no matter how ill-begotten you believe it is. And no matter how ill-begotten, we've got a huge problem with the federal government "targeting" private citizens no matter how benign or just that government's intentions.



And guess what? The death tax does target and does effect ordinary Americans. Not only Kevin Kester but perhaps someone or some family you know.

We are close to family that is dealing with this as we speak as "Isaac" and "Jane" are advanced in years, in failing health and may not be around for too much longer.

This family is not super-rich by any stretch of the imagination but back in the 60s and 70s while still in the Navy, Isaac made some shrewd real estate investments/purchases which afforded his family a comfortable middle-class lifestyle and which afforded his children a good education.

Now, why should this family even have to worry about shedding some/most/all of their assets that could otherwise be used to fund the education of the grandchildren? Why should Isaac be forced to make a decision on the modest beachfront house in San Diego he purchased decades ago on the relative cheap and which is now worth millions and now serves as the family's weekend/stay-cation retreat?

Much like Kevin Kester, the modest fortune that Isaac and Jane are sitting on is not made up of liquid assets whose alacrity is better suited to whatever good intentions supporter of the death tax believe it merits, rather in real estate holdings upon which whose assumed values the family will be stuck paying the usurious death tax.

Isaac and Jane and their family are being punished because Isaac and Jane were successful at investing. The federal government is punishing Isaac and Jane for being outstanding providers for their family. The death tax as it currently stands and more so if the rate goes up and the exemption level comes down is a disincentive to shrewd investing, innovation and hard work. And when the federal government thinks it can lay claim to what you built over the decades in order to set up your family, you have a situation that is perverse and, yes, morally reprehensible.

.

.

Some not so random thoughts for the day

.

We were going back in our email archives looking for a particular transmission when we ran across the following. It was in response to a loved one who thought we should bring back the draft. Oddly enough and completely anecdotally, we’ve found the strongest support for bringing back the draft to be among those that were subjected to it and/or served in this nation’s military.

Here’s our view of things 6 years ago in our pre-blogging days which still hold true and which we also invite you to share your thoughts on the matter in the comment section:

Draft? Bad idea. I don't want to be in a foxhole with someone who doesn't want to be there. What? 18 yr. old kids don't know what they want to do with their lives? What's new? This hasn't changed since Moses was a mess cook. Also, this takes an arrow out of the quiver of the anti-war set. The bitch about Vietnam was that it was taking 18 yr. old kids right out of their homes and throwing them into the jungle without them ever asking to be. In a modern society, that point has some legitimacy.

Today's all-volunteer armed forces are populated by people that are fully cognizant they may be asked to fight in a war that they may not necessarily believe in. They know this the moment they sign up. This eliminates any sort of "moral dilemma" that should otherwise not be part of the equation in determining whether or not we are going overseas to kick someone's ass.

Also, you will run into the same problems where the poor kids both black, white and Hispanic will be disproportionately represented while the rich and middle-class kids will be commuted because they are at college. Whether this indeed will be the case, the draft will be generalized as such and that is not the image our nation's military should have.

Finally, the most effective military fighting force this planet has ever seen resides in our country's armed forces which is fully voluntary. The correlation between those two facts is not coincidental. We have a motivated and dedicated group of people in our military that all, generally speaking, want to be there - why mess with what truly works. It appears that re-introducing the draft is a solution in search of a problem.

Again, your thoughts on the matter are appreciated. Thanks.

.

Graphic image of the day

.

The pitchfork-wielding mobs, rightly or wrongly, always seem to be out for the heads of Wall Street execs for their roles in the financial meltdown a few years back which led to the Great Recession and, in particular, the salaries and bonuses they receive.

With respect to the two institutions that were at the epicenter of aforementioned meltdown however, how is it that the salaries of the executives at Government-Sponsored Entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have escaped attention and scrutiny?



(click to enlarge)

We suppose that malfeasance as practiced by a quasi-government entity with tax-payer money isn't viewed in the same manner as a private entity's malfeasance with private capital. Just ask Kenneth Lay. And if it is malfeasance with private capital, you sure as hell better be politically-connected. Just ask John Corzine.

A potential legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act flying under the radar

.

Though ObamaCare survived it first Supreme Court challenge back in June in National Federation of Independent Business v. The Department of Health and Human Services , there are no fewer than 40 other legal challenges to the law currently in the court system. And though the ObamaCare penalty/tax for non-participation has not yet been applied (starts in 2014), the Uniformity clause in the Constitution may provide a new opening by which the law may be shot down once it is.

