“Elections have consequences.” EPA suddenly delays new rules governing industry emissions.
It’s stories like this that fill me with dispair: House Majority Leader-designate Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) says that Republicans will keep some provisions of Obama’s healthcare law intact. Key quote:
Provisions that Republicans will seek to retain include the barring of insurance companies from refusing coverage to patients with a pre-existing condition and allowing young people to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26.
You would think the numerous demonstrations, the loud townhall protests, and finally, the election results themselves would have given Cantor a hint of what the public really wants: total and complete repeal of this stinker of a bill.
Cantor’s desire to keep the pre-existing condition clause will only make the entire insurance business unprofitable. When I lived in New York and the state legislative passed a similar bill, more than half of all insurance companies immediately abandoned the state, as they understood that no one had any reason to buy health insurance, until they actually got sick. And without the premiums from healthy people, the companies knew they would have no resources left to pay the expenses of those who were sick. (See my 1994 article on this subject for the magazine The Freeman.)
As for the clause allowing young people to stay on their parents’ plan until 26, all this will do is force insurance companies to drop all coverage for children, as this union did in New York.
Either way, what gives Eric Cantor and the Republicans (or the Democrats before them) the lordly wisdom to determine how this particular business (or any) should be run? Freedom demands that these business transactions should be left to the market, the insurance companies, and their customers, not to the whims of politicians.
What Obama fails to understand.
The news following the midterm election results have not sounded good for NASA. Two stories on Monday alone signaled the bad news:
Earlier stories last week were no more encouraging:
While Republicans have, since the 1970s, generally been more enthusiastic than Democrats about NASA and manned space exploration, the new Republican Congress has a tone that seems decidedly different from past years. Above all, it appears the public is finally becoming aware of the recent explosion in the federal debt, as illustrated by the graph below. (hat tip to Gateway Pundit and The Captain’s Comments.)
The public’s growing concern about these numbers was clearly reflected in the election results. First, there was the success of many tea party candidates advocating fiscal responsibility and a radical shrinking of government. Even in cases where conservatives lost, the closeness of the election in districts or states where liberals have rarely in the past been challenged suggests the mood of the electorate is decidedly shifting in a direction against federal spending.
Second, the electorate seemed surprisingly hostile to pork, expressing little interest in being brought off with baubles for their home districts. Thus, candidates who ran against pork seemed to get far more enthusiastic attention and positive publicity than those elected officials famous for “bringing home the bacon.”
In such an atmosphere, the priorities of Congress will be forced to change. The outlook therefore does not look good for the type of pork funding represented by the NASA authorization bill passed on September 29, with its billions of subsidies for the aerospace industry.
We can see an indication of this new tone by some of the initial plans announced by the Republican leadership. As a first step, the Republicans have proposed cutting the federal budget back 2008 levels. This change alone would reduce NASA’s annual budget by about $2 billion, or 10%.
This solution, however, will not close the budget gap, only shrink it slightly. The Republicans will still be faced with massive amounts of red ink and a public demanding that they deal with it. To prove they mean what they say, the new House leadership will be forced to propose some additional draconian cuts.
Unfortunately, the circumstances at this moment has made NASA a prime budget-cutting target. » Read more
More bad news for NASA’s future: There are more indications in the House that the election results will increase the pressure to cut NASA’s budget.
From the Huntsville Times: NASA could be in a budget limbo for months as a result of Tuesday’s election.
What will the global warming scientists do? The new chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee calls for “strong oversight . . . in key areas including climate change, scientific integrity”.
“Global climate disruption” takes another hit! Democrats who had voted for the Cap & Trade bill in 2009 were slaughtered in yesterday’s elections.
Yesterday’s elections will clearly force changes again to NASA’s future. Below are a few links from some other space experts expressing their thoughts on the matter. I will follow with my own essay sometime next week, after the election results have some time to shake out.
From SpacePolicyOnline, an overview of the results in relation to space policy.
From Rand Simberg: Great election news for space.
From Space Politics: Brooks wins, Giffords with a narrow lead.
See also this Space.com article: Election Brings New Leadership to NASA Oversight Committees.
Overall, the defeat of Congressmen like Oberstar and Grayson, both of whom loved to regulate, can only be good for the future of private space.
An evening pause: As election day is just about over, I think this song will help explain to our elected officials the kind of government the United States has, and how the results from today are merely a single moment in a long struggle.
Feel the hate: Virginia Democrat supporters rip up Repulican signs on private property while screaming curses at conservative demonstrators.
And the Democrats wonder why they are losing this election? Fifty-eight percent of the population favors repeal of Obamacare, with a whopping 70 percent of independents wanting repeal.
A poll warden, since dismissed, denied the right to vote on Friday to a policeman in full uniform because he refused to surrender his gun.
Gallup poll numbers suggest tomorrow’s Republican victory could be the largest in generations, and could exceed all predictions. Key quote:
It should be noted, however, that this year’s 15-point gap in favor of the Republican candidates among likely voters is unprecedented in Gallup polling and could result in the largest Republican margin in House voting in several generations. This means that seat projections have moved into uncharted territory, in which past relationships between the national two-party vote and the number of seats won may not be maintained. [emphasis mine]
Let’s take a trip into the future, looking past Tuesday’s midterm election.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that, come Tuesday, the Republicans take both houses, in a stunning landslide not seen in more than a century. Let’s also assume that the changes in Congress are going to point decidedly away from the recent liberal policies of large government (by both parties). Instead, every indication suggests that the new Congress will lean heavily towards a return to the principles of small government, low taxes, and less regulation.
These assumptions are not unreasonable. Not only do the polls indicate that one or both of the houses of Congress will switch from Democratic to Republican control, the numerous and unexpected primary upsets of established incumbents from both parties — as well the many protests over the past year by large numbers of ordinary citizens — make it clear that the public is not interested in half measures. Come January, the tone and direction of Congress is going to undergo a shocking change.
Anyway, based on these assumptions, we should then expect next year’s Congress to propose unprecedented cuts to the federal budget, including the elimination of many hallowed programs. The recent calls to defund NPR and the Corporation for Public Broadcastings are only one example.
When Congress attempts this, however, the vested interests that have depended on this funding for decades are not going to take the cuts lightly. Or to put it more bluntly, they are going to squeal like pigs, throwing temper tantrums so loud and insane that they will make the complaints of a typical three-year-old seem truly statesman-like. And they will do so in the hope that they will garner sympathy and support from the general voting public, thereby making the cuts difficult to carry out.
The real question then is not whether the new Congress will propose the cuts required to bring the federal government under control, but whether they, as well as the public, will have the courage to follow through, to defy the howls from these spoiled brats, and do what must be done. » Read more
Another moderator from the League of Women Voters resists saying the pledge of allegiance, forcing the audience to overrule her.
If victorious on November 2, will the Republicans actually cut spending? This article outlines the issues.
Is this a hint of what’s to come on Tuesday? Toronto yesterday not only elected a conservative mayor by a very large margin, four incumbent councillors were also defeated soundly. Key quote:
Polls, indicating the race was razor edge close, were proven false in 11 single minutes! . . . [The conservative] Ford won with 383,501 votes—more than the votes of his two main opponents combined.
These politicians are such jerks! A family in Rhode Island put together a fancy “Dinner with Obama” to raise money for Democrats. Obama arrives, collects the money, and then skips out before dinner. And why couldn’t Obama stay? This is what he said, just before everyone else sat down to eat,
“I’ve got to go home to tuck in the girls and walk the dog and scoop the poop,”
This illustrates why much of today’s political class, from both parties, needs to go: New York mayor Michael Bloomberg supports term limits for everyone . . . but himself.
Mark Steyn explains why next week’s midterm election and what the next Congress does has very special significance. Key quote:
In a two-party system, you have to work with what’s available. In America, one party is openly committed to driving the nation off the cliff, and the other party is full of guys content to go along for the ride as long as we shift down to third gear. That’s no longer enough of a choice. If your candidate isn’t committed to fewer government agencies with fewer employees on lower rates of pay, he’s part of the problem. This is the last chance for the GOP to restore its credentials. If it blows it, all bets are off for 2012.
This bill is going to dog the Democrats who voted for it for years: A new study says the cost of the healthcare bill’s subsidies will far exceed Congressional Budget Office estimates.
Steny Hoyer must really be worried: a attendee at the Hoyer-Lollar debate last week saw Hoyer “knuckle-punch” Lollar in the back, something that Lollar also attests to. This took place shortly after Hoyer was reported to have threatened Lollar by saying to him “I’m coming after you.”
Republican senator Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) suggested Monday that it would be better to restructure the healthcare bill than repeal or defund it.
Idiot. I think he and the rest of the Republican Party are being as clueless as the Democrats if they think this strategy will work. They should instead pay very close attention to what Sarah Palin said on the same day about a third party threat:
“Some in the GOP, it’s their last shot,” Palin said Monday evening on Fox News. “It’s their last chance, and we will lose faith and we will be disappointed and disenchanted from them if they start straying from the bedrock principles that can grow our economy.”
I am also reminded of this prescience Iowahawk post. As he says so eloquently, “Retards.”
This is only the beginning. The political careers of almost all of the bluedog Democrats who voted for Obamacare appear to be ending with this upcoming election.
Steny Hoyer must be in trouble. At the Charles County Candidate Forum on Wednesday, he lowered himself to actually debate his opponents for the upcoming Congressional election, the first time I have seen this happen since I moved to his district in 1999. However, his Republican opponent, Charles Lollar, got the last word, and made Hoyer look bad.
Freedom of speech alert! Rather than debate their opponents, two Democratic House candidates are trying to shut them up.
In the first case, incumbent Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) is trying to use election laws to block an anti-abortion group from putting up billboards against him. Ed Morrissey at hotair.com has more details.
In the second case, incumbent Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Pennsylvania) is trying to get radio stations to pull the radio ads of another anti-abortion group which attack her for her healthcare vote.
In both cases, the Democratic candidates voted for the Healthcare bill, and seem to want to hide that fact now from the voters. Not only does this illustrate the contempt they have of freedom of speech, it shows us just how toxic the healthcare bill has become politically. I suspect that this law is going to dog the Democrats who voted for it for years to come.
Whoa! A Republican is leading by 6% in a traditionally Democratic district in northern California.
Something’s coming: According to the generally leftwing Huffington Post, the Democrats now face a 60 to 70 seat loss in the House on November 2.
Holy mackerel! John Dingell (D-Michigan) trails GOP challenger by four points in Detroit. This in a city that has voted Democrat from 93% to 96% in the last three general elections.
