Obama On Insurance; Or Rather, Obama Failing To Understand Insurance

Via theblogprof, we have here a clip of Obama discussing the car insurance policy that he had as a young man that “really wasn’t serious insurance” because it didn’t cover repairs to his “beat-up old car” when he was rear-ended.

Now, think about this:  if you’re a young kid in college, you drive a beat up old car, and you’re saving all your pennies to scrape together pizza money and tuition payments, what kind of car insurance do you typically buy?  Do you go all out and buy comprehensive collision coverage for the rolling landfill with an acne problem, or do you get the most limited, basic coverage that will basically cover your liability if you cause an accident?  Yeah, you get a personal liability & property damage policy to cover yourself, because it just wouldn’t be worth it to pay extra for collision coverage; chances are, the cost of the deductible would exceed the value of the car in any accident worth mentioning.

So there’s a couple of possibilities here:  one is that Obama splurged and bought a full-coverage policy for his old beater, but he bought it from a really disreputable company, in which case, well, caveat emptor, and if that’s something the company did on a regular basis, you can be pretty sure that that sort of situation is precisely what free markets exist to correct; that company would lose customers like mad and die out over time without any government intervention.  The other option is that Obama had a basic liability policy that didn’t cover accidents like the one he was in, in which case, well, tough luck.  It’s called risk.  Risk is a part of life.  If you can’t embrace a little bit of risk in life, you won’t go anywhere.

Not that I think any of this makes any bit of difference to Obama.  The story, if it indeed happened like he told it (which I personally doubt, but then I doubt everything he says these days) is nothing more than another way to drum up anger against the current favorite straw man of the left, the insurance companies.  And in the end, I don’t believe that Obama cares one whit about “competition,” “markets.” or, for that matter, individual liberty.  He’s no bolshevik, but he’s certainly a statist, and in the end, that is anathema to the founding values of America.  We’re ultimately worse off having had him in the Oval Office.

Even The New York Times Thinks That Charlie Rangel Should Be Stripped Of His Chairmanship


The affair remains something of a tangled ethics web. All five junketeers were ordered to repay the costs of about $11,800, yet only Mr. Rangel was criticized. And a former counsel to the ethics committee was found to have leaked panel secrets to Carib News charity officials during the inquiry. The committee said “false and misleading” testimony from charity workers would be referred to the Department of Justice.

This should galvanize the committee to conclude its snail-paced inquiry into Mr. Rangel’s behavior, including: his acceptance of rent-subsidized apartments from a Manhattan real estate developer; his failure to pay taxes on rental income from a villa in the Dominican Republic; and his soliciting of a $1 million donation — to a university center named after him — from a corporation with business before Congress. Mr. Rangel, the House’s designated master of fiscal accountability, already deserves to be stripped of his gavel.

But remember, he is a civil-rights hero or something.  So there’s that.

Oh the poor dear: Speaker Pelosi squawked that the report “…said he did not knowingly violate House rules, so that gives him some comfort.”  That’s a relief.  I’m sure the man has been wracked by conscience over even the slightest appearance of impropriety.

Charlie Rangel, enjoying the good life.
Charlie "Exonerated" Rangel, deeply concerned with the appearance of impropriety.

Curse That Inefficient, Messy Federalism!

Jonah Goldberg:

Tom Friedman
Tom Friedman loves him some autocracy

…like butterflies always looking for a prettier flower, these intellectuals keep flitting to the next “proof” of America’s shortcomings. For some, such as New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, the prettiest flower out there right now is China. For others, it’s France or Canada. For the truly demented, it’s Cuba.

The problem with all such efforts is that they look abroad solely for what they wish to see at home. For instance, in an effort to push its green agenda, the Obama administration likes to tout the farsighted vision of Spain, which has invested heavily in windmills and other renewable technology. Never mind that today, Spain’s economic crisis is just slightly less dire than Greece’s and politicized bets on green technology contributed to its problems.

Meanwhile, France’s generous health-care system is widely hailed as so much more enlightened than America’s. What Francophiles usually leave out is the fact that France’s per capita income is 30 percent lower than America’s. Such a disparity, according to Nobel Prize–winning economist Ed Prescott, is the difference between economic prosperity and economic depression, and it’s explained by France’s much higher taxes.

‘Twould be so nice if all of our dissatisfied intellectuals and impatient pundits would, you know, move to the countries that they think work so much better than the US and just leave the rest of us to prosper in peace and freedom.

Senator Jim Bunning Asks A Reasonable Question

Jim Bunning
Jim Bunning is my Tiger, at least for today.

Last night, Jim Bunning was the only Senator with the balls to stand up and object to some more out-of-control spending in order to ask how we’re paying for it:

…when no other Senator, including anyone in Republican leadership, would stand up, Senator Bunning took to the floor to object to a unanimous consent request to call up and pass the House-passed extension of a number of expiring so-called “stimulus” and other benefit programs, because Bunning dared to ask the simple question of how these extensions would be paid for.

Senator Bunning’s refusal to acquiesce caused quite a few heated exchanges on the Senate floor, according to Politico, culminating in Senator Bunning muttering “tough sh*t” from his Senate seat after being berated by Democrats for a few hours.

‘Atta boy. It’s about time the people with some sense start showing some spine on Capitol Hill.  Now granted, it’s at best a symbolic gesture, but you gotta start somewhere, right?

We Welcome Charlie Rangel To The Blog

Charlie Rangel, enjoying the good life.
Charlie "Exonerated" Rangel, enjoying his freedom.

So Charlie Rangel, the 20-term congressman, notorious tax cheat and one of the prime authors of our nation’s tax code, was kinda-sorta let off the hook for all his bad behavior by the house ethics committee yesterday, and now Nancy Pelosi is out defending him.  Yeah, I know there’s no real story here, but I really wanted to get that image into regular rotation here.

Pelosi said Rangel “did not violate the rules of the House,” and that the ethics committee “did not take action against him” yet, ABC News’s Rick Klein reports. The ethics panel said it was uncertain whether Rangel himself knew the trips were improper, but found that members of Rangel’s staff did know, and that Rangel had a responsibility to find out…

…Rangel told reporters he will not step down as Ways and Means chairman, and said that the ethics report “exonerates” him from wrongdoing.

What a respectable bunch of elites we have running the Congress.  The country’s in the very best of hands.

Oh Great. April in the D. Wonderful.

Well, here’s the new “April in the D” song that we’re going to hear over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over on FSN Detroit this year.  I don’t think it’s going to be as annoying as previous versions, but talk to me at the end of April and we’ll see how I feel then.

Oh yeah, it’s by “The Victorious Secrets.”  Heh.  Clever.