We've broken down the linked Wall Street Journal article in bullet form for easier consumption regarding how it is this may go down:

1. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not enforce the individual mandate in ObamaCare via the "commerce clause".

2. However, SCOTUS did rule that the individual mandate could be enforced by Congress as the penalty for not signing up for ObamaCare was not a "penalty" rather a "tax" which is enforceable by Congress.

3. SCOTUS also ruled that individual states were not compelled to enroll in ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion program nor are they compelled to set up the health insurance exchanges to assist individuals in purchasing health insurance. Thus far, 7 states (with more likely to follow) have chosen this route.

4. As written in the law, individuals who do not sign up for health insurance will be subjected to a "tax" which might make economic sense if the tax burden is less than the cost of health insurance.

5. If an individual wishes to participate in the Medicaid expansion program to acquire health insurance but resides in a state that has decided to "opt out", then that person will be subjected to the ObamaCare tax.

6. The Uniformity clause in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1) requires the tax to be "be uniform throughout the United States."

7. And although the court has upheld as "uniform" taxes that affect states differently in practice, precedent makes clear that a permissible tax must "operate with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found," as held in the Head Money Cases (1884). The ObamaCare tax arguably does not meet this standard.

ObamaCare is an ill-conceived and poorly-written law that, given the proper court challenges and courts that merely judge instead of legislate, may very well collapse under its own weight.

.

Quickies

.

A round-up of news items, articles, columns and blog posts that caught our eye this past week.






More news from the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin debacle down in Florida:

On Friday George Zimmerman Sues NBC Over Edited 911 Tape Report was a top story. Here is the recap: (TMZ) Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman has filed a lawsuit against NBC over the way it edited his 911 call -- placed moments before Martin was shot -- claiming the network falsely made Zimmerman look like a "hostile racist."
You'll recall, NBC launched an internal investigation over the tape after it aired the edited recording -- which made it sound like Zimmerman immediately told police that Martin was black, without being prompted.

In actuality, the full 911 tape reveals Zimmerman only referred to Martin as "black" when responding to a question from the dispatcher about Trayvon's race.

Zimmerman accuses NBC of creating a "false and defamatory misimpression using the oldest form of yellow journalism: manipulating Zimmerman's own words, splicing together disparate parts of the recording to create the illusion of statements that Zimmerman never actually made."

Two things: 1) We look forward to George Zimmerman sitting on a small mountain of NBC's cash when all is said and done and 2) this is just a gentle reminder of how corrupt and degenerate this country's media has become.







Ugh... We're forced to blog about this guy:

From the Washington Times:

The White House deleted a petition Friday on its web site demanding that President Obama rescind an invitation to “Gangnam style” rapper Psy to sing at a Christmas concert in Washington, due to the performer’s anti-American rants.

The petition was signed by about 500 people who object to the singer’s scheduled performance, which Mr. Obama is to attend. But the White House said it took down the petition because it violated the terms of participation on the administration’s “We the People” web site.

Psy, a 34-year-old South Korean performer whose “Gangnam style” video is the most-watched of all time, apologized Friday for making obscene comments about U.S. troops at a protest concert in 2004 in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He reportedly sang:

“Kill those f–ing Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives.”
“Kill those f–ing Yankees who ordered them to torture.”

“Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers.”

“Kill them all slowly and painfully.”

In his apology, the rap star said, “As a proud South Korean who was educated in the United States and lived there for a very significant part of my life, I understand the sacrifices American servicemen and women have made to protect freedom and democracy in my country and around the world.”

“The song in question — from eight years ago — was part of a deeply emotional reaction to the war in Iraq and the killing of two innocent Korean civilians that was part of the overall antiwar sentiment shared by others around the world at that time,” he said in a statement. “While I’m grateful for the freedom to express one’s self, I’ve learned there are limits to what language is appropriate and I’m deeply sorry for how these lyrics could be interpreted. I will forever be sorry for any pain I have caused anyone by those words.”

(italics, ours)


8 years ago... Remember? That was back when dissent was patriotic. Besides, we've moved way beyond all that torture stuff. We won't be holding our breath, however, for a PSY rap-rant on indefinite detentions and/or drone strike assassinations to be performed at this concert.







ObamaCare: improving the financial health of lobbyists one congressional staffer at a time.

Liz Fowler worked for Democratic Senator Max Baucus in the first half of last decade, and so it wasn’t surprising when she cashed out to run the lobbying shop at Wellpoint, the nation’s largest private insurer.

