BloggeRhythms

Spending considerable amounts of time reading, thereby absorbing significant information on a wide variety of subjects provides certain insights for people like myself. One of the things that becomes obvious, is how self-serving, ego-driven, zealots take advantage of those less-informed or simply far more ignorant than themselves. Especially in the case of politicians.   

 

Today, Shane Ryan writes about Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, @salon.com, and Sanders' claim that “Wealth inequality is destroying the American middle class and leading to increased job loss and poverty.”

 

Mr. Ryan writes that Sanders "has a few favorite stats he likes to deploy to illustrate the scope of the problem, starting with the fact that in America, the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. He hammers this message home as his rabid crowds rage along: One family, the Walton’s, owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent; the 14 wealthiest individuals have added $156 billion to their fortunes in the past two years, which is more than the combined assets of the bottom 130 million Americans; 56 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent; the Koch brothers, as a result of the Citizens United decision, will spend more money on the 2016 election than either Republicans or Democrats.”

 

However, if Sanders really cared about his constituents, he’d take his own argument and turn it around. Because those that he rails against are the one’s the nation was founded to foster. By nurturing ingenuity and capability with minimal government interference and no taxes at all. The revolutionary plan from the beginning was to permit every citizen to make the best of themselves possible. And therefore, what the successes have done is not only what the founders intended from the start, they’ve achieved fulfillment and are proof of the validity of the American Dream itself.

 

Sanders, however, wants to take what the successful have built and redistribute it to those who’ve accomplished absolutely nothing whatsoever to deserve it at all. 

 

Farther along, Mr. Ryan writes: “To Sanders, almost every other problem plaguing the country is related to this “rigged economy,” including a minimum wage of $7.25, the loss of manufacturing jobs, childhood poverty, crumbling infrastructure, college debt, racial injustice, high unemployment and incarceration rates, the death of trade unions, attacks on social security, a broken electoral system, destabilizing wars, and even the destructive march of climate change.”

 

Yet, what the preceding paragraph really illustrates clearly is how little Sanders audiences grasp about their nation’s own history. Because every “problem” Sanders rails against is a direct result of Democrat ideology, legislation or philosophy.

 

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

 

A couple of articles today suggest that Joe Biden’s seriously considering entering the presidential race. While that would leave considerable empty space in this blog every day, whereas Bill’s wife would likely soon drop out, it would be a very welcome turn of events.

 

Colleen McCain Nelson, Carol E. Lee and Peter Nicholas @wsj.com write that: “Vice President Joe Biden’s aides in recent days called Democratic donors and supporters to suggest he is more likely than not to enter the 2016 race, and their discussions have shifted toward the timing of an announcement, said people familiar with the matter.

 

“While the Biden team is still debating the best time to jump in, the vice president met Monday with his political advisers and talked about the merits of an early entry that would assure him a place in the Democratic debate scheduled for Oct. 13. They also are honing his campaign message and moving ahead with plans to raise money and hire staff, the people said.”

 

And then, at 10:35am this morning, Chuck Todd and Alexandra Jaffe @nbcnews.com’s “Meet the Press,” wrote: Contrary to reports suggesting Vice President Joe Biden's wife remains an obstacle to his potential presidential run, sources tell NBC News that Jill Biden is fully behind him for another bid. 

 

“Jill Biden, sources tell NBC's Chuck Todd, is 100 percent on-board with a presidential run, despite reports indicating her hesitation is part of what's keeping Biden from jumping into the race. 

 

“And that looks more likely by the day, as sources have indicated Biden's been meeting with Democratic leaders during his travels around the nation over the past week to tell them he wants to do it and thinks there's room for him to make a credible bid if he does.”

 

So, with Biden seemingly ready to run and Bill’s wife sinking further in the polls every day, that leads to the ongoing question: Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

A news items today, suggests that the POTUS is continuing his campaign for dissension posed in Saul Alinsky’s, Rules for Radicals. Or perhaps, is simply proving once more that his lack of leadership experience has lead to an extremely poor managerial decision 

 

Greg Jaffe @washingtonpost.com, writes that: “President Obama, in a historic first for the Pentagon, has chosen to nominate Eric Fanning to lead the Army, a move that would make him the first openly gay civilian secretary of one of the military services.

 

“Fanning, 47, has been a specialist on national security issues for more than two decades and has played a key role overseeing some of the Pentagon’s biggest shipbuilding and fighter jet programs. Now he will oversee an Army that has been battered by the longest stretch of continuous combat in U.S. history and is facing potentially severe budget cuts. It’s also an Army that after a long stretch of patrolling Iraqi and Afghan villages is searching for its postwar role in protecting the nation.”

 

Whatever the POTUS’s motives may be notwithstanding, the nomination itself is inherently wrong. But not for what might appear to be an obvious reason; the nominees gayness. However, that’s not the flaw at all.

 

Regarding sexuality, Phil Carter, a veteran of the war in Iraq and senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security put it this way: “My sense is that the Army is over this and has been over it for some time. The Army cares whether you can shoot straight, not whether you are straight.”

 

And that’s the real problem with the nomination. Because the army is all about soldiering, fighting in trenches and winning military battles on the ground, which takes hands-on experience to truly understand at all. And, unfortunately, the nominee selected is a desk-jockey whose true expertise is pushing paper, not anti-tank guns in the desert. It’s also a very safe bet that those now in uniform would rather be lead by one who headed successful invasions, than someone adept at using a stapler. 

 

The next item concerns the upcoming Papal visit and the Pope's stated concerns regarding global warming.

 

Joe Bastardi spent a 32-year career at Accuweather.com, and is now chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm. Today, @patriotpost.us, he writes about, “Just two charts I would ask the pope to look at.”

 

“1.) Human progress: The amount of people, life expectancy and global personal GDP. These “hockey sticks” show that, since the advent of fossil fuels, the human condition has improved immensely.

 

 

“2.) The factual record of CO₂ and temperature in the geological history of the earth.

 

 

“There is no apparent linkage, so why is CO₂ suddenly the climate control knob when there were years with higher CO₂ and lower temperatures?”

 

Mr. Bastardi concludes by writing: “I won’t go any further except to say I can’t believe his excellency, if exposed to this, would not at the very least question the positions he has adopted. It is my hope while he is here that he at least glances at other information such as this.”

 

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

 

David Mastio, headed his column @usatoday.com: “Amid controversy, slipping polls, the non-profit arm of the Clinton dynasty is no longer a safe bet.”

 

The text notes: “More bad news for the Clintons. With Hillary's presidential campaign slipping in the polls against Sen. Bernie Sanders and facing a potential fresh challenge from Vice President Joe Biden, six giants of the corporate world are bailing out on the Clinton Global Initiative.

 

“USA TODAY has confirmed that sponsors from 2014 that have backed out for this year include electronics company Samsung, oil giant ExxonMobil, global financial firms Deutsche Bank and HSBC, and accounting firm PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers). Hewlett-Packard, which just announced major layoffs, will be an in-kind donor instead of a cash contributor, and the agri-chem firm Monsanto has cut back its donation. Dow's name is missing from the donor list as well, but the chemical company's exit is not confirmed.”

 

As a side-note, and perhaps the most critical indicator of Bill’s wife’s expected future: “The Obama administration is backing away as well. In 2014, the cabinet officials heading the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Commerce, as well as key White House adviser Valerie Jarrett spoke at the conference. This year no Obama administration appointees as prominent are on the program.”

 

At the same time, according to reuters.com: “A group of prominent Democratic Party fundraisers on Friday began circulating a letter to encourage a hesitant Vice President Joe Biden to enter the 2016 race for U.S. president.

 

The letter, signed by nearly 50 people, calls the Obama-Biden administration a "spectacular success." 

 

"To finish the job, America needs a leader who is respected both home and abroad, and who understands the real challenges facing American families. In our opinion, the next president must be Joe Biden. If he announces he’s running, we’re all in. It’s a campaign we know he will win," the letter says. 

 

The letter makes no mention of Clinton, and leads to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this?  

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

I mentioned yesterday, that I hadn’t watched the Republican presidential debate because I could never grasp the purpose of those kind of events in the first place. Then I came across the following comment from Rush on his website:

 

Rush said, “Anyway, okay.  I'll tell you here just stream of consciousness thoughts.  Overall -- and I'm gonna back all this up with detail in a moment -- the overall view of the night is that not a whole lot is gonna change because of what happened last night.  Not a whole lot.”

