Michael Schaus | Oct 28, 2013 - Aside from the obvious objections to allowing the creators of Healthcare.gov [to] get more involved in the education of America’s youth, a new reason to resist the creepily altruistic “Common Core” curriculum has surfaced. New Common Core teaching materials instruct second graders that land owners are intrinsically evil, that business owners are inherently greedy, and Saul Alinsky radicals are the saviors of the everyman. (Besides – and I know this should seem pretty obvious – do you really want the architects of a 17 trillion dollar debt teaching our kids things like basic math?)
According to Fox news, a textbook company contracted to produce materials under Common Core State Standards is trying to teach students as young as second grade about economic fairness by praising unions, protests and labor leader Cesar Chavez, according to an education watchdog group.
. . .
In addition to reading a glowing biography of the Marxist labor leader, students will be asked to evaluate the “scales of fairness” between wealthy landowners, and lowly [non-union] workers.
“Fairness and equality exist when the scales are balanced,” teachers are prompted to instruct the students. They are then supposed to ask the students whether both sides, as presented in the plan, are equal, providing a correct answer of “no” in the teachers’ guide.
. . .Economic theories, wealth creation, John Smith’s concept of private property, market forces, and Chavez’s radicalism aside. . . There is still a pretty big question regarding why second graders would need to wrap their young brains around the concept of labor unions and so called “scales of fairness.” Quite frankly, putting any organized bureaucratic government agency in charge of disseminating such information to young children is chilling. And given the government’s tendency to view wealth creators merely as untapped tax-revenue sources, it’s unlikely that such lesson plans would be presented without anti-capitalistic bias.
Once again the common core standards illustrate a decidedly creepy intrusion of politics into education from the highest levels. While education has been largely consumed by leftist philosophies for some time, the danger of Common Core is that this absorption of political activism in the classroom will now be pushed from the Federal level.
. . . A painfully intense infringement on local control will await any districts that decide to adopt the Fed’s centrally planned concept of “education”.
. . .
Now with growing calls of concern over the website failures from the Democrats, and only after President Obama forced the government into a shut down to get his way, our petulant President is calling in the "best & brightest" to save the day!First Lady Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate is a top executive at the company that earned the contract to build the failed Obamacare website.
Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of ’85, is senior vice president at CGI Federal, which earned the no-bid contract to build the $678 million Obamacare enrollment website at Healthcare.gov. CGI Federal is the U.S. arm of a Canadian company.
Townes-Whitley and her Princeton classmate Michelle Obama are both members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni.
Toni Townes ’85 is a onetime policy analyst with the General Accounting Office and previously served in the Peace Corps in Gabon, West Africa. Her decision to return to work, as an African-American woman, after six years of raising kids was applauded by a Princeton alumni publication in 1998.
George Schindler, the president for U.S. and Canada of the Canadian-based CGI Group, CGI Federal’s parent company, became an Obama 2012 campaign donor after his company gained the Obamacare website contract.
As reported by the Washington Examiner in early October, the Department of Health and Human Services reviewed only CGI’s bid for the Obamacare account. CGI was one of 16 companies qualified under the Bush administration to provide certain tech services to the federal government. A senior vice president for the company testified this week before The House Committee on Energy and Commerce that four companies submitted bids, but did not name those companies or explain why only CGI’s bid was considered.
Amidst talks at the end of September about a government shutdown, the Obama Administration promised that the Affordable Care Act exchange websites would launch, as scheduled, on October 1st. The exchanges are the law's online marketplaces intended to enable consumers to sign up for the health insurance offered and regulated under the law.
In June of this year, critics of ObamaCare voiced their concerns that the exchange websites would not be ready by the October 1st deadline. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius dismissed those concerns, saying:
We have the next couple of months laid out with a very busy and engaged schedule to make sure that we're ready for the marketplace launch on Oct. 1, with open enrollment... It's a huge undertaking across the country, and I'm confident we're on track to get it done.Despite Secretary Sebelius' confidence, the much-anticipated website's launch was nothing short of a disaster. Within hours of its launch, the site was unavailable in many states, with error messages asking people to check back in a few hours. Site visitors across the country complained they were unable to create accounts, set up passwords, or fill out the necessary web-forms. During an on-air demonstration in early October, MSNBC reporters attempted to sign up for ObamaCare, but gave up when it became clear the website was not functioning.