After all, that’s what Max Baucus staffers do. They become high-paid lobbyists for powerful companies dependent on government. Former Baucus chief of staff David Castagnetti is now a lobbyist partner at Mehlman, Vogel, Catagnetti. Successor Jeff Forbes is a partner at Cauthen, Forbes, and Williams. Baucus’s chief trade counsel Scott Parven doesn’t have a lobbying firm named after him, because he sold his firm to K Street giant Akin Gump. There are literally dozens of others.

It also wasn’t surprising when Baucus hired her back to help write Obamacare. After all, Baucus is famously close with K Street and industry lobbyists.

Given Baucus’s central role in drafting Obamacare, and lobbyists’ access to Baucus, it wasn’t surprising either when the bill won the backing of the biggest health-industry lobbies in the country — Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the American Medical Association, and the American Hospital Association.

The hand-in-hand public-private corporatism so derided during the Bush years has re-branded itself to become the single greatest feature of the Obama administration. Congratulations on this feat that was accomplished in no small part by the silence if not advocacy of the government/media/entertainment complex.






Not all calls for genocide are created or viewed equally:

Is promoting genocide a human-rights violation? You might think that's an easy question. But it isn't at Human Rights Watch, where a bitter debate is raging over how to describe Iran's calls for the destruction of Israel. The infighting reveals a peculiar standard regarding dictatorships and human rights and especially the Jewish state.

Human Rights Watch is the George Soros-funded operation that has outsize influence in governments, newsrooms and classrooms world-wide. Some at the nonprofit want to denounce Iran's regime for inciting genocide. "Sitting still while Iran claims a 'justification to kill all Jews and annihilate Israel is a position unworthy of our great organization," Sid Sheinberg, the group's vice chairman, wrote to colleagues in a recent email.

But Executive Director Kenneth Roth, who runs the nonprofit, strenuously disagrees.

Asked in 2010 about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement that Israel "must be wiped off the map," Mr. Roth suggested that the Iranian president has been misunderstood. "There was a real question as to whether he actually said that," Mr. Roth told The New Republic, because the Persian language lacks an idiom for wiping off the map. Then again, Mr. Ahmadinejad's own English-language website translated his words that way, and the main alternative translation—"eliminated from the pages of history"—is no more benign. Nor is Mr. Ahmadinejad an outlier in the regime. Iran's top military officer declared earlier this year that "the Iranian nation is standing for its cause that is the full annihilation of Israel."

A Clintonian torturing of the English language to be sure when we all know the official party line of Iran and about every other bad actor over there in that neck of the woods.





Turns out Mitt Romney was spot-on regarding Benghazi. So explain to us again why it is he is taking so much grief for saying Obama won the election because he promised free stuff.

The city of Detroit faces a major financial crisis and one member of city council thinks President Barack Obama should step in and help.

City Council member JoAnn Watson said Tuesday the citizens support of Obama in last month's election was enough reason for the president to bailout the struggling the city. (Click the video player to listen)

"Our people in an overwhelming way supported the re-election of this president and there ought to be a quid pro quo and you ought to exercise leadership on that," said Watson. "Of course, not just that, but why not?"

Nearly 75 percent of Wayne County voters pulled the lever for Obama in November.

"After the election of Jimmy Carter, the honorable Coleman Alexander Young, he went to Washington, D.C. He came home with some bacon," said Watson. "That's what you do."

Young served as Detroit's mayor for 20 years and served as vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1977 to 1981.

We're sorry. Not free per se, rather quid pro quo meaning Detroit and Wayne County vote for Obama and the rest of us pay for another four years.

Related: Is there a correlation between the percentage of votes going to Obama in a particular city/county and that city/county's fiscal dysfunctionality?








And finally...

You may be shocked to learn that some coastal types that appear on MSNBC on a regular basis don't think you are paying enough at the pump and would like to see that price go higher to make alternative energy sources more competitive.

It's telling that they no longer speak of making wind and solar more competitive by improving the technology of wind and solar rather making wind and solar more competitive by taxing oil and natural gas, i.e. sticking it to the consumer, you, in order to fulfill their half-witted, agenda-driven energy fantasies.




OK, gang, that's it for today. We'll see you all tomorrow.

.

Video clips of the day

.

Macho football culture, gun culture, concussion induced brain trauma... uh, whatever but maybe Jovan Belcher was just a bad person.


Here's Kennedy for Reason.tv explaining how, contrary to what you are being fed by pop-culture media, evil in this world does indeed exist:







Related thought: We keep hearing this term "gun culture" without knowing what the heck it meant. Slow to the game as we are and given the context in which it's presented, "gun culture" is merely a derisive dog-whistle term for fly-over country whites. Bitter clingers, if you will. Prove us wrong.






And here's Steven Crowder confronting some self-styled Democrats on their assumptions regarding the dreaded fiscal cliff:







Hey, G.O.P., maybe you do have a messaging problem.




.

What? Another gun-running operation

.

Alternate headline: Now we know perhaps why Benghazi and the resulting cover-up was such a fiasco


Setting aside the fact that this would have been useful information to the electorate a month ago, the nation’s paper of record is presenting evidence that anyone that could rub two brain cells together could’ve easily predicted.

From the New York Times:

The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.

No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.

But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.

Essentially, we were running guns to Libyan rebels, and, as it turns out Islamic jihadists, out of our consulate in Benghazi, which at the east end of the country was much outside of Qaddafi's sphere of influence in Tripoli in the west. No wonder it’s been such a touchy subject, right?


More from the article:

The administration has never determined where all of the weapons, paid for by Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, went inside Libya, officials said. Qatar is believed to have shipped by air and sea small arms, including machine guns, automatic rifles, and ammunition, for which it has demanded reimbursement from Libya’s new government. Some of the arms since have been moved from Libya to militants with ties to Al Qaeda in Mali, where radical jihadi factions have imposed Shariah law in the northern part of the country, the former Defense Department official said. Others have gone to Syria, according to several American and foreign officials and arms traders.

This administration has established a consistent trend: a complete lack of accounting on where it is the weapons they are running end up whether it’s to the Middle East or to Mexico. Well, we don’t know where but we do know who: jihadists and drug cartels. Terrific.



And dig this Inside Baseball stuff:

The case of Marc Turi, the American arms merchant who had sought to provide weapons to Libya, demonstrates other challenges the United States faced in dealing with Libya. A dealer who lives in both Arizona and Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates, Mr. Turi sells small arms to buyers in the Middle East and Africa, relying primarily on suppliers of Russian-designed weapons in Eastern Europe.

In March 2011, just as the Libyan civil war was intensifying, Mr. Turi realized that Libya could be a lucrative new market, and applied to the State Department for a license to provide weapons to the rebels there, according to e-mails and other documents he has provided. (American citizens are required to obtain United States approval for any international arms sales.)

He also e-mailed J. Christopher Stevens, then the special representative to the Libyan rebel alliance. The diplomat said he would “share” Mr. Turi’s proposal with colleagues in Washington, according to e-mails provided by Mr. Turi. Mr. Stevens, who became the United States ambassador to Libya, was one of the four Americans killed in the Benghazi attack on Sept. 11.

Mr. Turi’s application for a license was rejected in late March 2011. Undeterred, he applied again, this time stating only that he planned to ship arms worth more than $200 million to Qatar. In May 2011, his application was approved. Mr. Turi, in an interview, said that his intent was to get weapons to Qatar and that what “the U.S. government and Qatar allowed from there was between them.”

Two months later, though, his home near Phoenix was raided by agents from the Department of Homeland Security. Administration officials say he remains under investigation in connection with his arms dealings. The Justice Department would not comment.

Mr. Turi said he believed that United States officials had shut down his proposed arms pipeline because he was getting in the way of the Obama administration’s dealings with Qatar. The Qataris, he complained, imposed no controls on who got the weapons. “They just handed them out like candy,” he said.

His application?

Apply for and be granted a gun-running license by State one day and then get your house raided by Justice the next.

We suppose this is what Team O considers separation of powers or checks and balances when you start raising questions about the administration’s ill-begotten gun-running scheme.

Yep, boots on the ground is a real pain-in-the-ass, admittedly, and after 10 years of war, we suppose we're all kind of sick and tired of the Middle East. However, what reasonable expectation in leading from behind so as to not get dirt under our nation's fingernails is there to think that well-organized jihadist networks won't get their hands on these weapons if not over-run the entire operation altogether?

We will be living with these consequences for years to come. Hopefully.


Smart power, indeed.

.

Video clip of the day

.

Reason.com's monthly installment of Nanny of the Month:









It is duly noted how this appears to be primarily about school funding rather than the education of the student.



Also, if you wanted to play hooky, wouldn't you just have a friend swipe your card.

But what if your friend is with you?

We foresee a potential lucrative 3rd party underground swiping industry in somebody's future there in Texas. Where there's a will, there's a way.



Power to the, uhhh... students?


.

ObamaCare: confounding smart people since 2010

.

OK, statists. You all ready for another boycott? How about Cheescake Factory?