 

Then he made the most important point by exclaiming: “No, no, no, no. There's no question last night Carly Fiorina's star shown brighter than anybody. There's no question about it. But we're nowhere near the end of this.  There's still much to happen here, and none of it predictable.  So all in all, it was a good night for conservatism, provided those articulating it mean it, which is always what's up for grabs.” And thus, in conclusion, it all boiled down to a waste of time for most, except bored political junkie's.

 

On another subject, if there was ever any doubt as to why the POTUS wants open, unbridled borders, Kate Linthicum @latimes.com provided significant proof of his motives yesterday.

 

Ms Linthicum wrote: “Democrats have done their best to exploit the moment. On Thursday, the White House set out a new initiative aimed at the roughly 8.8 million legal permanent residents of the U.S. who are eligible for citizenship but have not sought it. The program is designed to make the process easier and less daunting for applicants.

 

“White House officials insisted the initiative was not politically motivated, but the political effect is clear: Most of the potential new citizens are Latino and could be expected to vote for Democrats if they become eligible.” And that says it all in crystal clear English.

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, as follows:

 

According to Steve Guest, Media Reporter @dailycaller.com, "She “could not name her “number one accomplishment” while she was secretary of state during her first live interview of the campaign season with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Thursday.

 

“Clinton instead said that anyone who is interested in her accomplishments should “read my book ‘Hard Choices.'”

 

Mr. Guest then posted the following comments between Wolf Blitzer and Bill’s wife.

 

Wolf Blitzer: Carly Fiorina, she said if you want to stump a Democrat she said ask them about Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments as Secretary of State. If you were on that debate stage with her, what would you say was your number one accomplishment as Secretary of State?

 

Bill’s wife’s answer is long, but illustrates that, after speaking all those words, this empty dress said absolutely nothing about her record of accomplishments. And that’s because Carly Fiorina’s correct, there aren’t any and, other than marrying Bill, there never were.

 

Here’s what Bill’s wife replied to Blitzer: “You know, Wolf, I didn’t get to see all of their debate. But I saw enough of it to know that this is just the usual back and forth political attacks, the kinds of things you say when you’re on a debate stage and really don’t have much else to say. I didn’t hear anything from any of them about how they’re going to make college more affordable or get down student debt or get equal pay for equal work for women, what they’re going to do to make sure that we deal with the challenges of raising incomes for hard working people. So I don’t really pay a lot of attention to this kind of rhetoric that heats up the debate stage. They’re all trying to vie for more attention from obviously the Republican Party. I’m going to let them decide how best to do it. But if anybody’s interested, you know, there’s a long list about what I have done. And I’m very proud of it. You can read my book Hard Choices, read about how I negotiated a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. You can read about how I put together the coalition that led to international sanctions against Iran. You can read about what I did when I was First Lady, to get the children’s health insurance program or as senator working across the aisle on issues like getting better health care for our veterans. You know, this is just the silly season. I am looking forward to eventually debating on that stage whoever they finally nominate once they get around to doing that”

 

So, Bill’s wife rattled off a long political speech and at the end, listed a few examples of events she had very littlie to do with, yet took the opportunity to try to earn a few more bucks selling her books.

 

Which leads to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this?  

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Well, it’s Thursday morning, the Republican presidential debate’s over and I didn’t watch it at all. According to news reports, after the candidates presented themselves, there was much back and forth banter and Carly Fiorina did very well again. 

 

In summation, as far as the candidate's running at present are concerned, only a handful of those in contention have backgrounds proving their ability to successfully manage large states. Those responsibilities include: Dealing with bureaucracy’s and government unions, overseeing national guards and critically important, coordinating and working with state legislatures in the approval of state budgets and appropriations; the enactment of state legislation, confirmation of executive and judicial appointments; and legislative oversight of executive branch functions.

 

Virtually none of the aforementioned duty’s have been performed by senators or congressmen running at present. And certainly not by the doctor or businessman nor businesswoman. However, since the presidency requires skills and proven experience on not only what’s required of governor's, but much more, how on earth will those lacking the large state experience learn how to perform what’s needed?

 

The horrendous past seven years provide the answer to that one, because the position of POTUS certainly shouldn’t be one that’s learned on the job. All the glib talk and snappy put-downs in the world won’t turn the U.S. around, however, successful use of large-state governing skill sets certainly will.

 

Which brings us to today ‘s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, that includes two subtle indications of her significant vulnerability.

 

In the New York Post’s pagesix.com, Emily Smith, writes that, “Disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner is out of work again after just two months on the job at the powerhouse public relations firm MWW.

 

“According to an internal memo from MWW chief Michael Kempner, Weiner was a victim of the media who left of his own accord to start his own company and “He understands that his presence here has created noise and distraction that just isn’t helpful.”

 

What’s most interesting is that: “Weiner, however, criticized the memo, saying he didn’t “express any of those sentiments” expressed by Kempner.” And that sounds very much like Wiener was probably fired, which indicates a lot about Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

Because if Kempner truly believed Bill’s wife was going to become elected president, and Wiener is married to her closest ally and confidant, Huma Mahmood Abedin, Kempner would likely do whatever was necessary to keep Wiener employed at MWW. Yet, since he fired him anyway, it looks like Kempner doesn’t think Bill’s wife is going to make it back to the White House again.

 

At the same time, Michael Warren notes in The Blog @weekly standard.com that Jerry Brown, who has run for president three before, spoke with Wolf Blitzer about the current Democratic field. “California governor Jerry Brown gave signs in a Wednesday interview on CNN that he may be considering running for president.”

 

So, here we have another case where weakness on Bill’s wife’s part is suspected. In this case by a seasoned political professional who’s done this three times before. 

 

All of which indicates that the ongoing question needs asking again: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this?  

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

The second Republican presidential debate takes place tonight, hosted by CNN in Simi Valley, California. Which leads to the same old question often asked here: What’s the purpose of this debate or any other?

 

As far as voters are concerned, the only that should matter is whether or not candidates can do the particular job. And the only proof of capability that has any value is a candidate’s performance in the same position. However, since there‘s no one running who’s been a POTUS, the next, and only, measure is performance as governor of a large state which requires much of the same managerial qualities. Therefore, those not having that credential don’t really even belong in the race for the job.

 

Furthermore, the job of successfully running the United States is far more a test of the kind of proven managerial capability that’s needed in dealing with bureaucracy’s, foreign leaders, and the other two branches of government than glibly disparaging competitors with witty remarks and unfullfillable promises.

 

As far as the value of boastful talk itself is concerned, it’s remindful of a call received from a former salesman who left my employ for an  opportunity with a major worldwide corporation. A few months after he left, he called to tell me that he’d drawn up a proposal for one of the largest organizations in the nation involving millions of dollars.

 

The person reviewing the offering for the prospective customer told my former salesman that his offering was the best prepared he’d ever seen, covering every detail and answering every question precisely. The customer’s representative then went on to tell the salesman that he’d called to congratulate him on being so thorough, imaginative and thoughtful. Which is why the salesman called me to tell me about it, and how proud he was to have put the proposal together.

 

Then, when I then asked if he’d gotten the order, the salesman said “No” he’d lost it to a competitor who was even better, I immediately hung up on him. Because, until you successfully win and deliver precisely what you promised, all the talk in the world is absolutely worthless until you prove it.  

 

On another subject, Josh Lederman of the Associated Press writes that: “Biden lashed out directly at GOP front-runner Donald Trump on Tuesday night, telling Hispanics at a reception that Trump's "sick" message of xenophobia "will not prevail."

 

"This will pass - the Trump stuff and that stuff that you're hearing on the other team," Biden said. Although he was greeted with chants of "Run, Joe, Run," he brushed them aside and said, "Oh, no, no, no, no." 

 

Biden was there because he was “also going to pay a visit today to a solar power trade show in Anaheim, California, that organizers say is the largest in North America. In tandem with his visit, the Obama administration was designating more than $120 million for new and existing clean energy projects in 24 U.S. states, the White House said.”

 

Reading about the huge money that’s to be spent, which certainly explains the administration’s interest in the issue, spurred some research that showed: according to Pew Research Center on July 14, 2015, as written by Jill Carle: 42% of U.S. citizens care about global- warming. Which means that 58% don’t. 

 

Other issues and rankings include: ISIS 68%, Iran’s nuclear program, 62%, Cyber-attacks, 59% Global economic instability, 51% and tensions with Russia at 43%. The only issue ranking lower than global-warming is territorial disputes with China at 30% 

 

As far as global-warming itself is concerned, back in September 2014, Barbara Hollingsworth @cnsnews.com, wrote that: “The Earth’s temperature has “plateaued” and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years, says Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville. 

 

“That’s basically a fact. There’s not much to comment on,” Christy said when CNSNews.com asked him to remark on the lack of global warming for nearly two decades as of October 1st. 

 

“Our ignorance is simply enormous when it comes to the climate system, and our understanding is certainly not strong and solid enough to make policy about climate because we don’t even know what it’s going to do, so how can we make a policy that says ‘I want to make the climate do something' when we don’t know what makes the climate do what it does?” he asked.

 

“A policy is supposed to have a goal. Well, if you don’t know how the system works, that means you don’t know how to make it go toward that goal. And that’s certainly the case now, since none of the climate models are able to tell us what the future is going to be. They’ve certainly failed in the past. And so the policy is really a fool’s errand at this point.”

 

Yet, Biden has no problem supporting this totally unproven cause, up to and including being proud to deliver promises of $120 million tax-payer dollars.  

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, and the fact that there isn’t one. Meaning that there isn’t even anything of interest to mention about her in the news today, and leads to the ongoing question:  Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this?  

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

At the rate things are going for the nation, unless the Republicans do something incredibly vile or stupid (which is altogether possible,) they can’t conceivably lose the next presidential election.

 

Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner via foxnews.com, reports that, “The United States, ranked second in worldwide economic freedom as recently as 2000, has plummeted to 16th, according to a new report of world economies.

 

The Fraser Institute's annual report, Economic Freedom of the World, showed that the country's drop started in 2010, the second year of the Obama administration.

 

"The United States, once considered a bastion of economic freedom, now ranks 16th in the world after being as high as second in 2000," said the report issued Monday morning.”

 

All one has to do is search some readily available statistics to confirm the point. Such as the fact that roughly 50% of the nation’s population is currently receiving some kind of government assistance. Or that, the workforce is the smallest its been since Jimmy Carter was president in the 1970’s. Or that, the only reason that the unemployment rate appears so low is that the administration uses a different calculation today, omitting those no longer looking for jobs after four weeks. Or that, the full time work is now 30 hours instead of the historical 40 hours of the past.  

 

However, what’s truly incredible is that the top 10 nations offering “economic freedom” at present are Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, Mauritius, Jordan, Ireland, Canada, with the United Kingdom and Chile tied at 10. Which means that even socialism-based governments which previously were economic dwarfs now surpass the U.S. And that’s not because they’ve grown dramatically economy-wise, but instead, since 2008 has gone straight backward. Suggesting a significant voter rebellion by the huge number of citizens who have been decimated economically by this administration and want their job opportunities back.  

 

On another subject, while according to a new CBS/New York Times poll, Trump is supported by 27 percent of GOP primary voters nationally, Ben Carson’s at 23 percent. That’s a 3-point rise for Trump, but quite importantly, it’s also a 17-point spike for Carson since July.  

 

The poll results, seem to indicate that while the voting public is still trending against traditional politicians, Trump is beginning to lose ground to a more stable, confidence building, highly successful individual, Dr. Carson. 

 

According to Cal Thomas @foxnews.com: “Trump is a serial violator (and he’s not alone in this) of Ronald Reagan’s “11th Commandment,” which states that Republicans are never to speak ill of a fellow Republican. There’s a good reason for this. If Republicans trash Republicans, by the time a nominee is chosen, the party has given Democrats a slew of disparaging sound bites they can use as political ammo in the general election campaign. Not a smart move.”

 

While what Mr. Thomas wrote is perfectly true, regarding providing the opposition with ammunition to be used against a candidate and his or her party, it’s also not only amateurish but makes the mud-slinger look weak, unprepared with facts and/or supporting data, and totally unprofessional in competence and manner. All of which applies to Trump. 

 

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

 

Rudy Giuliani appearing on Sean Hannity's Fox News show last night, discussing Bill’s wife, suggested that in his opinion, she should hire an attorney.

