About these ads

Some Imperial Presidencies Are More Equal than Others

To wit:

President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.

When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the “Do Nothing Congress” almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents.

[. . .]

Like executive orders, presidential memoranda don’t require action by Congress. They have the same force of law as executive orders and often have consequences just as far-reaching. And some of the most significant actions of the Obama presidency have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda.

Obama has made prolific use of memoranda despite his own claims that he’s used his executive power less than other presidents. “The truth is, even with all the actions I’ve taken this year, I’m issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than 100 years,” Obama said in a speech in Austin last July. “So it’s not clear how it is that Republicans didn’t seem to mind when President Bush took more executive actions than I did.”

Obama has issued 195 executive orders as of Tuesday. Published alongside them in the  Federal Register are 198 presidential memoranda — all of which carry the same legal force as executive orders.

So much for the claim that this president is “issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than 100 years.” Can we have more media outlets point out that statements like this one ought to bring about trouser infernos at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

The Very Definition of “Scandal”

Wow:

The Obama administration overturned a ban preventing a wealthy, politically connected Ecuadorean woman from entering the United States after her family gave tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic campaigns, according to finance records and government officials.

The woman, Estefanía Isaías, had been barred from coming to the United States after being caught fraudulently obtaining visas for her maids. But the ban was lifted at the request of the State Department under former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton so that Ms. Isaías could work for an Obama fund-raiser with close ties to the administration.

It was one of several favorable decisions the Obama administration made in recent years involving the Isaías family, which the government of Ecuador accuses of buying protection from Washington and living comfortably in Miami off the profits of a looted bank in Ecuador.

The family, which has been investigated by federal law enforcement agencies on suspicion of money laundering and immigration fraud, has made hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to American political campaigns in recent years. During that time, it has repeatedly received favorable treatment from the highest levels of the American government, including from New Jersey’s senior senator and the State Department.

At best, this is highly unethical, and at worst, it is illegal. Oh, and way to completely undermine any serious move towards immigration reform, Obama administration. You just handed every opponent of reform who thinks that you lot are interested in handing out “amnesty” a club with which to beat you politically.

Of course, there should be congressional investigations concerning this news revelation. And given the involvement of our would-be next president of the United States, someone should ask Hillary Clinton why members of a family of alleged criminals should receive “favorable treatment from the highest levels of the American government” under her tenure at the State Department.

About these ads

A Welcome Change in Cuba Policy

Let’s get the following out of the way: The Castro regime in Cuba is despicable, bloodthirsty, murderous, tyrannical, totalitarian, and entirely opposed to granting basic human rights to its people and to foreign innocents.

Let’s also get this out of the way: The United States embargo that has been in place against Cuba has done absolutely nothing whatsoever to change things for the better in Cuba.

So I am glad that Alan Gross is finally getting released by the Cuban government–which never should have been holding him hostage in the first place–and I am glad that the United States and Cuba are finally talking about normalizing relations. There is no reason whatsoever why a failed policy should be kept in place any longer, and quite frankly, it was held in place for far too long. No less a Cold Warrior than the late Richard Nixon thought as much, and as usual, his foreign policy judgment was on point. We will achieve more change in Cuba by constructive engagement with the country than we will by shunning and isolating it economically, and once the embargo comes to an end, any and all failures concerning the Cuban economy–and there will be failures concerning the Cuban economy–will more easily be considered entirely the responsibility of the Cuban government, which heretofore has been blaming the bad economy on the American embargo.

Yes, I know that there are people who believe that if we just “hang tough” against Cuba for a few years longer, things will change for the better. How much longer we are supposed to “hang tough,” we are not told, of course. Why haven’t things changed for the better by now, or years ago? Absolutely, positively no one can say. Why should we follow so incoherent a policy any longer? And yes, I know that there are plenty of people who are delighted that the embargo is coming to an end, who hated the embargo from the very beginning . . . and who think that we should initiate sanctions against countries like Israel, while ignoring human rights violations in countries like Cuba (and Iran, and China, etc.). These people can’t really be taken seriously, and I will be the first to state as much, but that doesn’t change the fact that our Cuba policy was a disaster and had to change. We opened up to countries like China and Vietnam, and the world hasn’t come to an end. Indeed, our engagement has brought about significant positive changes. Why can’t the same hold true in Cuba?

