“It’s the price of oil, the war for the spoils, where’s your bucket for the big bailout? Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, we got a lot to drink about…”

Forgive my unlicensed quoting of a Jimmy Buffett song (for an intelligentsia-marketed publication no less), but it seems to me that today is a great day to develop some alcoholism. Now, I don’t mean to mock anyone with a serious problem (get some help?), but a recovering alcoholic got us into this mess. Shouldn’t our law-professor generalissimo be able to realize that maybe voicing withdrawal plans that are as intelligible as a monophonic recording of Bob Dylan singing the Tax Code in hurricane-force winds might not be the best strategy to adopt? That may be a bit harsh, but I should like to think that Il Duce is smart enough to experience a little déjà vu when he hears his withdrawal plan float out past that mole-colored mole on his lip. And I’m not likening Obama-fo-yo-Mama to Mussolini, but all of this plebeian pandering is reminiscent of the 30s in Europe, ain’t it?

It occurs to me (your local card-carrying GOP-er) that the withdrawal plan el Presidente has been handed to read to the public is strikingly similar to dear-old-W’s “wait-and-see” approach that had Hillary (this is actually her plan donchaknow) and Her Hell-kittens in a hullaballoo not too long ago.  Just don’t let anyone named scaevola (Latin, look it up) know that, holy shit, there are similarities between our two indelible parties.

“What if we’re wrong”, I question myself, “what if we just happen to be overreacting to the health-care debate?” That’s possible, but what’s also possible is that I’m still disgusted with the rabidity that Obama-disciples display; don’t let’s criticize the Phrenologist-in-chief, “he’s won a peace prize” (don’t worry, no “piece” puns here); “he’s ‘fixed’ the economy” (my collie is wincing).  Bullshit, he’s just as little as Clinton ever did, except Obama has a Senate in his favor, in HIS FAVOR!

By the by, the economy still isn’t fixed, but it’ll be worsened by spending ourselves deeper into Chinese debt. We can’t fix healthcare with a public option and it’s very foolish for Liberals to compare it to the VA. There won’t be an up-swell in new industry by placing increasingly devious barriers to job-growth. There won’t be any major success in Iraq and Afghanistan until either of those nations decides it wants success and the citizenry actively seeks to extirpate the fascist-fundamentalist coalition which has hijacked the same faith which sponsored Battuta’s journeys to China. I used to be an optimist, you know.

The fact is that the Change-Meister-in-chief has failed to bring his “change.” Don’t get me wrong, everyone in Washington politics needs to be taken out for an afternoon of electroshock, but it starts at the top.  I know it’s a tired line, but the hype generated by our President was obviously better suited for campaigning than leading.  I mean, anyone could get elected with that kind of plebiscitary doling.

Headlines are punchlines folks and there’s not much we can do about it, except pour shots and bitch until someone comes along worth supporting. We’ve got a lot to drink about…

Riddle me this, riddle me that, who’s afraid of a big Fat Cat?

Give up? It’s not the US Congress! I know, I was shocked too. Here’s the thing: while I was waiting for something to set me off this week, Congress, true to form and typical of fashion, decided that the thing which would solve the increasingly expensive health-care burden in this little nation of ours was to spend money.

Lots…and lots…and lots of money.

I may not be a mathematician (2+2 still equals 5, right?), but it seems to me that $829B dollars is quite a bit of money to spend when nobody has figured out a good old-fashioned solution to the problem. Allow me to throw my hat into an otherwise unpopulated ring: reduce some costs (?)

Amerigo Vespucci, Who Had It His Way

This is going to sound crazy: what if, instead of making health-care coverage more affordable, we just tried to make it cheaper?! ‘Gosh Kyle,’ Amerigo Vespucci would say, ‘if you can figure that out, they should name the country after you instead!’

Seriously friends, Italian explorers aside, my little solution is Tort Reform (go on, you can say it, my “new solution” is deregulation, “how Republican!”).   But it goes beyond that because, and let me be as frank as possible, what’s really got me red-under-the-collar is the ridiculous amount of money spent by the government to which I’ve had the privilege to pay taxes.

“Do you smell bacon, Garth?” “Yes, I definitely smell a pork product of some kind.”

There are lists that detail some excesses in government “porkery”, but I won’t bore you to death. The fact of the matter is that my inner deficit-hawk screams bloody murder at $829B. And to be fair, I realize that there are certain thresholds: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free” doesn’t come cheap, and it is our (cliché alert!) moral imperative as the only remaining superpower.

Bridge Anyone?

Ready to be terrified? Bill Clinton was right………to want a line-item veto. Are there projects that need to be funded from which some people won’t see an immediate impact?  Sure, but those are projects like maintenance on the Port of Los Angeles…they’re big picture; Defense spending is another one. But really, if you’re on Air Force Two, do you really need gold-leafed playing cards? In fact, let me be perfectly clear: if you’re on Air Force [Insert number here], or a government craft of any sort, you do not need gold-leafed playing cards.

As a parting thought, friends and neighbors, how about one of Disraeli’s “third type of lies”: average pay for US Congressmen (not including bribes)- $174,000 per annum; average pay for public school teachers (not including apples and birthday cupcakes) – $51,000 per annum. What a country…

If you live on Planet Earth, the Baucus bill is not deficit-neutral.

Yes, the Congressional Budget Office’s official score of the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 estimates that the $829 billion bill will actually reduce the federal budget deficit by $81 billion over 10 years form 2010-2019. The problem is that the Baucus bill assumes Congress will sit idly by while reimbursement rates for physicians that participate in Medicare get cut around $240 billion starting in 2012, which no one thinks will happen. The formula for calculating reimbursement rates, known as the Sustainable Growth Formula (SGR), is badly outdated, and there is a widespread consensus that it needs to be scrapped and replaced with something else. Yet Congress hasn’t addressed the SGR in any meaningful way, instead opting to reverse scheduled reimbursement cuts every year since 2004 with so-called “doc fix” legislation. Nothing suggests they wouldn’t do the same down the line when it comes to the Baucus bill, especially when told nicely by deep-pocketed interests such as the American Medical Association to make the change.

Future doc fixes alone prevent the Baucus bill from cutting the deficit, but there’s also a reality check needed on the revenue side of the equation. Already, many have complained that the 40% excise tax on high-premium (“Cadillac”) insurance plans, estimated to raise roughly $46 billion, will ensnare millions of Americans in the near future, since health inflation grows much faster than monetary inflation. There has already been plenty of talk on both sides of the aisle of paring down the annual medical device tax, estimated to bring in over $22 billion. Members with device manufacturers in their districts don’t want them to pick up the tab, and since the tax isn’t deductible from corporate income taxes, it will raise costs and stifle innovation. Annual fees on health insurance companies may be reduced as the bill is hashed out. Lastly, the tax for not complying with the individual mandate has already been scaled back. Most, if not all of these taxes will be reduced, increasing red ink.

So then, we can evaluate the claim that “In terms of the President’s outline for reform, it meets all mandatory points.” Off the top of my head, the Baucus bill violates: (1) the President’s promise not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year (see paragraph above) (2) the President’s promise not to sign a bill that “adds even a dime to the deficit” (3) the President’s promise to bend the cost curve down (see CBO score).

I place none of the blame on the staff of the Congressional Budget Office, who are hired to evaluate the bill as written (and do a fine job, I might add). Instead, I fault those who claim that the Baucus bill is deficit-neutral, when, in the real world, it isn’t.