You Can Work From Home

Sometimes perception is reality, and sometimes the numbers don't lie, yet once in a while, these two ago old sayings are at odds with one another.

Bush hosting Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon while on Vacation

The President is taking far too many vacations. That is to say, that not only is he away from the White house often, but to clarify with stating that he allows the affairs of state to come secondary to the his personal needs of relaxation and personal retreat.

Bush Vacationing
w/ Saudie Arabia's
Crown Prince Abdullah

I am not the first to come to this conclusion, and unsurprisingly, there are many who are quick and ready to defend the President by pointing out the numbers provided by Mark Knoller as the unofficial but widely trusted chronicler of data on Presidential travels and other day-to-day White House goings-on. The claim is, in summary, that Bush took many, many more vacations to his home ranch in Crawford Texas during his Presidency then Obama has taken during his. The numbers seem to tell us Bush, in direct comparison to Obama, is more at home wearing flip flops and squirting some SPF 50 on his schnoz.

By this logic, Gilligan and the Skipper should have been very well rested up after taking their three year vacation to an island.

Bush on Vaca with NATO General Jaab

Just because you are away from the White House does not put you on vacation. Sometimes this is obvious, say, when Nixon went to China back in 1972, it wasn't because Panda Express hadn't opened yet in the States. When Roosevelt went to Yalta, it wasn't cause he heard Russian beaches had better parties then the ones at Normandy. You can attend to the affairs of state from any location were and when the key players are present, and when people see you performing the duties of the President, their perception is that he is working, not playing golf (hypothetically of course.) I present to you several of the many available photo's of foreign heads of states being hosted by George W. Bush while in Crawford, scattered about this blog post. There are a dozen other hosting events not depicted. That does not include hostong dignitaries that are not head of state, Like NATO commander General Jaap. Or dragging along his entire cabinet for a week or two at a time.

Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi
visiting Bush while he's on Vacation

Show me the photo of the President putting with President Putin, or chipping with Chancellor Merkel and maybe you can start to excuse the fact that Obama has not surrendered one of his golf outings while American Troops and even an American General are killed in the line of duty. Or in the wake of an American being beheaded circulating the news channels. When Bush was chastised for simularly playing golf as families of veterans came home in caskets, he (almost) stopped golfing, and was chastised heavily when he got caught getting one more game in.

United Kingdom PM Tony Blair
checking out Bush's Vacation digs

Were are the pictures of Obama hosting the Ukrainian President at his ranch, or his villa, or his house, or his apartment. Unlike Bush, Obama doesn't have a singular location in which he goes to so he can be more himself. He was raised in Hawaii, Indonesia, and Chicago, yet only seems to return to most of those places as little more then a tourist. The only property he owns as an established living quarters is his Chicago home that is a mess of barricades that would be about as easy to secure from a potential threat as a high school cheerleaders virtue at a frat party.

And speaking of parties, now that we've looked a little closer at what Bush did on Vacation, let's take a closer look at what Obama does 'on the clock'...

Obama, while not on Vacation

• He far exceeds his predecessors on the number of fund raisers.
• The first sitting President to appear on a Late Night talk show.
• The first sitting President to visit a daytime talk show.
• The first President to make a live appearance during Super Bowl coverage.
• He has set the record for travel expenses, even accounting for inflation.

These appearances and fundraisers are what he considers to be part of his job. It's hard to justify their frequency with any other rationale. Take that the photo of him there with David Letterman occurred while Obama was in New York just before a UN general assembly where he met with exactly zero heads of states. But, of course, had time for another fundraiser with Jay-Z and Beyonce. Also, not considered a vacation.

Go ahead and say all that Bush did was go on vacation. Personally, I would look to a leader who got something done while on vacation over a leader who thinks it's his job to travel around and meet celebrates on the tax payers dime.

(Lack of) Leadership During a Crisis

During the 'Recovery Summer' of 2010, President Obama took his 6th vacation as President in less then 2 years.

Israeli Prime Minister requests an audience with President Obama amid escalation in the Middle East. Obama declines and instead goes on David Letterman.

He then passed on an opportunity to meet with world leaders to meet instead with the ladies of the View.

When our Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods, and Glen Doherty were killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi, the President took the following day to head to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

As the border crisis broke out, the President headed west. Not to the border, but to a Colorado bar to play pool and drink with the Governor.

Russia invades the Ukraine while the President declares it happy hour.

When the bombs dropped in Iraq, the President headed off in Marine-One. Not to the Pentagon, but to the golf course for 18 holes of golf.

As Ferguson, MO struggled with another night of unrest, the President's press conference on the matter was delivered, not from the Rose Garden, but from a makeshift location near his exclusive Martha's Vineyard vacation home.

UPDATE: Was Obama playing golf during the funeral of a Major General?

Crisis that face the American people don't have access to your day planner. His lack of experience managing, administrating, and leading is only all too highlighted when people look to the person they elected to give them direction, and a proverbial 'Gone Fishing' sign is in the place where we would expect to find a mature, tempered force that would reassure us.

Please, put down the beer and get off the golf course Mr. President. Are you that blind to how awful this looks? Is your golf game that important? We don't have the luxury of leaving for the weekend when our businesses are struggling. We don't have the luxury of ignoring the feelings of those that rely on us for leadership when we are needed most. 

It’s understandable that Obama would want to get away from it all, but for a president struggling to build support for his foreign policy, vacationing during a crisis is negligent and a display of disinterest.

Step up and lead, or step aside and let someone else. America deserves better. 

Foreign Policy Is A Joke (No Really, They Are All Laughing!)

You know at some point this stuff just is pathetic. This entire administration should be taking a moment to look itself in the mirror and give itself a serious pep-talk and calling a help line of some sort. This, after the press openly laughs at comments made by State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki after she claimed President Barack Obama “Doesn’t give himself enough credit for what he’s done around the world.”

Reporters clearly found her statement questionable and followed up with several questions about the president’s foreign policy. The questions seemed to be focused on the specific point of "What?".

One reporter asked the audacious question this way, "For What?" by which he means, what does Obama specifically deserve credit for regarding foreign policy? Psaki cited his accomplishments like; engagement initiatives like Iran, the U.S. involvement in Ukraine, efforts to dive in and engage around the world.