According to Millward Brown Digital, out of 3.72 million people who attempted to register in the first week, only 36,000 people were able to successfully complete enrollment.
The cost of the exchange website was originally expected to be $94 million, but in true big-government fashion, has ballooned to $292 million. Perhaps more shocking, it was revealed in mid-October that the websites were built using 10-year old technology. So, thanks to the expert planning of the Department of Health and Human Services, taxpayers have to pay nearly $300 million for glitch-prone, outdated technology.
Technical glitches aside, the real ObamaCare meltdown is with the law itself.
Even before full implementation, the law, like the website, is already crashing and burning. The law has failed to live up to any of the promises that Democrats made in 2009 and 2010.
One of the most glaring broken promises is that ObamaCare was a "jobs bill." Then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously said in 2010 the health care bill would create 4 million jobs. Not only have those 4 million jobs failed to materialize, but now millions of Americans are witnessing the destruction of their 40-hour workweek or seeing their jobs disappear altogether. The law imposes higher fines for employers with 50 or more full-time employees, thus incentivizing businesses to scale back their hiring or move operations overseas.
When recently pressed about the destruction of the 40-hour workweek, Nancy Pelosi responded that the end of the 40-hour workweek is "a liberation" for the American people because they are now free to pursue their passions. Her "let them eat cake" elitism displays the profound disconnect between Washington, DC and the real world where Americans are struggling under ObamaCare.
Democrats also promised that ObamaCare would provide "universal" health insurance. In reality, even when fully implemented, the Congressional Budget Office expects approximately 30 million people will remain uninsured. That's a far cry from universal coverage.
Then there are the more serious broken promises, such as the ubiquitous promise that people would not lose their insurance. President Obama and Senate Democrats repeatedly made that claim when the bill was being debated in 2009. Just as many ObamaCare critics predicted three years ago, millions of Americans are now losing their insurance, either because their companies are dropping the plans and opting for the government-run exchanges, or because the plans are not "ObamaCare compliant" and the insurance companies are discontinuing them.
President Obama also promised early on that his signature health care law would reduce families' health insurance premiums by up to $2,500 per year. Many individuals who have managed to complete the exchange application have been shocked to learn that their premiums in the exchange would go up, in some cases as much as 300%. Those who are most affected, of course, are the younger, healthier people who will be forced to pay higher premiums to cover the costs of the chronically ill and older people.
It is no exaggeration to say that the exchanges are critical to the law's success. Without the exchanges, ObamaCare collapses.
The federal government, which was unable to build a functioning website – with three years and 300 million dollars – is the same government Americans are supposed to believe will be able to manage all aspects of their health care, from the insurance marketplace to setting prices for medical services.
Unlike the exchange website portals, which can be tweaked and improved, ObamaCare itself is an unmitigated disaster. The law is already wreaking havoc on America's economy, increasing health insurance prices, cancelling existing health insurance plans, and eroding Americans' job security.
Missed deadlines, blown budgets, and a failure to deliver. That describes more than the exchange websites; it is also true of the entire health care law's implementation. While the IT experts in DC scramble to get rid of the website's many bugs, serious reformers should recommit themselves to repealing this law before it does irreparable damage to the economy and health care industry.
------
Shonda Werry is a policy analyst and researcher in Washington, DC. She is a contributing editor to A Line of Sight.
WASHINGTON, October 22, 2013 — President Obama flunked as a TV pitchman and as President Monday. Everyone understood why that lady fainted.
“Operators are standing by to take your Obamacare calls.” But they weren’t.
Let’s face it. Carrier pigeons, the Pony Express and snail mail (with real snails) are all faster than the Obamacare website. No wonder President Obama urged everyone to bypass it.
President Obama should have been serious and contrite about a major problem. Instead, Obama joked that now the website will be fixed…because he’d told people that the problem made him mad.
His personal feelings are not our measuring stick. Only three weeks ago, he was boasting that Obamacare was ready to rock and condemning those who proposed delay.
Monday we heard a gimmicky speech and a sales pitch for a product that doesn’t work. Not just a website that doesn’t work and an 800 number that didn’t work either, but a product that doesn’t work. Millions of insurance cancellation letters and premium increase letters are testimony that the product itself doesn’t work.
There is a reason why all the other TV pitchmen give demonstations. Ginsu knives. Sham-Wow. Snuggies. Vegomatic.
Poor Barack Obama didn’t dare show his product onscreen. Imagine Ron Popeil or Billy Mays telling their audience what Obama did, “That product is working. It’s really good. And it turns out there’s a massive demand for it.”
But no proof. No demonstration. No numbers. Nothing about 99% premium increases or doubled deductibles and high co-pays. Not even the number of customers.
McDonald’s once kept a running tally on their signs, starting at 5 billion served and updated until they surpassed 100 billion. Now it’s just “billions and billions served.”
Obama will only tell us the traffic count, not the customer count: “So far, the national website, HealthCare.gov, has been visited nearly 20 million times.”
That’s probably a million people each trying twenty times to create an account. Iowa just proclaimed its first successful Obamacare customer. Edward Voss said it took him over 100 tries. In the Rose Garden, Obama was introduced by Janice Baker, Delaware’s first Obamacare enrollee. It took her seven hours and she had to bypass the website.
They should make a children’s book about people who somehow signed up for Obamacare. You could tell the kids, “See, there’s Waldo. But can you find the Obamacare enrollee?”
The White House keeps us confused about more than just numbers. What’s the difference between enroll, apply, sign up, register, and purchase when it comes to Obamacare? Is the process anything like signing up at Costco? Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius must think this is words with friends because they keep us guessing about each term. But they won’t answer questions.
For Obamacare, you have to create an account, be approved, submit financial data and find out whether you’ll get a taxpayer subsidy, all before you’re allowed to shop for a plan. Then you might put one in the cart to come back and buy later.
Keep it simple. Will they at least tell us the number of buyers? We might as well ask the launch codes for our nuclear arsenal.
The White House team play other tricks, too. For example:
- Blending state numbers with federal numbers. That lets them pretend the Obamacare exchanges are anything other than a bust.
- Pretending the only problems are computer glitches. Obamacare is inherently complex, costly and confusing. Just wait until we find out they’ve mis-allocated billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies. The website is not the real problem; it’s only a symptom. Obamacare itself is the problem.
- Claiming low premiums are the same as affordability. Or that a subsidized premium is a low premium. Premiums are only part of out-of-pocket costs under both individual and group policies, and both types are hit by Obamacare. Higher deductibles and higher co-pays are causing sticker shock, too; it’s not just the premiums. And Obama cherry picks abnormally-low examples to cite.
From the Rose Garden, Obama told us he would not sugarcoat the problem, then he proceeded to do just that. But one of the insiders who saw Obamacare put together, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini, told an interviewer it could take three years to fix the programming.
This cannot go on. When President Obama told us, “Nobody’s more frustrated than I am,” hands shot up in living rooms all across America. He has a lot of competition for that claim.
Obama has put himself in a corner by making Obamacare the driver of the federal budget, the symbol of government activism, and his sword against Republicans. Even on small things, he seems incapable of admitting his mistakes. But on something this enormous? So he continues to bluster in his usual way.
We are not talking about a $19.99 Vegomatic here; we’re talking about one-sixth of the American economy. But according to Obama, the problem has only progressed from a glitch to a kink. What’s next? A wrinkle?
The selective and slanted information being spooned out by the Administration is propaganda; but the information they’re concealing is now into the realm of coverup.
. . . Progressives expose their true nature when their slowly heated pot is categorically rejected by the frogs. The mirage of "politics as usual," bipartisanship, and collegiality lasts only as long as men acquiesce in their own enslavement. Of course, a little public disagreement here and there is good for progressive optics, as it perpetuates the comforting illusion of open debate. But what if that little disagreement turns into an all-out refusal to go gently into that good night?