So, it is good that the embargo is finally coming to an end, and with its end, we can more realistically hope that things will change for the better in Cuba. And kudos to the Obama administration, which deserves a great deal of credit for bringing about a change in policy than previous presidents–both Republican and Democrat–very likely wanted to bring about on their own.

Democrats Understand How Good a Presidential Candidate Jeb Bush Can Be

Behold:

For Democrats, though, Mr. Bush’s step toward a campaign was cause for concern, as many said the Spanish-speaking former governor of Florida, perhaps the most electorally pivotal state in the country, would be the toughest Republican to defeat.

“I keep reminding people Michael Corleone was the younger brother of Fredo,” said the Democratic strategist Paul Begala, comparing characters from “The Godfather” to Bush family dynamics.

The dumb little cheap shot at George W. Bush aside, the excerpt is actually rather telling. Just about any sophisticated observer of politics can understand and appreciate how appealing Bush would be in any general election contest. Of course, the primaries and caucuses need to be gotten through first, and it remains to be seen whether the Republican right will actually give Bush a serious look, or just scream “RINO!” and nominate a candidate who is sure to lose the general election.

What Kind of President Might Jeb Bush Be?

I am very pleased by reports that Jeb Bush is about to toss his hat into the presidential ring. I certainly count myself as a big-time Jeb Bush fan; he is hyper-smart, hyper-serious and conscientious, very interested in policy, determined and proven to be a very good manager and leader who is not afraid to drill down into the details of a problem while at the same time maintaining a big-picture perspective, and someone who is in politics for all the right reasons–to do right by the people who elected him, and might elect him again. When it comes to Bush’s political appeal, he is able to draw moderates, independents, conservatives and libertarians into his political camp. He knows how to win elections, and he was a very popular governor of Florida. He can revive the national Republican brand if he makes it to the 2016 general election. Frankly, there is quite little not to like.

Oh, and the ideological concerns about Bush that stem from the right? They are bogus:

Some conservatives say Jeb Bush isn’t one of them, citing a handful of positions that cut against Republican orthodoxy. A look at his record as governor of Florida suggests that’s not quite accurate.

Mr. Bush championed tax cuts, privatized state jobs, fought for school vouchers, won power over the judiciary and labored to prolong the life of a brain-damaged woman, Terry Schiavo.

Well before earmarks became a dirty word in Washington, he campaigned against such pet projects in Tallahassee, promising to veto spending items not approved by his administration. He wound up vetoing some $2 billion in spending over eight years.

If Mr. Bush runs for president, his two terms as governor between 1999 and 2007, and the related question about his conservatism would likely be an issue.

“Honestly I don’t think I ever came across one person who told me he wasn’t being conservative enough,” said Al Cardenas, who was chairman of the Florida Republican Party during the Bush gubernatorial years

Over his tenure, Mr. Bush cut taxes by some $19 billion, much of it benefiting businesses and investors, such as the repeal of a tax on investments. He created the first school-voucher program in the country, allowing students in failing schools to use public money for private-school tuition, a program later struck down by the state Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Another program, also being challenged in court, gives companies a tax credit if they donate for private school scholarships.

Mr. Bush also sparked protests with his One Florida program, which aimed to end affirmative action preferences for minorities in universities and state contracting.

How much more conservative is any politician supposed to be before the right accepts that politician as one of their own? I disagree with the stance that Bush took during the Terri Schiavo case, but the stance that he took certainly shouldn’t cause conservatives to have doubts about Bush’s philosophical bona fides.

To be sure, Bush has offended some people on the right by taking a sensible position on immigration policy, but I happen to see that as a feature for his candidacy, not a bug. Maybe that’s just because I care about solving the immigration conundrum–like Bush, coincidentally!–instead of constantly trying to use immigration as a political weapon on behalf of Republicans, only to have that weapon turned against the Republican party when presidential elections roll around. I don’t apologize for this position; I happen to think that from time to time, politicians ought to try to govern, instead of waving bloody shirts. I recognize that for some, this is an antiquated notion, but I happen to think that it might still have some currency, and I hope that it gains currency with a Bush presidential run.

I am not yet going to issue an endorsement of Jeb Bush; it is not yet 2015, let alone 2016, and I do want to see if there are other candidates who step forward to be considered by the Republican party once primary and caucus season roll around. But I am at the very least 95% sure that I will support Bush for president. He knows how to win elections and he knows how to govern successfully. The past two Republican presidential nominees showed that they knew nothing about the former, and the incumbent president of the United States has shown that he knows rather little about the latter. To say the least, it’s time for a change.

Won’t Someone Please Put Vox Out of Its Misery?

Please. There is no quality control over at Ezra Klein’s pretend news site, the mistakes are piling up, and they are becoming embarrassing beyond belief. Jeff Bezos must indeed be thanking his lucky stars that he didn’t shell out good money to support this quasi-journalistic calamity, but it is not enough for this clown show of a media enterprise to have been shunned by the Washington Post. Apart from providing some much needed comedy relief, Vox serves no purpose whatsoever. Why would anyone trust it, given all of the mistakes its writers and editors repeatedly make?

Stop treating Vox as though it is a serious news source! Maybe if the site is treated with the contempt that it deserves, it will go away, and better news sources will spring up to replace it.

Uber-Craziness

Will Wilkinson is quite right in stating that “[t]here’s something about Uber, the popular ride-sharing service, that brings out the nutty in people.” And he is also quite right to mock those who call for “socializing” Uber. The complaints about surge-pricing automatically kicking in when Uber cars were in high demand during the hostage standoff in Sydney, Australia are also mock-worthy. Indeed, reading most of the commentary about Uber is enough to make one want to poke one’s eyes out.

If there is any silver lining to all of this incredibly bad punditry about Uber, it is that it identifies for the rest of us a group of pundits who shouldn’t be listened to the next time they opine about something. Or the time after that. Or the time after . . . well, you get the idea. But since many of us knew already that these pundits shouldn’t be listened to, it’s not much of a silver lining, now is it?

So I guess were are back to being depressed about the ignorance of economics that regularly gets displayed in punditry about companies like Uber and Lyft, and in punditry overall. And I guess we are also back to being depressed about the fact that just about every time a good and innovative company comes along to make life easier and better for consumers, a pack of pundits–usually on the port side of the ideological and partisan divide–get together and mindlessly attack the company in question. I guess that some people just can’t stand to see private businesses successfully work to bring valuable services and benefits to consumers. It’s almost as though these folks are afraid to see how efficient business operations in a capitalist economy might serve to undermine their own socioeconomic worldviews, or something.

Quote of the Day

When Mencken is interested, he goes to work with a writing style that retired undefeated. The hot dogs of his time were served in pastry shells, not “the soggy rolls prevailing today, of ground acorns, plaster of paris, flecks of bath sponge and atmospheric air all compact.”

Mencken applies the balm of humor to raw nostalgia. He caps an obligatory yarn of childhood play by stating: “A few years ago . . . I encountered a ma’m in horn-rimmed spectacles teaching a gang of little girls ring-around-a-rosy. The sight filled me suddenly with so black an indignation that I was tempted to grab the ma’m and heave her into the goldfish pond. In the days of my own youth no bossy female on the public payroll was needed to teach games.”

And Mencken expresses a warm honesty about the cold heart of a child. “Happy Days” ends with the death of his grandfather. “The day was a Thursday — and they’d certainly not bury the old man until Sunday. No school tomorrow!”

The same Mencken expression, unblinking but unfrowning, is turned upon the press. “Newspaper Days” and “Heathen Days” are correctives for those who lament the present media’s sensationalism, and curatives for those who think newsmongers go around speaking truth to power.

Journalism, Mencken explains, is fun, “especially for a young reporter to whom all the major catastrophes and imbecilities of mankind were still more or less novel, and hence delightful.” And “a newspaperman always saw that show from a reserved seat in the first row.”

When he wasn’t part of the show himself. Sundays were light on news when Mencken was at The Baltimore Morning Herald in 1903 — until “a wild man was reported loose in the woods . . . with every dog barking for miles around, and all women and children locked up. I got special delight out of the wild man, for I had invented him myself.”

“Journalism,” Mencken notes, “is not an exact science.”

P.J. O’Rourke. I need to get this book.

Your Government at Work (Social Security Outrages Continue)

Remember this? Sure you do. Guess what? It’s still happening:

The Social Security Administration, which announced in April that it would stop trying to collect debts from the children of people who were allegedly overpaid benefits decades ago, has continued to demand such payments and now defends that practice in court documents.

After The Washington Post reported in April that the Treasury Department had confiscated $75 million in tax refunds due to about 400,000 Americans whose ancestors owed money to Social Security, the agency’s acting commissioner, Carolyn Colvin, said efforts to collect on those old debts would cease immediately.

But although some people whose refunds were seized were reimbursed in recent months, some of those same taxpayers have since received new demands from Social Security, asserting that the debts remain and seeking repayment.

In March, the U.S. government intercepted Mary Grice’s tax refunds from both the IRS and the state of Maryland. It turned out that after Grice’s father died in 1960, when she was 4, her mother got survivor benefits to help feed and clothe her five children. Social Security says it overpaid someone in the Grice family — it’s not sure who — in 1977. With Grice’s mother long since dead, the government came after Mary to pay the debt.

The Takoma Park woman, now 58, filed suit against Social Security, challenging the government’s right to take her money without notice to satisfy her mother’s debt. After The Post wrote about her case, the government returned Grice’s tax refunds to her. But in August, she received a new bill from Social Security, seeking the same $2,997 that the agency had refunded to her four months earlier.

“DID YOU FORGET?” the letter said, demanding that Grice “send us the full payment right away.”

There is no excuse or justification–none–for going after the children of those who allegedly (note that word: “allegedly”) received overpayments from the Social Security Administration. That this practice is continuing is an outrage. Equally outrageous: There hasn’t been any kind of sustained effort on the part of any elected official to shine a light on this nonsense and to shame the Social Security Administration into stopping its practice of hounding entirely innocent people.

Nota bene: This story is but one example of how big government can overreach and harm the rights and liberties of those it is supposed to represent. There are, of course, other such examples of government-perpetrated overreach and harm. Maybe those who sneer at warnings concerning big government should think twice before dismissing such warnings as nonsensical and overwrought.

Quote of the Day

Computers are rapidly beginning to outperform humans in more or less every area of endeavor. For example, machine vision experts recently unveiled an algorithm that outperforms humans in face recognition. Similar algorithms are beginning to match humans at object recognition too. And human chess players long ago gave up the fight to beat computers.

But there is one area where humans still triumph. That is in playing the ancient Chinese game of Go. Computers have never mastered this game. The best algorithms only achieve the skill level of a very strong amateur player which the best human players easily outperform.

That looks set to change thanks to the work of Christopher Clark and Amos Storkey at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. These guys have applied the same machine learning techniques that have transformed face recognition algorithms to the problem of finding the next move in a game of Go. And the results leave little hope that humans will continue to dominate this game.

Link. This is a very big deal.

“No Consumer Choice, Please. We Are French.”

Another day, another report about how taxicab cartels are scared of competition:

Uber’s low-cost ride ride-hailing service will be banned in France from the start of next year, the government said Monday as hundreds of taxi drivers blocked roads around Paris to protest what they claim are its unfair business practices.

A new law tightening regulations for chauffeured rides will effectively ban the UberPop service as of Jan. 1, said Pierre-Henry Brandet, spokesman for France’s Interior Ministry.

“Currently, people who use UberPop are not protected if there is an accident. So not only is it illegal to offer this service but for the consumer there is a real danger,” Brandet told the BFM television network.

Several hundred taxis blocked the roads heading from the Roissy Charles de Gaulle airport, then inched toward the French capital in their latest protest of the ride-sharing company.

I am absolutely certain that deliberately causing a traffic jam will do much to endear members of the taxicab cartel to the French public. What could possibly go wrong with this plan?

In Which Karen Tumulty and Sean Sullivan Bury the Lede

This piece by Karen Tumulty and Sean Sullivan, concerning emerging ideological divisions in the Democratic party, should come as no surprise whatsoever to those who have been tracking the paroxysms that have been afflicting Democrats since the 2014 midterm elections took place. And of course, it ought to go without saying that reports of Democratic party divisions are very much welcomed by Republicans in advance of the 2016 election cycle. In two years, Senate Republicans will face an electoral map that is as bad as the one that Senate Democrats faced this year, so any internal rifts in the Democratic party that (a) serve to hinder the next Democratic presidential nominee and the coattails that he/she may have; and (b) serve to directly offset Democratic advantages in Senate races will make Republicans quite happy.

But that’s not the subject on which I would like to focus. Rather, I’d like to highlight for your attention, gentle readers, the following passage concerning the omnibus spending bill that recently came before the Senate, and managed to pit–in the minds of many, at least–Senator Elizabeth Warren with Hillary Clinton:

As the drama was playing out on Capitol Hill on Friday, more than 300 former Obama campaign staff members released a letter calling on Warren to run, saying, “we want someone who will stand up for working families and take on the Wall Street banks and special interests that took down our economy.” Last week, the liberal group Moveon.org also announced that it would put at least $1 million into an effort to draft Warren, who has repeatedly said she does not intend to run for president and who was recently named to a spot in the Senate Democratic leadership.

Neither statement mentioned Clinton, who many on the left think is too sympathetic to Wall Street and corporate interests. She has yet to make clear what her main rationale for running would be if she decides to seek the presidency.

(Emphasis mine.) No rationale to a Clinton-for-President campaign, eh? Gee, what a stunner. And of course, the continuing lack of rational concerning any Clinton-for-President campaign ought to be more prominently mentioned in any story that covers or discusses a possible Clinton-for-President campaign.

And Speaking of the Overextension of Police Powers . . .

This is just appalling:

D.C. police have made plans for millions of dollars in anticipated proceeds from future civil seizures of cash and property, even though federal guidelines say “agencies may not commit” to such spending in advance, documents show.

The city’s proposed budget and financial plan for fiscal 2015 includes about $2.7 million for the District police department’s “special purpose fund” through 2018. The fund covers payments for informants and rewards.

The financial details emerged Wednesday, when the D.C. Council’s judiciary committee unanimously voted to forward a bill that would overhaul asset forfeiture laws in the nation’s capital. The bill would raise the threshold of proof required for a forfeiture, bolster the rights of individuals whose property has been taken and require that proceeds from seizures under federal law go into the city general fund, rather than directly to the police department. The full council is set to vote on the bill Tuesday.

Council member Tommy Wells, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety, said police should not have a financial incentive to make seizures. He said the bill addresses problems that are common across the country.

“All across the nation, law enforcement agencies are directly benefiting from forfeiture,” said Wells (D-Ward 6), who is leading the effort to reform asset forfeiture in the District. “In those places, forfeiture proceeds go directly to the law enforcement entity, creating at best the appearance of a conflict of interest, and at worst, an unchecked incentive for slush funds.”

Prior posts on civil asset forfeiture hereAnd just in case you think that this kind of behavior is out of the ordinary . . .

Ferguson, Missouri, which is recovering from riots following the August shooting death of an unarmed black teenager by a white policeman, plans to close a budget gap by boosting revenue from public-safety fines and tapping reserves.

The strategy by the St. Louis suburb, which suffered a second round of violent protests last month after a grand jury refused to indict the police officer, may risk worsening community relations with increased citations and weakening its credit standing by reducing a rainy-day fund.

To close a projected deficit for fiscal 2014, which ended June 30, the municipality will deplete a $10 million capital-projects reserve, Jeffrey Blume, Ferguson’s finance director, said in a telephone interview. For the current year, the city is budgeting for higher receipts from police-issued tickets.

So in order to cover a revenue shortfall, more people will be ticketed by the police. The Ferguson police–and any number of other police organizations around the country–are not into penalizing and punishing people for doing bad things. They are into penalizing and punishing people in order to raise money for municipal governments–and for police departments that (allegedly) serve those governments and the people they represent.

I guess the Onion can officially go out of business.

More Evidence of Police Brutality

I guess we all have reason to be afraid of law enforcement. Now, police are shooting and killing unarmed people who lie face down on the ground. And note the following:

The toxic combination of a “five year-old uncorroborated tip,” a vague accusation from a confessed car thief and meth addict, and a recently robbed man reacting to a violent intrusion on his home created the conditions that led to the 17 shots fired by law enforcement that night.

But other than all that, I am sure that everything went according to plan.

Shame on Columbia Law School

I know that there are people who are upset about the Michael Brown/Eric Garner cases. I know that the cases have ripped open old wounds that have to do with America’s legacy on race and race relations. I know that it is high time to focus on the overextension and abuse of police power.

But life doesn’t come to a screeching halt even in the aftermath of the decision not to indict Darren Wilson and Daniel Pantaleo. Work still has to be done, and duties still have to be attended to. So, it is more than a little appalling that Columbia Law School is allowing the rescheduling of exams for students “who feel that their performance on examinations will be sufficiently impaired due to the effects of these recent events.”

How exactly can it be determined if one is a student who feels “their performance on examinations will be sufficiently impaired”? Is there a test that can be administered to determine this, or do we just take students’ words for it? What about students whose performance is not impaired; do they have to go through with their exams knowing that possibly, they will be bested by other students who have more time to prepare for those exams (and who may not be nearly as traumatized as they claim to be)? And while we are asking questions, will these students–who aspire to be lawyers, after all–be apt to shirk duties and responsibilities in the future if and when something upsetting is shown on the news? There are any number of politicians and lawyers who were involved somehow and in some way in the Michael Brown/Eric Garner cases. They are probably also upset by the news that there will be no state indictments in those cases. But they suited up and went back to work the next day. Why can’t the students at Columbia Law School do the same?

Being a lawyer means that one has to take losses along with wins, and undesirable compromises along with acceptable ones. A whole host of students at Columbia are about to show that they lack the ability to bounce back from a setback or an outrage. Just out of curiosity, how desirable should this make them in the eyes of any future potential employers?

Jonathan Gruber’s Disastrous Congressional Testimony

It was awful beyond imagining. Behold a snippet:

This little political skirmish was Jonathan Gruber’s Little Bighorn moment in which he didn’t play the role of Sitting Bull. Gowdy owned the debate–and Gruber–not only because he is a much more skilled and adept verbal interlocutor than is Gruber (who desperately grasps for the saving power of talking points he repeats over and over again the way a drowning man would desperately grasp at the life preserver that is just . . . out . . . of . . . reach), but also because Gowdy had the truth and the facts on his side. Those statements Gruber is sorry for saying? He said them over and over and over and over and over again. He would repeat them in the future were he not now on his guard to watch his mouth. Gruber’s claims that he never meant what he said? Ridiculous; the more one says something, the more others may reasonably be led to believe that he meant that thing. And of course, as Gowdy and Darrell Issa point out, Gruber’s comments were made to an entirely sympathetic audience; Gruber cannot recall a single person who went up to him after his presentations and said something along the lines of “you know, what you said was remarkably inappropriate and out of line, and fundamentally offensive,” showing that Jonathan Gruber was not the only person to buy into Jonathan Gruber’s comments.

Equally ridiculous are Gruber’s claims that he is some kind of political neophyte. He may commit Kinsleyan gaffes like they are going out of style, but Gruber has advised multiple state governments on health care reform, and got paid $400,000 by the Obama administration to serve as a consultant as well. Even if Gruber did just try to make himself sound glib and clever, that in no way mitigates the offensive nature of his comments or the degree to which he made life next-to-impossible for his political friends. And of course, it is worth reminding ourselves of two final points: (1) Gruber is not sorry for what he said. He is sorry for having been caught. There is a difference. (2) It was Gruber who said that the federal subsidies for Obamacare were designed to get states to set up their own health insurance exchanges. This entirely undercuts the pro-Obamacare argument in King v. Burwell that the health insurance subsidies were supposed to be paid out irrespective of whether states set up their own health insurance exchanges. You cannot simultaneously claim that the subsidies were to serve as an incentive to set up health insurance exchanges AND that the subsidies would be paid out regardless of whether the incentive worked.

John Podhoretz:

Gruber tried to eat humble pie Tues­day as he appeared before a House committee to explain video footage that emerged a few months ago in which he repeatedly and with great braggadocio said ObamaCare had been consciously and deceitfully designed to mask its cost and reach. But he seemed more to be choking on it.

Gruber affected abject contrition — “I tried to make myself seem smarter by demeaning others,” he said sorrowfully.

Oh, sure. By all accounts, Gruber is one of the smartest people alive, even if he has proved to be among the most foolish, and it’s doubtful he has ever found it necessary to make himself feel smarter.

But his affect soon curdled into a trembling combination of fear and rage that seemed more of a fit with the almost insanely arrogant person caught on videotape over three years speaking about the wondrous scam he and the administration had pulled on the “American voter” due to said voter’s “stupidity” and “lack of economic understanding.”

Hyman Roth, the fictional mastermind of Mafia finance, tells reporters in “The Godfather Part II” that “I’m a retired investor living on a pension.” Similarly, Hyman Gruber, the self-appointed mastermind of ObamaCare, yesterday told members of Congress he was not “the architect of ObamaCare” and “not a political adviser” but merely an ordinary guy, an average Joe, a lunch-pail economist, who did “microsimulations” to help determine the outcomes of various policies.

“I sincerely apologize both for conjecturing with a tone of expertise and for doing so in such a disparaging fashion,” he said.

The assertion that “conjecturing” about ObamaCare was beyond his expertise, even though he is universally acknowledged to have been a key influence on its structure, was so laughable, it was no wonder he spat the words out as though they were ash and wormwood on his tongue.

Want to judge Obamacare and the political process that led to its passage and implementation? You could do worse than to examine the comments and behavior of the law’s chief architect.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,749 other followers

%d bloggers like this: