BloggeRhythms

Passage of time has not boded well for the vast majority of past government administrations. However, the one currently holding office may eventually be historically recorded as having done virtually nothing successfully whatsoever.

 

FoxNews.com reports today that, “MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who claimed the authors of ObamaCare took advantage of what he called the "stupidity of the American voter," played a much bigger role in the law's drafting than previously acknowledged, according to a published report.”

 

Despite the administrations claims that Gruber played a minor role in development of the president’s health care tax, the Wall Street Journal cited 20,000 pages of emails sent by Gruber between January 2009 and March 2010.

 

According to the WSJ article, Gruber was “frequently consulted by staffers and advisers for both the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about the Affordable Care Act. Among the topics that Gruber discusses in the emails are media interviews, consultations with lawmakers, and even how to publicly describe his role.”

 

Officials Gruber contacted by e-mail included "Peter Orszag, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Jason Furman, an economic adviser to the president; and Ezekiel Emanuel, then a special adviser for health policy at OMB.”

Nonetheless, many receiving the benefits of the tax strongly support its existence, as evidenced by comments following the article, such as that from wilcoxwilber, who wrote: “surgeon's fee for shoulder repair  $11,000.  My cost $0.” 

 

Farther down, wilcoxwilber added, “Physical therapy on my shoulder would cost me $240 a visit--I've had 26 visits since March. My out of pocket cost--$0”

While the strong support, and unquestioned appreciation, of the recipients receiving free services is readily understandable, those taxpayers footing the bills offer a very different perspective.

In that regard, sandman 007, replied, “That's a problem, because there's no incentive to shop around and get it for $120.”

Along the same lines of questionable administration and support, another article reports that the Iranian parliament has a completely different view of the pending nuclear deal with the US than the POTUS.

According to thegatewaypundit.com: “With some lawmakers chanting “Death to the America,” Iran’s parliament voted Sunday to ban access to military sites, documents and scientists as part of a future deal with world powers over its contested nuclear program.”

The current  talks are focused on reaching a final accord that curbs Iran’s nuclear program in return for the lifting of economic sanctions. However, “Of 213 lawmakers present on Sunday, 199 voted in favor of the bill, which also demands the complete lifting of all sanctions against Iran as part of any final nuclear accord. The bill must be ratified by the Guardian Council, a constitutional watchdog, to become a law.”

Thus, in this case, any rational individual has to wonder why this “deal” is being considered by the administration at all. Because it seems that, while the vast majority of citizens in both nations are opposed to passage of any nuclear accord, the only plausible gain is the POTUS having an international treaty on his record. 

 

Yet, in what’s likely the not too distant future, the most logical guess is that Iran will violate its part of the bargain, no matter. Which leads to the fundamental question as to why any rational POTUS would desire the deal in the first place.

And then there’s additional news on another Obama pet project; global-warming.

An article from Television Writer at ap.org, says, “The Weather Channel is looking beyond cold fronts and summer showers with a project featuring the voices of 25 prominent people talking about the need to take action on climate change.”

The network says, "The Climate 25" series is about science, not politics. But its message is unmistakable, and is consciously designed to reach people who may be doubters about the causes of global warming.”

While the channel has, obviously, taken a very strong stand supporting the validity of global-warming for reasons of its own, others from the same entity possess a very different point of view.   

“John Coleman, a former TV meteorologist and a co-founder of The Weather Channel, is a widely quoted climate change skeptic and claimed there are others like him who work now at the network who are afraid to speak up because it would cost them their jobs.

"They certainly have the right to have an editorial perspective," Coleman said. "I feel it's stupid, scientifically wrong and it's a great disservice. But there is freedom of speech."

Neil Katz, vice president of digital content, “noted that while Coleman played an important role in The Weather Channel's start, he's had nothing to do with the station in several decades.”

 

Nonetheless, whether at the channel or not, Mr. Coleman’s dissenting opinion is surely of the same value, or maybe moreso, than anyone else quoted in the article.

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

As often noted here, Bill Clinton’s wife has no real competition in her run for the Democrat presidential nomination. Yet, the simple passage of time sees her popularity shrink virtually daily. The reason’s being, she has no real platform, nor required job capabilities. 

In that regard, according to AP, “Democratic strategist Maria Cardona posed the idea Sunday that frontrunner Hillary Clinton could lose critical early-state nomination races in Iowa and New Hampshire to socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.).

“Cardona, a self-described Clinton supporter, said on ABC’s This Week that no one should be surprised if Sanders wins both races.”

Therefore, it seems that apologists are setting the stage for potential upsets for their ordained heir to the throne who seems to possess a growing drawback. Nobody except a cadre of hardcore supporters likes her very much. 

Which is likely why Ms Cardona concluded that, “This could be a sign of just how worried Clinton’s camp is about Sanders, who has garnered huge enthusiasm among the left-wing base of the party.”

Then, an additional problem seems to matter little to Bill’s wife who, despite burgeoning concerns about her ethics and honesty, continues to pursue money above all else.

Brent Scher’s article today on freebeacon.com is headlined: “Clinton to Fundraise at L.A. House of Tax Evading Clinton Foundation Donor”

Mr. Scher writes, “Hillary Clinton will attend a $2,700-a-plate luncheon on Friday at the Beverly Hills home of a man who was investigated by the Senate for hiding $68 million in assets in an offshore tax haven.

“Peter Lowy, who was born in Australia but is a U.S. citizen, is chief executive officer of the Westfield Group, one of the world’s largest owners of shopping malls. The company was founded by his father, Frank Lowy, and is controlled by the Lowy family.”

So, as the negativity surrounding Bill’s wife continues unbridled, it appears she has no concerns or compunctions about further enriching her campaign, family foundation or herself. Which leads to the continuing question: Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?

That's it for today folks.

Adios