This, as I've explained before, is the plausible path to conservative victory before the final collapse. Make no mistake about it: this is not a happy or short road, nor one embarked upon lightly. Dispensing with "politics as usual" means exactly what it says, and more. It means initiating and sustaining a strategy -- more than that, a life -- of continual resistance and provocation, i.e., of living as free men and women under authoritarian rule. And when progressives are provoked into extreme frustration, their rage knows no bounds. No bounds. For, mainstream mythology aside, we are not talking about a civil political faction here; we are talking about the ancient tyrannical impulse that, in its peculiar modern manifestation, has concealed itself in the garb of "democratic" civility, with horrific success. Strip off that finery and witness the old bloody thuggery of ages past. These people will not stand for serious, sustained opposition. They will crush it, by any means necessary.
And this may be the secret to their undoing, in the long run. To provoke them, through practical resistance and theoretical debunking, into doing and saying what they have spent a century pretending they would never do or say, is to expose their true nature for all to see. That nature has always been visible to eyes that examined the situation with enough philosophical and historical perspective to recognize power lust when they see it; but it is never fully understood by the broader, less informed public. If they can be forced to see it, the game will change decisively.
I am not predicting miracles, or even a high probability of success. There is probably no hope for the limp majority of modern man, which, being the product of generations of government education and mass media desensitization, will meekly plop itself into any vessel provided by the ruling class, and smile stupidly as the lid is closed. But there may be a substantial minority -- many more than are fully engaged now -- who will be shocked out of their detachment when they see what their leaders are really capable of doing.
This was the primary value of Ted Cruz's senate stand on ObamaCare, and the error of those who criticized his move as "unrealistic." (How has political "realism" been serving American conservatives lately? -- and by lately I mean the past century.) By helping to instigate another mass frog leap from within the pot, Cruz dragged his critics, the apologists for unlimited power, a little further into the cold light of day -- and that was just within his own party.
The government shutdown was precipitated largely by Cruz's last-ditch effort to defund ObamaCare, in tandem with an overwhelming outcry from voters facing the first ugly realities of life under socialized medicine, which combined to force the House of Representatives into acting principled for a moment. Within minutes, however, the call to defund was transformed by the GOP leadership into the rhetoric of "delay," and within a day, ObamaCare was essentially off the table, as the Boehner House transformed the shutdown into a debate over the debt ceiling. The whole episode was a microcosm of the way progressives of the "right" have sought to silence genuine advocates of liberty for more than a century (never forget that the first viable progressive party in the U.S. was led by a Republican, Theodore Roosevelt): pretend you represent their cause and will act as their spokesmen; mouth the right words while quietly compromising all the underlying principles; and finally change the subject entirely, all the while whimpering that you did the best you could under the circumstances. In sum: "Just relax in the warm water, dear frogs; we'll take it from here."
In the Senate, the sound of Republican pot lids slamming shut was even louder. From John McCain's shameful assault on Cruz's integrity to Mitch McConnell's capitulation masquerading as a "deal," the effort to marginalize and smear the tiny band of Senate patriots was one of the most overt attacks on constitutional conservatives the GOP establishment has ever attempted. And things are going to get uglier, as the gods of the simmering status quo, fronted by Karl Rove -- the "Architect" whose latest project is to design an impenetrable fortress to protect the GOP leadership -- have announced their nationwide plan to cut the Tea Party movement off at the knees, an effort far more comprehensive than anything attempted by Obama's IRS goon squad.
From McConnell's overt cynicism, to Boehner's sleight of hand in dropping ObamaCare from the agenda, to George Will's smearing of the Tea Party as a faction that doesn't understand or respect the institutions of government, the Republican establishment has announced its intentions and motivations as rarely before: they will not resist the fundamental transformation of the United States into the Democratic People's Republic of America. They believe they can thrive within that transformed nation, and that is their chief concern.