 

The former mayor‘s feeling that she needed counsel stemmed from possible bribery linked to fee’s paid to Bill and the family foundation that may have been influenced by her position when she was Secretary of State.

 

The mayor also opined that there may have been gross negligence regarding the handling of classified materials on Bill’s wife computer server. Raising additional questions about who might have “wiped” the data, if that actually happened. And who else might have obtained information from it, such as Russia or China. 

 

Additionally, the mayor believes that prior contradictory statements regarding what occurred regarding the server can be used against her in court. All of which leads to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this?  

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

An article today by Kenric Ward @watchdog.org via foxnews.com, confirms an idea proposed here for quite a long time in the past.   

 

Mr. Ward writes: “While President Obama wants to open the way for Iran oil exports, Texans are pushing to put U.S. crude back on the world market, too -- a move that could save American consumers billions in fuel costs.” 

 

Authored by Rep. Joe Barton, R-Waco, the bill has 126 House co-sponsors, including 19 Texas Republicans and Democrats, lifting a 40-year ban on exports of U.S. crude. 

 

Rep. Barton said. "Lifting the ban on U.S. crude oil exports this year would create jobs in all 50 states and increase tax revenue upwards of $13.5 billion in 2020." 

 

Some energy forecasters say: “Reopening global markets to American crude could save consumers up to $5.8 billion a year through lower gas and fuel prices.  

 

“The 1975 crude export ban was enacted when U.S. oil production was slack and gas prices were soaring. Since then, hydraulic fracking, horizontal drilling and new exploration have vaulted domestic output ahead of Saudi Arabia and Russia.”

 

However, what’s just as important as the dearly needed boost to the U.S. economy, is that oil revenues are the backbone of almost all nation’s hostile to the U.S. Including Russia, Syria, Iran and even Venezuela. And therefore, dramatically reducing their income curtails their ability to wage war. Which is why it seems ridiculous for any rational government leadership not to do all in its power to drive U.S. oil prices as low as humanly possible as fast as they can.     

 

On another subject, this one getting very little attention from the liberal media, the POTUS’s health care tax seems to be foundering again.

 

Tom Howell Jr.@washingtontimes.com, writes that: “President Obama will need to more than double the number of Americans enrolled in Obamacare exchange plans to reach 21 million next year, the target set in budget projections, in what is shaping up as the next major test for the health care law.”

 

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, as of June, 9.9 million customers bought plans through the federal HealthCare.gov portal and a handful of state-run exchanges. While that’s ahead the administration’s own estimates for 2015, it’s also less than half what the Congressional Budget Office projected for 2016.

 

With enrollment begining in less than two months, “Industry analysts said the CBO’s estimate for next year is “overly optimistic” and a “stretch,” and that it will take more time for the law to attract that many people onto the Web-based markets, where consumers shop for private health care plans and typically qualify for government subsidies to reduce their monthly premiums.

 

In typical response to the enrollment probably falling short of projections, Elizabeth Carpenter, a vice president at Avalere Health, a D.C.-based consultancy, said, “Given where things stand, the ramp-up of enrollment may be slower than initially anticipated.” Which means that while Obamacare remains extremely unpopular for most, even among those it was supposedly designed to help, taxpayers will still find their financial exposure going up. 

 

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

 

David Sherfinski @washingtontimes.com writes that: “Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has fallen below 50 percent support in the race for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination and has found herself in a neck-and-neck contest against GOP businessman Donald Trump among registered voters, according to a national survey out this week.”

 

Bill’s wife had the support of 42 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents in the Washington Post-ABC News poll, followed by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 24 percent and Vice President Joseph R. Biden at 21 percent.

 

That means her support among Democrats fell 21 points since July, while Sanders’ increased 10 points and support for Biden increased by 9.

 

What’s most interesting though, is that while her numbers keep sinking like a rock, she still outperforms blustering, inconsistent Trump. In a potential head-to-head match-up, she leads him by 3 points among registered voters, 46 percent to 43 percent. And among all adults, she led by 12 points, 51 percent to 39 percent. 

 

All of which indicates that a trustworthy Democrat would likely overwhelm Trump at the polls by a landslide in November 2016. Leading to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this?  

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios