Nat Hentoff On American Under Obama
John M. Whitehead interviews the former Village Voice columnist for Rutherford.org, and hears that Obama is, in Hentoff's words, "possibly the most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had."
A few words of biography on Hentoff:
Nat Hentoff has had a life well spent, one chock full of controversy fueled by his passion for the protection of civil liberties and human rights. Hentoff is known as a civil libertarian, free speech activist, anti-death penalty advocate, pro-lifer and not uncommon critic of the ideological left.
And a bit from the interview:
JW: Do you think Obama is shallow?NH: It's much worse than that. Obama has little, if any, principles except to aggrandize and make himself more and more important. You see that in his foreign policy. Obama lacks a backbone--both a constitutional backbone and a personal backbone. This is a man who is causing us and will cause us a great deal of harm constitutionally and personally. I say personally because I am 84 years old, and this is the first administration that has scared me in terms of my lifespan.
JW: But he is praised for his charisma and great smile. He can make people believe things just by his personality.
NH: That was a positive factor in his election. A good many people voted for Obama, and I'm not only talking about the black vote. A lot of people voted for Obama because of our history of racial discrimination in this country. They felt good even though they didn't really know much about him and may have had some doubts. But at least they showed the world we could elect a black president. And that is still part of what he is riding on. Except that, too, is diminishing. In the recent Virginia election, the black vote diminished. Now why was that? I think a lot of black folks are wondering what this guy is really going to do, not only for them but for the country. If the country is injured, they will be injured. That may be sinking in.
JW: One of the highest unemployment rates in the country is among African-Americans.
NH: Not only that, the general unemployment rate is going to continue for a long time and for all of us. I have never heard so many heart-wrenching stories of all kinds of people all across the economic spectrum. As usual, the people who are poorest--the blacks, Hispanics and disabled people--are going to suffer more than anyone else under the Obama administration. This is a dishonest administration, because it is becoming clear that the unemployment statistics of the Obama administration are not believable. I can't think of a single area where Obama is not destructive.
There's this idea that the people who voted for him somehow loved him and worshipped him and were blindsided. I don't think that's the case. After his FISA vote I planned to vote 3rd party. It was the selection of Palin that made me vote for Obama.
I didn't so much vote for Obama as not vote for McCain. And I think that's how it is in most elections, for most people. We rarely vote for a candidate we love, we vote for what we percieve as the lesser of two evils.
I'm sure there were folks in the McCain camp who didn't adore McCain but thought he was the lesser of two evils.
I know a lot of people on this blog admire Palin, and that's fine, too. I personally don't. I'm guessing there are some who didn't like her and McCain but voted for them anyways.
NicoleK at December 22, 2009 6:17 AM
You know, I don't get why Palin brings out the snarling hate in so many people.
Bill McNutt at December 22, 2009 7:00 AM
Nat Hetnoff has long been a cranky, fault-finding sort. I don't take his utterances very seriously.
Iconoclast at December 22, 2009 7:02 AM
"You know, I don't get why Palin brings out the snarling hate in so many people. "
I don't either (and Nicole, I'm not accusing you of being one of them). People who know absolutely nothing about Palin will have a visceral reaction just from the mention of her name. I'll have to admit being uncertain about whether, in a primary, I'd vote for Palin against, say, Jim DeMint. But I don't hate her, and I would certainly support her against most of the possible Democratic opposition.
Cousin Dave at December 22, 2009 7:17 AM
Let me just say this, Nicole - I hate you with the burning fire of a thousand suns.
Your irrational hatred of one woman that allowed you to vote for an avowed socialist has led directly to the impending destruction of the last, best hope for liberty.
You and everyone who "thinks" like you are to blame for America's downfall.
May God have mercy on your souls.
brian at December 22, 2009 7:28 AM
I voted for him, too. My own irrational hatred was of another Clinton presidency. I knew (gut feeling, female intuition, sign of the times, whatever) that the next president was going to be a Democrat, and I can't stand Hillary. Maybe if she'd kicked Bill to the curb like she should have, I'd feel differently, but she lost me with that great Republican conspiracy crap.
I also felt sorry in advance for whoever was elected and had to try to clean up the Bush mess, the housing mess, and all the other messes. No matter what that person did, it was going to be wrong.
Anyway, stop running in circles screaming and shouting. The sky is not falling, America is not going down the drain, blah blah blah. Get a grip.
Pricklypear at December 22, 2009 8:02 AM
PP - I have a grip.
I'm going to be faced with a choice next year - pay my mortgage, or pay my taxes.
And as much as I despise Hillary, I would have found her infinitely preferable to Obama. At least I'd be able to criticize her decisions without being called a racist.
brian at December 22, 2009 8:16 AM
"It was the selection of Palin that made me vote for Obama."
Oh here we go again....WORLDS WORST ARGUMENT FOR VOTING FOR OBAMA.
Hey Nicole, any sentiments you'd like to share with us on global warming?
Feebie at December 22, 2009 8:46 AM
Feebie -
There was no intellectually defensible argument for voting for Obama.
brian at December 22, 2009 8:47 AM
How can someone rationalize not voting for someone for something as stupid as her not leaveing her cheating husband? You're not in that marriage. You don't know what they did to rebuild their relationship. Why is it any of your damn business how they handle their problems? How stupid do you have to be to ignore important issues and base your decsion about who should run this country on their personal problems? I mean, if anything, Hilary showed that she doesn't give up when things get tough. And you didn't want to risk "another Clinton presidency"? Okay....1.) Hilary and Bill are two different people. 2.) Last time I checked, the country was in much better shape when Bill was in charge.
We're not voting for the prom queen here, people...we're voting for the leader of our country.
Kim at December 22, 2009 8:48 AM
Even though I always voted libertarian, I have always hoped for the best with a new president, and I have always been disappointed with them.
I don't know why I am not worried about the future. Perspective, I guess. I've started over about five times now. With a currently unemployed husband and an aging boss, and a thirty-year loan that means I'll never be able to retire,I might be starting over again soon. Change happens really, really fast.
I won't call you a racist, brian. I just haven't given up on him yet.
Pricklypear at December 22, 2009 8:51 AM
"There was no intellectually defensible argument for voting for Obama."
Not saying there was, just saying that the Palin argument is the worst because it's lazy and it is used to deflect responsibility from the disillusioned Obama voter.
Blame the VP pick for not doing your homework. No accountability, and yet they STILL blame Palin.
Obama: "It's all Bush's fault"
Obama voter: "It's all Palin's fault"
Riiiigggght.... Their decision to vote for this clown is transparent, and self-flattering.
Feebie at December 22, 2009 9:09 AM
Thanks, but you elucidated your error as well.
I had already given up on him before he won the primary. I only needed to hear one word to know what we were getting into with this guy: "Chicago".
I have to say that he's exceed my expectations. I had expected him to be as bad as Carter, but he's been far, far worse.
He has done more damage in the first year of his first term than Carter did in all four.
Well, at least Carter was intelligent and humble. Obama hasn't shown signs of either.
brian at December 22, 2009 9:16 AM
I reeeally don't feel obligated to explain all the reasons I don't like the former president and his wife, but that was the one that first came to mind. Unbunch your panties, Kim. What do you care, anyway?
We could gather all our research and have a big political argument about it, but frankly, life's too short.
Here's the deal. Obama is president. You can indulge in much wailing and gnashing of teeth, curl up in a fetal ball and cry, commit suicide, or go on with your life and adapt to the changes.
Pricklypear at December 22, 2009 9:28 AM
You forgot one option - fight like hell to block the changes.
You aren't understanding just how bad this bill is. Small businesses like mine are going to be destroyed by this. I still believe that is one of the intended outcomes.
Last I saw more than 60% of Americans are against the present bill in the Senate, and just as many if not more are against the "public option".
Yet Congress marches merrily onward ignoring the demands of the constituents.
This is not the action of a representative republic, it is the action of a despotic dictatorship. Congress has gone rogue.
The Democrats are talking about how to survive the backlash from this in 2010. It means that we're already having an impact.
brian at December 22, 2009 9:43 AM
"You aren't understanding just how bad this bill is."
Okay, Brian, enlighten me. No, seriously.
Pricklypear at December 22, 2009 9:55 AM
Palin's 14 year old daughter could run this country better than Obama. HIllary would have been better. Carter again would have been better. Bush on term 3 would be better. My husband and I are smack in the middle of the middle class that is going to get fucked the hardest by this bill-great insurance paid for by his work which they consider (rightly so) part of his salary package, that we will now be taxed out the wazoo on, with no corresponding increase in pay. And, eventually, forced onto the government plan, again with no increase in pay, but a huge drop is care. Fucking self-satisfied smug asshole! Fuck him and everyone who voted for him, I don't give a shit what their reasons were. Hope you all are happy, and I hope your healthcare gets fucked up just as bad as mine, and your taxes go through the roof.
momof4 at December 22, 2009 9:59 AM
PP - you wanna start with the tax hikes? Or the part that makes it illegal for individuals to purchase insurance except through a government "exchange"?
How about the fact that some bureaucrat in Washington gets to decide if a treatment is too expensive, and therefore won't be offered to anyone.
Or the government owning the computer database where all medical records are stored.
Or the government setting reimbursement rates for the entire insurance industry to Medicare rates, which tend to run at 60% of COST.
How long do you think doctors can stay in business if they have to eat 40% of everything they do out of their own pockets?
This bill is a stalking horse whose sole intent is to put in place a government-run single-payer system where the entire medical industry are employees of the state.
And given that there is no place in the world where a single-payer system has been successful, why are we trying it here?
Oh, yeah - because a bunch of busybodies in DC need a legal justification for telling you how to live your life.
brian at December 22, 2009 10:01 AM
"Small businesses like mine are going to be destroyed by this. I still believe that is one of the intended outcomes."
I wanted to start with that part.
Pricklypear at December 22, 2009 10:11 AM
"Here's the deal. Obama is president. You can indulge in much wailing and gnashing of teeth, curl up in a fetal ball and cry, commit suicide, or go on with your life and adapt to the changes."
...and
"Okay, Brian, enlighten me. No, seriously."
It would have been so much more helpful had you guys been enlightened PRIOR to checking the Obama box on Nov 4, 2008.
And now you "won" so we just gotta lie down and enjoy getting F*#&%% up the ass for the next four years while you folks act all arrogant and indignant and shit...
Being able to distinguish viable alternate options and avoiding either all one way or another type thinking is what we need right now, it's called sanity yet it requires the willingness to not be a lemming.
Why am I surprised Obama voters don't get it...
Feebie at December 22, 2009 10:22 AM
Has Hentoff ever commented on Izzy Stone's KGB connections? Not looking for trouble, just curious. \
And Brian--
"Or the government owning the computer database where all medical records are stored."
not only that--but think of the genius civil servants (like those who work for the Postal Service) being in charge of this. How is creating another huge federal agency a good thing, other than for the SEIU?
KateC at December 22, 2009 10:32 AM
Either you've not been paying attention, or you don't care. How am I supposed to explain it to you?
The federal government is going to create a minimum standard of insurance that all employers with more than 50 employees will be required to provide, or pay fines. This insurance is going to be monstrously expensive. Which means that what are considered "small to medium sized" businesses are going to get whacked.
If you've got a company right on the brink of 50 employees, you aren't gonna grow - the added costs will far outweigh the marginal profit gain. If you're just over 50, you will probably lay a few people off to get under 50.
And those small companies under 50 employees that do provide insurance are gonna get whacked with the same higher premiums, because their employees are required to have the same level of insurance under PERSONAL penalty. Which means layoffs are more likely than not going to happen just so the additional expense of higher insurance premiums can be paid. Or, smaller companies will cancel insurance altogether. And without a "public option" to dump their employees into, those employees will either have to get their own insurance (at ridiculous premiums), or they will go work for a larger company where they get insurance without having to do the work themselves.
Zeroth order thinking. That's why you and others can't see the damage that this shit sandwich is going to do.
brian at December 22, 2009 10:42 AM
> There was no intellectually defensible
> argument for voting for Obama.
You didn't have to be an "intellectual" to know that he was running against Hillary in the year of a Democratic sweep.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 22, 2009 10:47 AM
"The health care reform package currently before the Senate demonstrates meaningful progress toward protecting jobs and small businesses while taking steps toward providing access to high quality, affordable health care for Americans," Dawn Sweeney, President and CEO of the National Restaurant Association, wrote Sunday.
That's from today's Nasdaq newsletter. True? Bullshit? I don't know. Which is why I asked to be enlightened. I don't have a business. I work for a small accounting firm, and the boss voted for Obama. He does not, at this point, offer insurance. I have no idea what his plans are. I live in Montana, where Max Baucus has big plans about insurance. I have no idea about what is going to happen when the dust settles, and if anyone posting here has anything stronger than speculation, please share it with the class.
Pricklypear at December 22, 2009 11:06 AM
Why to love the blogs—
Nat Hetnoff has long been a cranky, fault-finding sort. I don't take his utterances very seriously.
Posted by: Iconoclast
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 22, 2009 11:07 AM
> You're not in that marriage. You don't
> know what they did to rebuild their
> relationship. Why is it any of your
> damn business how they handle
> their problems?
Because marriage problems are social problems, with consequences for the rest of us. It's a perfectly good way to judge what someone's about ethically.
"...until you've walked a mile in their shoes" isn't the universally applicable tool some people think it is.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 22, 2009 11:10 AM
"Because marriage problems are social problems, with consequences for the rest of us. It's a perfectly good way to judge what someone's about ethically"
They had a kid and didn't divorce. Isn't that a good thing? Lots of marriages have agreements. I imagine where he made the mistake was in theirs going public, and in such a big way.
momof4 at December 22, 2009 12:08 PM
"I reeeally don't feel obligated to explain all the reasons I don't like the former president and his wife, but that was the one that first came to mind. Unbunch your panties, Kim. What do you care, anyway?"
I care because it's my country too and I would like to know that people are making educated decisions about who they vote for. Don't use the "first thing that came to mind" excuse. If you don't want to be talked to like an idiot, don't say stupid things. You're not obligated to explain anything to me. You weren't obligated to make your first dumb comment, but you did...opening it up to responses from all over the internet.
"Here's the deal. Obama is president. You can indulge in much wailing and gnashing of teeth, curl up in a fetal ball and cry, commit suicide, or go on with your life and adapt to the changes."
Did I "wail" anywhere about Obama being predisent? Don't think so. I expressed my opinion about your idiotic reasoning behind voting for him. There's a difference. Like I said, if that wasn't your main reason, you shouldn't have put it out there.
Kim at December 22, 2009 12:14 PM
I get what you're saying, Crid. I just don't feel that the way Hilary handled that situation is any reason to judge her. Now, if she has slashed his tires and beat the crap out of Monica on the whitehouse lawn, I would say: "Whoa...maybe she's a wee bit unstable to be running the country." However, she handled the situation with class. She did what she felt was best for her family. Sometimes spouses cheat. It's not right, but it happens. If both parties involved were able to work through it, good for them.
We're talking about Hilary, not Bill. I can see not re-electing him because he betrayed the trust of the American people, but I don't see how the way Hilary handled the situation reflects poorly on her.
I'd be interested to see more of an explaination to your statement. I read here a lot, but only post from time to time (I believe there are two "Kim"s here. I'm trying to think up a better name, but my creativity is all tapped out this close to the Holidays!).
Kim at December 22, 2009 12:24 PM
PP - business support it because they know that the ultimate goal is single-payer, which gets them off the hook for providing health insurance as a benefit, which increases profits.
What, you thought that GM was gonna give everyone a raise equivalent to the cash value of their insurance benefit? Foolish mortal.
The fact is that no matter what the government does, it's going to end up with us paying more and getting less. It is the same in every endeavor that the government undertakes.
Look at it this way: if you make more than about $50,000 a year, you have a big target on your back. Your cost of health insurance is going to increase due to mandatory minimum coverage. Which means that the cost of everything is going to go up, because there's no way that every business in America is taking a haircut, and they certainly can't cut wages.
On top of that, your taxes are going to go up to pay for all the people who don't have insurance to get it.
And then, when the amnesty bill passes, we'll be adding another 12-20 million to the insurance rolls ON OUR DIME.
brian at December 22, 2009 12:25 PM
Brian-"At least I'd be able to criticize her decisions without being called a racist."
Silly Brian...don't you know that would make you a sexist? You're only allowed to criticize white men in this country. Get with the program.
That was SARCASM for those of you it is lost on.
Kim at December 22, 2009 12:53 PM
@Kim - Nah, there have been enough women in positions of power where we're allowed to criticize them.
brian at December 22, 2009 12:56 PM
> They had a kid and didn't divorce. Isn't
> that a good thing?
I want public servants to conduct their lives with such cleanliness that we don't need to worry ourselves with whether or not they've handled these personal challenges correctly. We've hired them to deal with public matters, not private ones.
> where he made the mistake was in
> theirs going public, and in
> such a big way.
No, that was the whole point of his life, to rub our noses in his most private beeswax. (This is a distinctively liberal impulse, to assume one's most personal matters are something the rest of society needs to deal with.) As Paglia said in 1992 (paraphrase) 'This is a guy who wants us to catch him with his hand in the cookie jar, and for us to love him anyway.'
crid at December 22, 2009 12:58 PM
Remeber, this is the guy who got a blowjob while on the phone to congress to talk about sending troops to kill & die in Europe. He wants us to think his sex life is important.
crid at December 22, 2009 1:17 PM
@ Brian-One would hope so...of course, one would also hope that we would be evolved enough as a country that we would be able to openly discuss our doubts about Obama without being smacked in the face with the race card. Someday...
Kim at December 22, 2009 1:19 PM
> I don't see how the way Hilary
> handled the situation reflects
> poorly on her.
She married him, and she did it because she knew he was going places. It was the most powerful counter-feminist move of all time. Being his wife was almost enough to deliver her own term in the Oval Office.
But let's not kid ourselves: She'd have been worse than Obama, who's merely an oblivious, non-ideological team player.
Hillary is willful. We got off easy, even at ten trillion in the first year.
Crid at December 22, 2009 1:27 PM
@Crid-
But how do Bill's transgressions reflect poorly on Hilary? I guess that's where I don't follow your reasoning.
Maybe I'm too forgiving. I just feel that sometimes good men do bad things and cheating isn't always the end-all in a relationship.
Personally, I like knowing that my president is a regular guy that has regular guy problems and makes regular guy mistakes. I'd like to know that normal, fallable person is deciding what's best for me rather than someone sees themself as infallable.
But that's not the point. I still don't see what Hilary did that was "unclean".
Kim at December 22, 2009 1:27 PM
Oy. Fine. As I said, it was the first thing to come to mind. Upon analysis, it was because Hillary's statement about a vast right-wing conspiracy being behind the accusations about Bill Clinton was as idiotic as you say my statement was. She was covering for him, or she was blind. Either way, it would indeed mean I could never vote for her, no matter how great their marriage may be.
*****
My statement about Obama being president was not a nyahh-nyahh-we-won-you-lost. It's a simple fact. Voted for him or not, disappointed in him or not, he is the president. And there is only so much he can do without cooperation from the House and the Senate, and only so much cooperation he is going to get from the House or the Senate for anything he wants to do.
Pricklypear at December 22, 2009 1:28 PM
Crid-Just saw your second response.
I really don't think either of us has any right to say why the two of them got married. Slick Willie is a charming guy. Maybe she did marry him because she knew he was going places...but does that automatically mean she wasn't also in love with him?
I honestly don't know who would have made the better president, but I do know (or at least strongly believe) that voting for one because the other's husband cheated and you don't agree with the way it was handled is not the answer.
On a little side note: I guess I'm strange because I just don't trust politicians that come off totally "clean". No one is that clean, especially people in those positions of power. When deciding on who to vote for, I think their qualifications and history should be considered before their personal lives...unless, of course, there is something glaringly wrong in their personal lives.
Kim at December 22, 2009 1:35 PM
"My statement about Obama being president was not a nyahh-nyahh-we-won-you-lost. It's a simple fact. Voted for him or not, disappointed in him or not, he is the president."
Well thank you so much for letting me know. I had been living under a rock for the last couple of years.
"And there is only so much he can do without cooperation from the House and the Senate, and only so much cooperation he is going to get from the House or the Senate for anything he wants to do."
Okay, so Bush can make a mess all by himself, but Obama can't? Interesting.
Kim at December 22, 2009 1:38 PM
Pear -
After what we got from 6 years of Republicans across the board, and two from liberals across the board, you thought "well, how much worse could it get with liberal democrats across the board"?
At least McCain would have acted as a brake on some of the financial excesses of the Congress. Reid and Pelosi are rolling Obama something fierce.
brian at December 22, 2009 1:43 PM
Goddammit, I DON'T CARE IF SHE WAS IN LOVE WITH HIM.
Our concern with these people is with their effect on public affairs, not the moistness of their panties. And they've been a profound disappointment.
Maybe the baby boom generation was never going to do any better
Crid at December 22, 2009 1:57 PM
"Reid and Pelosi are rolling Obama something fierce."
Brian, that's an interesting point -- do you think the President even knows what's in the bills the House and the Senate passed? Does anybody?
Come to think of it, have any recent presidents understood in detail the bills they've signed into law? Makes me wonder...
old rpm daddy at December 22, 2009 2:03 PM
At least Clinton and Bush were involved. They had more than a few words thrown together. More than once Clinton and Bush sent actual legislative proposals to Congress, and got involved in the detail work.
Obama's too good for that. He just says "Universal Health Care" and expects the Congress to fill in the details while he splits atoms with his mind.
brian at December 22, 2009 2:06 PM
"Obama's too good for that. He just says "Universal Health Care" and expects the Congress to fill in the details while he splits atoms with his mind"
So true, Brian. Pass this bill, macht schnell, bitches!!!
Feebie at December 22, 2009 2:33 PM
Pear -
After what we got from 6 years of Republicans across the board, and two from liberals across the board, you thought "well, how much worse could it get with liberal democrats across the board"?
What I said was "I knew (gut feeling, female intuition, sign of the times, whatever) that the next president was going to be a Democrat, and I can't stand Hillary." As to how much worse it can get, we'll just have to wait and see.
Kim - when I said life's too short to get into a political argument, I was talking about mine. You win, you're the god, go have fun.
Pricklypear at December 22, 2009 2:50 PM
I feel the love for Obama here ... With Pelosi and Reid in congress and Obozo in the white house, we have the perfect storm that will do this country in ...
ron at December 22, 2009 5:15 PM
I alway wondered what would have happed had Clinton said "Yes, I had sex with her, Why the fuck do you even care?"
lujlp at December 22, 2009 6:48 PM
"We care because she was a profoundly subordinate and obviously awed young person who you chose to exploit during (not just the year, not just the hours, but) the precise moments that The People elected you to give your full attention to our problems."
"'Sides, it's scummy."
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 22, 2009 7:33 PM
Pear -
Can you honestly tell me that Hillary would have been worse? Her negatives virtually guaranteed a hostile Congress.
Of course, if the Republicans hadn't let the lib dems pick their candidate, we wouldn't have had McCain as a choice.
brian at December 22, 2009 7:45 PM
so what crid, she was willinging and it wasnt illegal
lujlp at December 22, 2009 8:27 PM
People willingly do all sorts of bad things that aren't illegal... I'm still agin' it.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 22, 2009 8:47 PM
From what I remember of the Clinton years didn't one of his supporters or a female media member say she would give him a hummer? Being able to twist people that way makes you think you can get away with alot of shit. And he did.
Richard Cook at December 22, 2009 9:38 PM
As Karl Marx said, "the meek shall inherit the Earth!" I guess Obombya's just doing his part to make sure that comes about! LOL!
PJ O'Mork at December 23, 2009 8:10 AM
This is what I was talking about.
PLEASE read it. Read it and remember.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 23, 2009 10:16 AM
Pear writes: "I work for a small accounting firm, and the boss voted for Obama. He does not, at this point, offer insurance. "
Here's the deal: You didn't say if you have your own insurance policy or not. If you do, it is possible that your plan will be declared a "luxury" plan and subject to a 40% tax. If you don't have a plan, then starting next year, you will be paying a yearly fine.
If you don't have private insurance and you want to get it, you'd better do it soon. After some date -- if memory serves, it's 1 January, 2011 -- private insurance will no longer be available. People who have private plans will be allowed to keep them, as long as they don't move to a different state, but no new ones can be written. After that date, if you aren't getting insurance at work, your only choice will be to get an exchange plan, which will be a one-size-fits-all plan based on community rating. You will have no choice about what coverage you do or don't want, and you will not be able to shop for a lower premium.
Here's my situation: The company I work for has some union and some non-union employees. The non-union employees are insured by the company itself, under a plan in which they pay an insurance company a fee to handle the administration, but the company itself funds it, using a combination of employer and employee contributions. The union employees have a conventional plan.
Under the health care bill, self-insurance plans like the ones the non-union employees have are banned. The company will have to switch us to a conventional plan, which will almost certainly cost more and offer less coverage (that's why we self-insured in the first place). The union employees may or may not be effected, depending on whether or not that union got an exemption from the luxury-plan tax. But the non-union employees are screwed as of the end of next week.
Cousin Dave at December 23, 2009 10:59 AM
Nat Hentoff: Obama has little, if any, principles except to aggrandize and make himself more and more important. You see that in his foreign policy. Obama lacks a backbone--both a constitutional backbone and a personal backbone. This is a man who is causing us and will cause us a great deal of harm constitutionally and personally.
I'm amazed at how well this description could be applied to Bush, and at how oblivious Hentoff is to that fact.
Patrick at December 23, 2009 9:05 PM
You know, I don't get why Palin brings out the snarling hate in so many people.
Nicole didn't say she hated Palin, snarling or otherwise. She said that Palin was the reason that she didn't vote for Obama.
Why does every objection to Palin amount to hatred? It wouldn't have anything to do with her gross incompetence, her alacrity in telling lies, her blatant cluelessness, etc. No, you're not allowed to object to Palin on the basis of her qualifications. If you object to Palin, it's because you have snarling hatred of her.
Just like all objections to Obama are due to racism.
Well, I object to both Palin and Obama, but am neither a racist, nor do I have a "snarling hatred" of Palin.
Obama spent twenty years lapping up the bile that flowed from Reverend Jeremiah Wright's pulpit, then had a convenient epiphany as to the divisive nature of Wright's rhetoric. If liberals were consistent, they would have kicked Obama to the curb, as they surely would have done to a white candidate with Obama's history of race relations.
If some think my reasons to objecting to Obama are insufficient, I would point out that Obama has justified every suspicion I've had of him. He insulted retarded people on national television, then was too craven to apologize the same way. He used a proxy to apologize for him. He assumed that the cop who arrested Gates "acted stupidly," without even bothering to find out the facts of the situation, in which Gates behaved like a belligerent jackass, then had the arrogance to think that he was somehow qualified to turn this into a teachable moment.
I don't know whether Palin delights in telling lies, or simply is too stupid to understand the concepts of what she weighs in on. (I'm leaning more toward the former, although "both" is a distinct possibility.)
She has claimed that the health care reform bill includes death panels, a rather obvious lie. Page 425 of the bill relates to advance care planning, not suicide or death panels.
Currently, the closest thing to "death panels" are the insurance companies who decide what they will and will not cover.
Patrick at December 23, 2009 9:32 PM
"She has claimed that the health care reform bill includes death panels, a rather obvious lie. Page 425 of the bill relates to advance care planning, not suicide or death panels."
Patrick. It's not in the healthcare bill (although - that is only an assumption because who the hell knows what's in that monstrosity by now - its been changed quite a bit and hardly anyone has seen it). What she was referring to, and accurately (although hyperbolicly so) at that time was what was contained in the ALREADY PASSED TARP bill in conjunction with the health care bill at that time.
Feebie at December 24, 2009 8:04 PM
Leave a comment