From NewsBusters, here’s their lede (with video embedded at the link):

On Monday's CBS This Morning, Cheesecake Factory CEO David Overton spotlighted the looming economic impact of Obamacare's implementation, especially on small enterprises: "For those businesses that don't cover their employees, they'll be in for a very expensive situation." Overton also warned that the cost of the law would be passed on to customers.

And below is the transcript of the exchange between Overton and This Morning host, Norah O’Donnell:

NORAH O'DONNELL: I have a really important question for you: one of the things that's going to change, of course, in the new year is ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act. How do you implement that at Cheesecake Factory, and how will you pay for health care for all of your employees?

DAVID OVERTON, CHEESECAKE FACTORY CEO: Well, that – that's a big question. We are working on that right now. We – we have been waiting to see what people will do and what's really happening and what the – the different requirements will be. However, we do cover everyone that works over 25 hours today. So, unlike a lot of businesses, we already are paying a great deal in health care. So, we're not sure how much more it will be - or how much less - or what exactly we'll do. So, for us, it won't be as bad as it will be for others, which it will be very costly.

O'DONNELL: But – but when you say it will be very costly, it will be passed on to who - the customers?

OVERTON: Well, I believe most people will have to do that or cheapen their product-

O'DONNELL: And how much do you think you will have to raise prices in order to pay for health care?

OVERTON: Well, as they say, we don't know what – we don't know what it is right now. We don't know if what we're actually paying is very, very close - and we won't have to raise prices. So, we'll see. I'd love to answer that for you – maybe in a year, I could.

CHARLIE ROSE: Okay. And so, and that point, a year from now, what would we be able to learn from you, you think, because The New Yorker magazine wrote this article saying that you had a lot of things that you could teach - from your experiences with health care.

OVERTON: I think – yeah - I think Doctor [Atul] Gawande. It's not that I teach. He's looking at us as a model. He thinks we're the gold standard of the restaurant business. We do so many things right. We train; we innovate; we cut cost; and we – and we completely change the menu twice a year. And he's never had a bad meal, and he says, how can we cook a thousand meals a day and get consistency? Wouldn't that be a great model for the health care industry? So, he's taking us and not linking us, as much as saying, these guys know what they're doing. Over the years, they've really built a model that works. Why can't we be more like them?

ROSE: Are you worried about this - ObamaCare - and how you provide the health care?

OVERTON: Not worried yet - and, when I hear the numbers, I might be. But, again, because we spend millions and millions of dollars today on health care, we don't know exactly how much more we'll pay. For those businesses that don't cover their employees, they'll be in for a very expensive situation.

(italics, ours)

Two things jumped off the page at us while reading this exchange: 1) A healthcare expert is looking at the Cheesecake Factory as a model for how to run the healthcare industry instead of, say, the DMV? But the Cheesecake Factory is a for-profit outfit (and a for-calorie outfit on top of that).

Haven’t we been told that one of the biggest problems with the healthcare industry is that it is a for-profit industry and that we needed to eliminate the greed i.e., profits from the system?

Trust us on this one, gang: Cheesecake factory isn’t spending the resources that they do on innovation and on changing the menu all the time just because they’re incurable foodies. They’re doing it because they know if they do it right, it will mean more customers and… yep, more profits and this simply does not square with the conventional wisdom of the statists who want to eliminate the profit motive from the healthcare industry.



2) David Overton is a smart guy, a really smart guy and look how many times in that short exchange where he expresses a degree of uncertainty to O’Donnell regarding the consequences of ObamaCare.

Because of the volatility of the election season, regulators kept under wraps or simply didn’t bother to start writing the myriad of rules and regulations and taxes that will start taking effect Jan. 1 of next year and which will be fully implemented when 2014 rolls around.


Uncertainty is bad for business. Business owners don’t expand and don’t hire more employees when they don’t know what the consequences of those actions will be, especially when the hand-writing that is on the wall clearly indicates that many businesses will be forced to provide more coverage for their full-time employees. At that point, it’s no longer an uncertainty and becomes, simply no dice and employees hours are cut to dodge the additional mandates and/or healthcare coverage is simply dropped altogether.


Billions upon billions capital setting on the sidelines and not getting into the game and assisting in the recovery because very smart people like David Overton simply don’t know.


It will be and is becoming to be precisely as we have been predicting.

Your Mid-week, Martini-worthy photo image

.


It's gotta be, right?



.

Legendary jazz pianist and composer Dave Brubeck passed away today in Norwalk, Conn. He would have turned 92 on Thursday.





Here's Brubeck along with Paul Desmond on alto sax and Eugene Wright on bass in Germany in 1966 performing the first jazz single to ever sell a million copies, "Take Five":







R.I.P., Mr. Brubeck