Her answer led yet another reporter to point out that “Russia has still annexed Crimea” and there has been very little success in dealing with Iran. Watching the video, it doesn't take long for Ms. Psaki to react to the rooms chuckling in a manner that makes you think someone just made a dirty pun about penetrating the back end of our allies but doesn't yet realize what they said came across as hilarious.

 

The question is asked, does the President give himself enough credit for his foreign policy successes? Well, the state department attempted to answer that question and the press openly mocked them. I'd say that's an opening vote of 'NO!'. It's been years since Obama's greatest (and arguably easiest decision of his Presidency) foreign policy accomplishment of slaying of Bin Laden. Since then we have seen Syria gassing, Libya revolting, Russia annexing, and China boating. Well, I've give him a little leeway, after all he's been very busy with his schedule.

Worst Boss Ever

Last week, the DNC proposed a bumper sticker showing Obama with the phrase 'Like a Boss'.

Let's make this clear. Obama is not 'Like a Boss'. 

In the real world, successful bosses hold people accountable and accept responsibility when something goes wrong. A successful boss doesn't rely on the independent media of keeping him appraised to the comings and goings of Washington when his own phone that he brags about so much could get him the answers, and accountability, that a boss would demand.

There is a common underlying theme whenever one of these stories breaks that center around a nightmarish trifecta of absence of leadership, abuse of power, and rhetoric that never holds anyone accountable.

At this point you start looking over the docket of programs whose expenses have began to skyrocket and you start to take the cynical view of "What is going to be the next scandal?" Government programs are sky-rocketing; Tracfone (Obama-phone) usage, food-stamp usage, medicaid expansion, welfare expansion, and the number of people on disability all have sky-rocketed both in the wake of the '08 financial crisis, and continue to expand and inflate during this "recovery" that is on it's 6th year with no real indication that we will ever return to pre-crisis levels of employment.

Indeed, Obama is following the same pattern of crisis management he’s used for all of his scandals. Ignore all the warnings until they can no longer be ignored because someone on cable news actually read a report from the Investigator General. Then express stunned outrage. Promise accountability after a full investigation – but make clear, no action can be taken until the investigation is complete. Use this time to hold up investigations and clam up the people in the know. Perhaps fire another temporary administrator who was months away from retiring, or crack down on whistleblowers, and ignore inquiries from Congress, pointing out the stone walled investigation proves that there is nothing wrong. Six months later, when most Americans have moved on to other things, calling them “phony scandals.”

And when something is too difficult to address using the power of the White House, use social media.

But the scandals keep coming. The administrations 'wait for the storm to pass over' approach is seemingly always met with another report, another audit, or another FOIA that reveals another scandal, or picks open the scab of an older one. As many people begin to question our governments ability to accomplish things from collecting taxes to running hospitals, the only action this President can seem to take is to drum up another round of ways he can make things better. Seemingly oblivious to the lives and wealth that are being destroyed at rates that even twenty four hour news has trouble pacing.

No, there is no real aspect of this President that is 'Like a Boss'. Even a bad boss would lash out and flex his or her power and authority in some poorly thought out manner. One could suppose that "I have a pen, and I have a phone." was an attempt at such a maneuver. No, who we have sitting in the White House today is your 'just-getting-by' 9 to 5 employee. Who shows up 5 minutes late to meetings, take an extra 20 minutes for lunch, spends his afternoons watching YouTube when he should be writing reports. Then when the project is due he looks to his co-workers to bail him out. Uses terms like "We're 99% done" for 3 weeks in a row, and can be seen around the water cooler every morning from for the same 45 minute interval, talking about his plans for the weekend.

Obama isn't like a boss, he's like that prick from work everyone goes home at night and complains about to their spouse. Every office has one, if not more, and somehow we made him the President.

Someone Should Call the Cops

Syria is using chemical weapons, Russia is re-establishing the USSR, China is disputing Japanese claims to waters in the South China Sea, and even Iran has warships en route to our shores.

It reads like the introduction to a superhero movie, or an episode of 24, or a summary of the entire plot of Team America: World Police.

There is only one small problem, Team America does't appear to want to be the World Police anymore.

Since World War II, the United States has assumed the position 'guarantor of world order' and the 'enforcer of global rules'. Whenever a threat to world peace or stability has emerged such as in 1991 Kuwait or 1998 Kosovo or 2002 Afghanistan or even the 'lead from behind' route taken in 2011 Libya. In any of these instances, if the U.S. had not acted, nothing would have been done to combat tyrants and terrorists.

That argument that it is the responsibility for the United States to take action has hit a roadblock. The American people are not interested in playing that role any more. In truth, Americans have never been enthusiastic about assuming the burden of global leadership. We didn't get into World War I until the final year of war. We entered World War II only after we were bombed by the Japanese two years after the war started. And especially after the Vietnam conflict, it is hard for the American people to take an interest in the affairs of other nations.

This is reflected in the political standings of our politicians too. Democrats are quicker to abdicate this responsibility to international groups such as the UN. Where as the Republican party has been historically up to the task of being the muscle in foreign policies. Now, the political landscape is shifting on the Republican's side, where ever louder subsets of libertarians and tea party members promote policies that include limited government and non-intervention all the way to reducing our global military presence. 

In all of this we are trying to answer one fundamental question; Is it in our best interests to expend our resources to promote our agenda in other countries? The resolve of one who believes in the blanketing 'You leave us alone and we'll leave you alone' is tested greatly when we see a democratic republic like the Ukraine invaded by an embolden President Putin. The fear of the such a large portion of the globe falling into a limited number of ruling countries is a valid fear that has lead America into almost every prior war. The person who wants to accept the duty of being the worlds police and draw a line in the sand must be prepared to defend that line with capital of money and blood. 

For years we enjoyed the relative peace of a world that did not question the U.S.'s resolve to stand up for democracy and against tyranny in all forms, so long as certain criteria are met. We paid it forward in World War II and other battles, but our copiousness of respect appears to be running on empty.

  

What is, then, the correct answer? The current establishment's stance is easy enough to figure out. Cut the military, take no action in Syria, and threaten to not attend a G8 shin dig if Russia doesn't stop expanding their empire. Until the next election cycle we are not going to answer the 911 calls of the world anymore. In my opinion, this is one of the stupidest things we could allow to happen. The unfortunate thing about the Ukraine take over is that it is too late. Ukraine is not in the EU, they are not a member of NATO, we have no direct ties that would allow us to take a any tangible stance to stop Russia from doing exactly what it is that they are doing. Foreign policy is a chess match and Putin just placed us in check. Chalk this one up to failing to see this coming, despite the warnings of Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney during the last 2 presidential election cycles. This was nothing more then a brazen lack of foresight, and a weak foreign policy stance from our President.

America's roll for the next generation may be decided in the next few weeks. Our next move needs to be one that is proactive that places Russia back on the defensive. Establish new and public trade partnerships with former block countries that are practicing democracy and promote more policies that allow countries like Georgia, Belarus, and Romania to become independently wealthy and more appealing to EU or NATO membership. Then, we need to start promoting non-American-centric alliances, such as the African Union. Despite it's flaws, that union provides the avenue for regions to be more self policing and will, over time, alleviate the burden that we currently bear too much of. But, the most important policy change that we can implement that would prevent such an emboldened move from occurring again? Stop punting on enforcement of items that we have already stated our stance on. Case and point, Syria. He stated clearly that the use of chemical weapons was not to be tolerated, he stated clearly that we have proof that Syria was in fact using chemical weapons. Our response to date? Nothing, we allow ourselves to be stone walled and played for fools. No doubt to the chagrin of allies like Japan, South Korea, and Israel, who are largely dependent on us to deter action from countries like China, North Korea, or Iran. 

That is my conclusion, the end game needs to be a world that relies much less on us to take direct action, but we are making wrong move after wrong move to achieve anything even close to such a world. We can neither make one single sweeping move to suddenly become spectators in the world and abdicate our duties that we have already signed onto, nor can we continue in perpetuity the ever increasing cost of becoming a formidable fighting force for not only ourselves but scores of other countries.

Is it a thin line to follow? Yes. It will require some scale ups and scale downs periods of our military forces by region over time, a couple decades to get to a point where we have a powerful central force located within our borders and several quick response teams designed to work in conjuncture with a pacific alliance groups and European alliance groups. At this time, however, we have established that we are dangerously far off that line to the side of spectator, it is time to swing back to the side of being the worlds police until we can get the international structure needed to allow the proper winding down of our duties as a nation who has taken on too many responsibilities in the world.

2014 SOTU: The Next Day

The awareness creeps into me like a unwelcome relative inviting themselves over for dinner. My body tells me that sleep will find me again soon but the pounding in my head acts as a repellent for any sense of tranquility. The checklist of where I was and what I was doing before sleep conquered me last night is pulled out of the deep filing cabinet that is my memory and I begin to start a review while to any observer my body appears to be no better off then the sack of manure it feels like.

There was booze, holy f*** there was a lot of booze, god d*** how many bottles? I'll find out when I make it to the kitchen, since I can't imagine I was ever in a state where cleaning up after myself would have occurred to me. There was someone else in the room with me. A guy who seems so familiar yet I know I never met him. D*** this throbbing in my head, if I could just focus my thoughts for a few seconds and remember where that face is familiar from I know everything else would fall squarely into place. That face, and that voice...

State of the Union 2014, The Next Day...

A couple of alka-seltzer to help the stomach and a couple of aspirin to help the head give me the constitution of body to make it to the living room. The scene looks like scene out of a James Patterson novel. Scribbles of paper litter the floor and streaks of liquor splatter the walls, signs of bottles being thrown in rage trigger memories for the first time since leaving the warm comfort of the bed;

Why is he taking credit for his green energy initiatives and then admits it's natural gas fracking that is making us energy independent?
Did he just say that is congress makes a statement against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, he will stand with Iran?
Why does he continue to brag about cutting the deficit in half when this deficit is stall larger then any one Obama didn't preside over since World War II?
Why does he continue to push for free trade with countries who have a fraction of the regulation we do?
Why would the congress applaud the line 'I will not wait on congress to take action!'?

My nose is assaulted by the stale scent of vomit that was caused from having to bear through over an hour of recycled ideas for improving the state of things being served up the night before. Even remembering them now makes my empty stomach turn in on itself;

Why haven't we closed these obviously unpopular tax loopholes you ran against in 2008 for companies that export jobs overseas yet?
How many more years will we still be 'winding down' operations in Afghanistan?
When he couldn't get his minimum wage raised to $9/hour last year, what makes him think that going for a number over 12% higher this year would work better?
Why do you finish up touting years of success for your 'Race to the Top' program, only to proceed with a call to do more, because we are still falling in education rankings?

The one parchment of paper that seems to have been spared from the mess is a listing of rules for a drinking game complete with chicken scratches noting a count based on the number of times choice words were used.

Middle-Class: 5 marks
Minimum Wage: 3 marks

That doesn't seem like much drinking, It's almost like the speech itself, and not the alcohol, was what made me so sick...

State of the Union: Prediction Follow Up

Let's take a look here and see how I did on my little wager on the State of the Union;

1. He will still refer to the economy as being in a state of recovery, despite the fact the recession ended almost 5 years ago.

"The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by – let alone get ahead. And too many still aren't working at all."

That was an easy one, to deny it would admit that he's fixed all the problems left by Bush. I mean come on, he's only had 5 years.

2. He will call for a raise in the minimum wage.... again. Referencing a living wage for a single parent household, even though a living wage for a single parent raising two kids is closer to $30/hour then the proposed $10.

"Tom Harkin and George Miller have a bill to fix that by lifting the minimum wage to $10.10. It's easy to remember -- ten-ten."

And yes, he made a reference to someone who gets paid $10.10 as not living in poverty.

3. He will propose new spending on something.

"And as we reform our defense budget, we have to keep faith with our men and women in uniform, and invest in the capabilities they need to succeed in future missions."

You don't need details on what kind of capabilities, if you oppose my initiatives, you are anti-military!

4. He will call for more availability of absentee voting, despite recent video of Democratic activists talking about the ease of using voter absentee ballots fraudulently.

"Conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats are working together to strengthen it; and the bipartisan commission I appointed last year has offered reforms so that no one has to wait more than a half hour to vote."

Arguably not a very direct reference, but his committee did stress early voting, a lot.

5. He won't mention anything about the disarming deal with Syria. (At least not from any accountable or actionable perspective)

"American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, is why Syria’s chemical weapons are being eliminated, and we will continue to work with the international community to usher in the future the Syrian people deserve,"

It was a fleeting nod that defiantly does not meet the criteria of something tangible or any call to action or anything resembling an actual update on the situation considering Syria was supposed to begin disarming "Totally and immediately". Any honest review of this deal makes it obvious it's not going well. 

6. He will propose new spending on something else.

"And if Congress wants to help, you can concentrate funding on proven programs that connect more ready-to-work Americans with ready-to-be-filled jobs."

Ready-to-be-filled? Filled in with that shovel over there perhaps? <snark>

7. He will make some snide reference to the bickering and gridlock in Washington being partly to blame for the Affordable Care Act Obamacare Affordable Care Act roll out failures.

"But let’s not have another forty-something votes to repeal a law that’s already helping millions of Americans like Amanda. The first forty were plenty. We got it."

That got a pretty hearty laugh for a response.

8. He will brag about deficit reduction.

"Our deficits – cut by more than half.And for the first time in over a decade,"

Even a half sized Obama deficit is larger then any other President's deficit since World War II.

9. He will propose new spending on something, that will not add one dollar/dime/cent to the deficit.

"We’ve got a down payment to start connecting more than 15,000 schools and twenty million students over the next two years, without adding a dime to the deficit."

You may have me that this was proposed last year, but considering the extreme lack of any new initiatives in this State of the Union, I think you have to give me this one.

And Lastly;

10. He will say "The state of the union is getting stronger."

"Tonight, this chamber speaks with one voice to the people we represent: it is you, our citizens, who make the state of our union strong."

Ok, this one was a nice little trick. The President dodged answering the question of how the state of the Union actually is, and instead focused specifically on positive elements that hold the key to make this country strong. 

If I'm grading my own paper, I'd give myself a 9/10. To bad, I'm pretty sure the minimum donation on a tax form is $2 <snark snark>.

State of the Union Predictions

The 2014 State of the Union address is right around the corner. Last year, I watched with two flavors of margarita's in hand. It was a swig of Peach Margarita for 'Jobs', and Classic Margarita for 'Fair Share'. This year the buzzwords are going to be 'Minimum Wage' and 'Middle Class', still deciding on the drinks, Thinking a two fisted beer venture with  Black Lager and Belgium White or some combination that celebrates diversity in an horribly inappropriate manner. Wish me luck, if you want to do the complete State of the Union drinking game, check out the rules here.

But, what makes politics better then drinking? Drinking while Gambling! I've decided that for each one of my predictions that I get wrong below, I'm going to donate $1 on my tax forms where it asks if I want to donate any money to a political party. Of course I'm offended by this option on tax forms and don't actually plan on doing this, that's why I've made some pretty sure bets on what Obama will touch base on and what he won't. Check back in next week to see how I did. (Not too soon, I'll probably need some time to recover.)

1. He will still refer to the economy as being in a state of recovery, despite the fact the recession ended almost 5 years ago.

2. He will call for a raise in the minimum wage.... again. Referencing a living wage for a single parent household, even though a living wage for a single parent raising two kids is closer to $30/hour then the proposed $10.

3. He will propose new spending on something.

4. He will call for more availability of absentee voting, despite recent video of Democratic activists talking about the ease of using voter absentee ballots fraudulently.

5. He won't mention anything about the disarming deal with Syria. (At least not from any accountable or actionable perspective)

6. He will propose new spending on something else.

7. He will make some snide reference to the bickering and gridlock in Washington being partly to blame for the Affordable Care Act Obamacare Affordable Care Act roll out failures.

8. He will brag about deficit reduction.

9. He will propose new spending on something, that will not add one dollar/dime/cent to the deficit.

And Lastly;

10. He will say "The state of the union is getting stronger."

The Obama Tense

Was the President manning up for the shortcomings and downright misses of Obama care yesterday, or was he trying to shift the blame for this debacle onto scapegoats and enemies of his signature legislation? Let's break apart his comments and see if we can shed some light as to who he holds accountable for this experiment, shall we?

"I think everybody understands that I’m not happy about the fact that the rollout has been, you know, wrought with a whole range of problems that I've been deeply concerned about."

Point for manning up, he admits that things aren't going right and states his concern over that. But note the lack of possessiveness in regard to the rollout. 

"The problems of the website have prevented too many Americans from completing the enrollment process, and that’s on us, not on them"

Ok, slight shifting of gears as 'I' has now become 'us', but he's still making a clear distinction that this is his, I mean their fault.

"So bottom line is in just one month, despite all the problems that we’ve seen with the website, more than 500,000 Americans could know the security of health care by January 1st."

Now he's trying to paint the numbers in a better light, despite the 7+ million Americans this is intended to help initially and the 4+ million who got hurt by the law, the fact that we have about 4% of them covered now is deserving of some praise. We could go off for hours about the expenses and misrepresenting of numbers this reflects, but for now let's just accept this as Obama's attempt at a silver lining.

"It’s gotten a lot better over the last few weeks than it was on the first day, but we’re working 24/7 to get it working for the vast majority of Americans in a smooth, consistent way."

Now it's we who are implementing the fixes, it's 'we' when it comes fixing things, but 'the' website is still without a possessor. Not 'my' website or 'our' website, just 'the' website. 

"The other problem that has received a lot of attention concerns Americans who’ve received letters from their insurers that they may be losing the plans they bought in the old individual market"

Again, the problem isn't 'his' or 'our' problem, just 'the' problem. But the letters cancelling plans came from the insurance companies. Avoids saying the insurance companies cancelled the plans, but be backdoors the blame by saying the letters are all on the insurance companies.

"Now, as I indicated earlier, I completely get how upsetting this can be for a lot of Americans, particularly after assurances they heard from me that if they had a plan that they liked they could keep it. And to those Americans, I hear you loud and clear. I said that I would do everything we can to fix this problem. And today I’m offering an idea that will help do it."

Ok, the switching from who is ensuring a fix, but then placating who's fix it is, back to who's idea the fix is with the changing of 'I' to 'we' back to 'I' is getting a little hard to follow. "I said that I would do everything we can"

"And today I’m offering an idea that will help do it... Today we’re going to extend that principle both to people whose plans have changed since the law too effect and to people who bought plans since the law took effect."

Let me be clear, this is my idea, you're welcome, but other people are going to have to make it happen, so if it doesn;t work, then I can blame them on implementing it, but if it does work in placating the people, it was totally my idea.

"State insurance commissioners still have the power to decide what plans can and can’t be sold in their states"

Blame the States if this doesn't work.

"Now, this fix won’t solve every problem for every person, but it’s going to help a lot of people. Doing more will require work with Congress."

Blame Congress if this doesn't work.

"We’re also requiring insurers to extend current plans to inform their customers"

Blame Insurers if this doesn't work.

"If your received one of these letters I’d encourage you to take a look at the marketplace. Even if the website isn’t working as smoothly as it should be for everybody..."

Ok, this line doesn't even make sense. He's trying to put blame on individuals themselves while acknowledging that it may not be possible for those individuals to do anything about it.

"It is important to understand, though, that the old individual market was not working well. And it’s important that we don’t pretend that somehow that’s a place worth going back to."

Call up Websters, the word 'well' is now defined to mean 'the way that Obama wants it to'.

"And that’s why I will not accept proposals that are just another brazen attempt to undermine or repeal the overall law and drag us back into a broken system."

He spent almost a whole day coming up with these fixes, and all you haters who've known for years that this is exactly what would happen don't appreciate the amount of thinking this great man put in to these new never debated laws and regulations that pretty much contradict several provisions that are in the law with the language that it was 'voted' on with. 

I could go on and on for a while, but the bottom line is that Obama's plan is to empower everyone else to try and fix this debacle of a law with not enough time for any of them to actually create and implement a fix is like Coach Obama telling his quarterback to win a game by throwing a 90 yard hail mary pass while only sending one wide receiver deep in a game that you are down by 9 points. You can make it look pretty dramatic, but in the end, there is no realistic way that you are going to fix this thing at this point. The American people are just going to have to keep doing what they always do, persevere despite all the attempts of this government to stop us.

Presidential Apology

Here it is, it has finally arrived! The thing that so many politicians, pundits, and people on the right have been pleading for for months. No, not a viable presidential candidate, an apology from the President.

"I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me. We've got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and that we're going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this." - Barrack Obama 11/7/13

Doesn't that just smooth everything over, giving you the feeling like you are trying to order an ice cream treat with your favorite mix in. After you receive the treat and try it, you realize it was made with Heath bar instead of your favorite Nestle Crunch bar. The employee insists there is nothing they can do for you, you ask for a manager, you explain to the manager of this restaurant that you ordered the Nestle Crunch ice cream treat but they made it incorrectly, you discuss the clear difference between the two treats and that you can see the container of the correct mix over on the counter and that if you would just try again everything could be peachy keen. To which the manager retorts with the line "I'm sorry you feel that way..."

It's not an apology. Not in the sense of a person being truly sympathetic and wanting to make amends. When the answer is so blatantly clear, but just seems an impossible fantasy to the one person with the power to enact it. The President's verbiage is selected because he thinks that it's what people want to hear, when in reality all they want is ice cream. a solution.

He's "sorry" Americans "find themselves in a tough position"? Excuse me Mr. President, who is driving this proverbial bus that went through the drive through at 'Salads and Stuff' when they thought they were going to McDonalds? Though to complete that analogy the bus would have to loose about 5 wheels and burst into flames before arriving at either location to more accurately describe the situation with HeathCare.gov. Folks aren't "finding" themselves anywhere except where you led them. And "the situation" they're in isn't "based on assurances they got from me." It's based on the law that you prefaced your entire legacy on.

The other aspect of this that scares me senseless is the continued downplay of who this all effects. He seems to be buffered by the fact that while 10+ million Americans are being effected by this, the vast majority of Americans have this sense that this just doesn't apply to them. The person in line behind you at the aforementioned restaurant is thinking "Sure, I can plainly see that you obviously ordered one thing and got another, but that won't apply to me because I'm ordering off the dinner menu, not the dessert menu.".

(Just so we are all clear, the dessert menu being the individual marketplace, and the dinner menu being the employer based markets. Got it? Good.)

It's the same stinking restaurant people! Your best bet is that between the time that I stomp away from the counter and you take that long stride up to try and fill your order, that somehow the staff feel the pressure of not wanting to screw up two orders in a row. Of course this requires the acknowledgement from the staff, and the manager, that the screw up was on their end to begin with.

Scroll up and watch the President's apology again. Who made the mistake? Are they going to make it right for you? Is it unacceptable behavior? Is he sorry he screwed up, or, is he sorry that you are mad about it?

I do believe there is a part of him that is sorry, he's sorry that people are loosing the argument to defend this bill. Premiums are not going down, people are not being grandfathered because they were content with their current coverage, and the website is still not functioning 5 weeks after it's launch. He's sorry that his supporters will have no answer for people currently covered being left behind after January 1st because the alternative plan that the ACA was supposed to present them won't be available. I think he is sorry that many people will start looking at him in a new light, that the luster of the celebrity in chief could be tarnished, and that his shortcomings as a leader may finally be realized. And that the blame will not be able to be placed on anyone other then himself. For this, he may truly be sorry.

Benghazi Facts That Make You Go "Hmmmm...."

While watching the Walking Dead last night, I happened to take a peak at my G+ feed and saw the buzz of activity over a 60 Minutes report on Benghazi that includes more than a year of investigative reporting. There was a sense that this was going to be a 'gotcha' angle to the story. I was expecting a new memo being discovered, a shadowed person speaking through a voice changer that makes them sound like the villain from Saw, they would tell the public about the origin of the stand down order before being flown to a second world countries consulate. I hoped for something that would make this story really gain the legs it's so rightfully deserved.

But the report does little more then tell us what we've known since those terrible attacks over a year ago. The big reveal was an interview with a British security officer who used a pseudonym of Morgan Jones who revealed an interesting fact in that he noticed the black flags of al Qaeda flying openly in the streets of Benghazi. 60 Minutes was able to confirm this in a later cable from Chris Stevens: "the al Qaeda flag has been spotted several times flying over government buildings."

Beyond that this story didn't add a whole lot to what we already know, lots of online chatter, open threats, numerous opportunities once again missed to foresee these attacks and nothing done either prior or during the attack in order to save American lives. No real new information about where President Obama or then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were the night of these attacks and any indication as to whether they heard earlier warnings but ignored them. And how the entire narrative of blaming an anti-Islamic YouTube video ever got started.

Now many of us are left debating if CBS was just feeding us what we wanted in a ratings grab, or if the totality of the lies coming out of the administration finally dawned on members of the media, maybe it was intentionally lacking any new revelation to allow Press Secretary Jay Crney the line of "We've already discussed this in great detail", or perhaps they are now joining the President in not learning about items until the media reports on them, and since 60 Minutes is part of the media, they got lodged in some horrible math paradox of which came first, the report or the knowledge that there was a report. Either way after a year long investigation many of us are still left unsatisfied in accounting for the mistakes that cost lives.

Morgan Jones from The Walking Dead

Wait a minute, Morgan Jones? But I was just watching the Walking Dead, this sh*t just got weird....

maybe it really was zombies...

Reviewing Obama's Economic "Plan"

If you blinked Monday afternoon, you would have missed President Obama’s brief – very brief – comments on the deadly mass shooting unfolding just down the street from where he stood to give a previously scheduled speech that turned into a brutal attack on Republicans over the economy.

And later, a clueless Jay Carney came out to say that not only did the White House never once consider cancelling the president’s speech as people lay dead at the Navy Yard and a frantic man hunt was underway by every law enforcement agency in town, but he defended the president’s GOP bashing, complete with a backdrop of Americans who are hurting while Americans were being shot just down the road as "entirely appropriate today for the president to talk about.”

But then it was a pivot to the more important news for the Obama administration: the looming budget showdown with the GOP who are threatening a government shutdown. Using this forum as an opportunity to once again not rally support for his proposals within congress, but rather to raise support for his lack of a vision from the masses of the people by wagging his finger at Republicans. Below are some of the lines of attack and general confusion that Obama used;

"...And in our personal lives, I think a lot of us understand that people have tightened their belts, shed debt, refocused on the things that really matter..." Because that's what smart people do when times are tough.
"...we put in place tough new rules on big banks, rules that we need to finalize before the end of the year..." New rules put in place before they were finished?

"Because even though our businesses are creating new jobs and have broken record profits, the top 1 percent of Americans took home 20 percent of the nation’s income last year, while the average worker isn’t seeing a raise at all." Classic class warfare, implying that when rich people make money, it's not possible for you to better your own situation.

"...the trends that have taken hold over the past few decades of a winner-take-all economy, where a few do better and better and better, while everybody else just treads water or loses ground..." In case there was any doubt of the previous point. Does he really believe everyone else is stagnant because the wealthy are doing well? He already has the most progressive tax system in decades.

"And as Congress begins another budget debate, that’s what Congress should be focused on." Not Benghazi, Syria, Putin, the IRS, the NSA, but the budget.

"The problem is, at the moment, Republicans in Congress don’t seem to be focused on how to growth economy and build the middle class." Democrats questioning Syria and the NSA don't count.

"...I am still hoping that a light bulb goes off here." That's it, win them over with kind words.

"So far, their budget ideas revolve primarily around even deeper cuts to education, even deeper cuts that would gut America’s scientific research and development, even deeper cuts to America’s infrastructure investment -- our roads, our bridges, our schools our energy grid. These aren’t the policies that would grow the economy faster." The Republicans obviously didn't get the memo about the deceit magically stopping, so why are they still so worked up over reducing government spending when it's so obvious that all this spending is making everything so awesome?

"So I do believe we should cut our programs that we don’t need. We need to fix ones that aren’t working the way they’re supposed to or have outlived their initial mission. We’ve got to make government faster and more efficient." Interesting, that's the way some people would describe the Department of Education.

"But that’s not what is being proposed by the Republican budgets. Instead of making necessary changes with a scalpel, so far at least, Republicans have chosen to leave in place the so-called sequester cuts that have cost jobs, harmed growth, are hurting our military readiness." Again, way to win some friends and support, I also thought the only reversal of sequester cuts that passed was proposed by.... wait for it... Republicans!

And top independent economists say this has been a big drag on our recovery this year. Our economy’s not growing as fast as it should, and we’re not creating as many jobs as we should because the sequester’s in place." Are these the same economist that predicted the 'Recovery Summer' of 2010 with employment falling to 6%?

"So, if Republicans want the economy to grow faster, create more jobs faster, they should want to get rid of <the sequester>. It’s irresponsible to keep it in place." Everyone get that? Sequestor bad and it's the Republicans fault! Can we get to the 2014 election now?

"After all the progress that we’ve made over these past four-and- a-half years, the idea of reversing that progress because of an unwillingness to compromise or because of some ideological agenda is the height of irresponsibility" Translates to 'This economy will fail if we stop spending $4 Trillion dollars a year in Washington, and the only solution is to spend more.'

"These folks standing behind me, these are people who are small business owners; people who almost lost their home; young people trying to get a college education. And all of them went through some real tough times during the recession." And if you look behind them, you may see some of the slaughtered people that are dying just down the street as I speak.

"Having said that, I cannot remember a time when one faction of one party promises economic chaos if it can’t get 100 percent of what it wants. That’s never happened before. But that’s what’s happening right now." Says the guy that gets what he wants from congress over 97% of the time.

I could go through the entire speech and get really nit picky, but suffice to say the only plans he proposed are 1.) cancel the sequester and 2.) spend more on domestic initiatives, namely education and infrastructure. Basically get us back to the hay day to the Keynesian spending spree of 2009 that arguably made things 'not as bad as they could have been' because apparently 5 years of trying to climb out of this mess can be derailed as something as simple as a maxed out credit card. 

In case you missed the real intent of this speech, it was to lay the entire blame of all the countries problems at the feet of the Republicans in the ramp up to the 2014 election. The idea that the issues with this country are far exceeding funding for school lunch programs and budget deadlines seems to elude this President about as broadly as the Oscar for Lindsey Lohan.

The Correct Way To Attack, I Mean Uphold International Law

Should the US go to war with, errr.. I mean, be authorized to use force, against, ummm... I mean 'display in a non-threatening way a show of influence that will have no effect on al-Assad's ability to wage war except for the specific instance and circumstance in which we choose cause we're awesome like that', in Syria?

I remember being quite convinced by the end of this presentation

The correct answer is yes, but only after a series of steps are followed that ironically enough, were laid out pretty clearly in the run up to the Iraq War. First, the presentation of evidence to both the international community as well as the world public of the evidence that we currently have. I would like to see something from the UN or an official charge presented to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Much like Secretary Colin Powell's presentation in February of 2003 that left little doubt in the worlds minds at the time, though leaves some bad taste in our mouths years later, as most wars do after being left in the sun for more then 6 years.

We then need an international condemnation and steps for recompense for the act, such as with UN resolution 1441. Then the step that Obama seems giddy with, gathering authorization to use force from congress if Syria does not comply with the international demands. Because even though the traditional 'Act of War' concept appears to be as trendy as Bill Clinton's sense of shame, the idea that one man in this country can attack another country without any direct provocation is truly scary. I understand precedence for a quick reactionary strike in retaliation when a country and regime disregards our or the worlds will, but I think the window for something quick and decisive in this case has long since passed and was passed on when the President said that we would do due diligence in making sure this was a violation of chemical weapons use.

We then issue an ultimatum for al-Assad to step aside if he does not adhere to international will, similar to the Arab nation call in March of 2003, just prior to our invasion, by which of course I mean non-meaningful not war like-in-any-way tiny military action.

Even with all the build up and buy in, George W. Bush was still regarded by a large portion of the world, with about as much respect as a Rodney Dangerfield punchline, for going to war with a country that did not pose an imminent threat. Even though Iraq was the first to use chemical weapons against a neighboring country for the first time in decades, invaded another country, Kuwait, for which it failed to live up to it's terms of surrender once we liberated Kuwait by denying UN inspectors into the country for 5 years prior to the build up to war. And this was after we, the public, received the clear evidence presented to the public that still seems to not be in the plans for the current administration, for which we have little reason to trust and believe when it comes to matters of national security.

The World War II comparison with Syria is almost funnier, when a non-'boots on the ground' attack on the US (Pearl Harbor) justified going to war with a country that was gassing it's own people (Germany), now we are justifying a non-'boots on the ground' attack to deter people from gassing their own people. Simplistic sure, but a valuable lesson in the logic that flows through politicians minds.

At least he speaks good French.

I understand the reservations this nation has in attacking a country that could not have any realistic means of harming us, but we believe in a world that does not use chemical warfare and we have to support that idea, but there are two processes, quick decisive action with a clear message behind it, or the longer, more tedious route of building consensus, case then taking definitive action. The former would have made sense, but our President was too nervous about taking action, now we sit back and laugh as he and his crack team fumbles his way through the latter process. And, or course, I can't have a post about Syria without pointing and laughing at the ultimatum that Secretary Kerry put out there, immediately dismissed, then ran with when it actually turned out to be a good idea. Kind of like the husband that makes a joke about having a three way with the waitress over there, then starts laughing at himself while hoping his wife lifts an eyebrow and goes 'hmmm....'.

At some point it would be delightful to have the discussion of whether the US should continue to be the police force of the world, but to deny that we find ourselves currently in this role is naive. We sign on to these ideals that countries should not use chemical weapons, we pour our resources into a force capable of monitoring and striking anywhere in the world to enforce these terms, and until a day that we abdicate that role to an international force or another country, it is a burden that we must uphold.

I can't wait to hear what the President has to say about all this tonight. My respect for him would grow if he took a moment to laugh out loud at everything that has transpired in the last week.

Gas and Tinfoil

History doesn't repeat itself all the time, but sometimes it rhymes.

When Obama comes out and proclaims that we have incontrovertible evidence that Syria is using WMDs causes me to put on my tinfoil hat and will force America to question, among many things, where the Syrians obtained a stock pile of sarin gas. Though there is documented suspicion of Syria’s chemical weapon capabilities, the fact that these weapons are typically stockpiled as a deterrent and over the years no official proclamation was made that they existed.

We also must recall that intelligence prior to the invasion of Iraq indicated that Saddam’s Iraq had sarin gas and amidst large speculation that such weapons were moved to Syria, the use of sarin gas in Syria might prove to vindicate the Bush Administration’s assertions that WMDs were, in fact, in Iraq. Where, ironically enough, we also had proof that the deadly weapon had been used by the regime in power against its own people.

In January, 2006, former Iraqi General Georges Sada publicly declared that Saddam’s military transferred large stockpiles of chemical weapons to Syria using civilian aircraft with the passenger seats removed. “There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands,’ Mr. Sada said. ‘I am confident they were taken over.’”

Sada, a top officer in the Iraqi Air Force, claims that 56 trips by two Iraqi Airways Boeings were used to smuggle the weapons into Syria under the guise of civilian flights. “Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming,” Sada said. “They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians.”

In March, retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney spoke publicly about the likelihood of WMDs in Syria and the high probability that the weapons were moved to Syria immediately prior to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

If the Obama administration authorizes military action without UN approval, we can expect that the White House will claim that this military action is, somehow, radically different from Bush’s military action. We will find ourselves debating even more the merits and fallacies of a robot led war both from the capacity for the President to wage such a war and it’s long term implications on our relations in the region that we seem to have a fetish with attacking with our flying death machines.

Further, Americans shouldn't expect to hear any apologies from those on the left to Bush or his supporters. Syria’s WMD usage might seem to vindicate both President Bush’s intelligence reports, and his reasoning that led him to take an action when no direct threat to the United States was apparent. In this scenario, we have a mountain of evidence as with Iraq, but it appears we have no intention on entering the country looking for proof in the aftermath. History will have nothing on which to vindicate or condemn these actions.

It would be nice if we could get some commandos inside to take a closer look at the ‘made in’ label that these weapons are cased in. The argument against that being the obvious risk, not necessarily to the commandos that would put themselves in incredible danger to find out the truth, but the danger of the truth itself and the portrayed legacy that President Bush was a liar and vigilantly.

Taking off my tinfoil hat now…

In the end we are left with a policy against other countries that appears to have drafted by the same batch of people that programmed Apples mapping app. It twists and turns in an incoherent way, be it the need to avenge an assassination attempt on daddy, or is needed to make someone’s words, as hastily as they were spoken, not be opened to mocking and ridicule. Trying to compose the criteria and a scale for intervention in another country is about as consistent as throwing darts at a dart board… blindfolded... from 50 feet away….drunk.

Questions that probably won’t be answered until after a strike (and even then…):

• What scale is appropriate?
• What targets are viable?
• What parties do we support in the conflict?
• What is the exit strategy?
• What parties do we require approval from?
• What is acceptable collateral damage?
• What legal authority are we citing?

The Bradley Manning Legacy

When you join the armed forces, are you accepting on that day to turn a blind eye to any war crimes that you may witness in service to your country?

This is the ultimate question that Private First Class Bradley Manning answered when he leaked documentation nearly three years ago. Tuesday, a military judge acquitted Bradley Manning on the charge of aiding the enemy. The worst account he faced as a result of answering the above question with a defiant 'No!'. He was convicted of multiple counts of violating the Espionage Act. The verdict marks the end of this three-year-long chapter that began with Manning's arrest in Iraq and subsequent detainment in Kuwait and Quantico, Virginia.

The military typically needs to be held to a higher standard when it comes to it's information and intelligence, but this time feels very different from the 'loose lips sink ships' mentality that the Espionage act seems to be born of. We are not in any true fear of loosing the ground war. I'd bet against any group of Taliban or insurgents trying to take out a well manned military post in Afghanistan or Iraq any day, that war was won, resoundingly, but the threat that Bradley Manning is not a threat to that war, he is a threat to the War for Peace.

When is it OK for member of the military, or any government organization for that matter, to shed light on atrocities knowing that you are defying the law? In 2008, then presidential candidate Barack Obama ran on a platform that praised whistle blowing as an act of courage and patriotism. It said it was one of the last resorts of catching a runaway government that would abuse it's power. This platform has been comprehensively betrayed. His campaign document described whistle blowers as watchdogs when government abuses its authority. It was removed from Obama's old campaign site last week.

Obama, or perhaps more accurately the Office of the President, may feel a need to protect this information, this is where the argument gets a little hazy though, because throughout the proceedings there has been a conspicuous absence: the absence of a victim. The prosecution did not present evidence that, or even claim that, a single person came to harm as a result of Bradley Manning’s disclosures. The government never claimed PFC Manning was working for a foreign power. The only ’victim’ was the US government’s pride, but the prosecution of this young man was never the way to restore it. Rather, the abuse of Bradley Manning has left the world with a sense of disgust at how low the Obama administration has fallen. It is not a sign of strength, but of weakness.

What Bradley Manning showed the world, knowing full well he would have to suffer the consequences of his actions, was that the US was not only loosing the War for Peace around the world, it had almost no authentic interest in winning it. That we fight battles with little regard for anything other then perception. The ability to claim a big name kill, while sweeping the faces of dozens of innocent bystanders under the rug. Was anyone surprised to know that these atrocities occurred? No, but the ability to claim moral superiority in our cause was hampered, if not outright destroyed. Not because we had it and now lost it, but because the truth is now exposed. This is the legacy of Bradley Manning. To this end we now find ourselves well past the point of pursuing justice for attacks of 9/11, or even seeking peace for this volatile region.

The true issue we now face is that having poked the bear, kicked the bee hive, and awaken this dragon, how do we declare some form of victory? We find ourselves in a seemingly never ending cycle of retaliation from retaliations. To stop is to open oneself up to attack, to attack is to open oneself up to retaliation. We might no longer be in a position where we can truly win.

Bradley Manning did not do this, he merely warned the world of the way things are.

IRS Is Playing By It's Own Rules

The IRS is acting like a rogue agency with little regard for the rule of law, but you already knew that. 

What may interest you is that I'm not talking about the targeting of 501(c)4's that have the word tea party, conservative, or 9/12 in their name. 

"You must mean the medias scant coverage to its theft of 60 million medical records, now the subject of a class action lawsuit." you say.

"Yup, that's not being covered a whole lot." I reply. "But that's still not what I'm concerned about." 

What is scaring me is that the press have been all but silent regarding the highly illegal IRS scheme to fund Obamacare’s federal insurance exchanges.

In states such as my dear sweet Iowa, we are still in the works for creating one of the exchanges to allow people to purchase a healthcare plan as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare.  Many states are outright refusing to set these state level exchanges up since the Supreme Court ruling that a states medicaid reimbursements from the federal government can not be tied to a states creation of just such an exchange or expansion of medicaid benefits. It's because of this little factoid that a year ago, the IRS finalized a regulatory ruling to the effect that it will issue tax credits through Obamacare’s federal insurance exchanges. 

Why is that such a big deal? Well, much like when Spike Lee tries to call a technical at a Knicks game, the IRS has been granted no legal authority, by the Affordable Care Act (PPACA) or any other act of Congress, to issue such credits. In fact, the ruling flouts the explicit language of Obamacare.

The ACA law stipulates that all such assistance must emanate from state-run exchanges. Even if the federal government sets up an exchange in a state that has declined to do so, it wouldn't be authorized to issue tax credits. And because 27 states have refused to set up exchanges, this restriction will cripple Obamacare. Without the ability to dole out tax credits and subsidies in more than half of the states, the Beltway bureaucrats attempting to implement the much-despised “reform” law will be hamstrung.

The estimated tab for this little administrative ruling, according to testimony given to the House ways and means committee by the president of the Tax Foundation, could be in the ballpark of $800 Billion dollars. Or, about $254 a second. Also take a moment to notice the date that this near trillion dollar abuse of power by the IRS was published. A shame that the country was distracted so on that day. Chris Mathews would call this coincidence racist.

This is obviously an unprecedented and dangerous power grab. And it gets worse, this arbitrary IRS rule will allow it to tax employers whom Congress did not authorize the agency to tax. Just as Obamacare stipulates that tax credits can only be issued through state-run exchanges, it also says that employer mandates can only originate from these entities. Therefore, the IRS isn’t legally authorized to fine non-compliant businesses in a state that has refused to set up an exchange.

Yet it clearly intends to do so. As it did with the tax-exempt applications of conservative groups and the confidential medical records of millions of U.S. citizens, the IRS plans on going rogue. Even Jar Jar Binks would hesitate to call in granting this kind of power to a group of unelected bureaucrats. And, because of the harm this feature of the rule will inflict on many businesses, it has generated several lawsuits. The most promising of these was filed last month in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by a group of small businesses challenging the rule as an extralegal expansion of Obamacare.

The IRS is one of the most powerful agencies in the unelected and largely unaccountable fourth branch of the U.S. government, otherwise known as the administrative state. Most of the civil servants working in the various monuments to the bureaucracy around the country are honorable and earnest, even in Cincinnati, and in many ways there are some good aspects to Obamacare. This, along with the Tea Party scandal and leaking of medical records is more broadly symptomatic of the fundamental flaws inherent to the modern size and scope of our federal government. Its unyielding desire to have a say in every aspect of our lives comes with an insatiable need for revenue and tax collection enforcement. The result is a supremely powerful IRS. Any entity as large as the IRS will have bad apples. The problem is that the IRS’s authority empowers a bad apple to have a loud booming voice in the way that countless American taxpayers live their daily lives.