Tag: Elizabeth Warren

Pull up a stool for another busy day on the Three Martini Lunch.  Join Jim and Greg as they call out Joe Biden for falsely insisting the Obama-Biden administration never used military action apart from congressional authorization.  They also hammer CNN for blatantly siding with Elizabeth Warren in her accusation that Bernie Sanders told her a woman could not get elected president – a charge Sanders strongly denies.  And they unload on the radical Bernie Sanders campaign field organizer caught on tape threatening to burn down Milwaukee and other cities if Sanders does not win the Democratic nomination at the convention this summer.

Who knew you could have so much fun talking about Elizabeth Warren? Join Jim and Greg as they wade into Warren’s accusation that Bernie Sanders told her two years ago that a woman couldn’t get elected president.  They also shake their heads as Warren promises to cancel a lot of student loan debt on her first day in office without ever involving Congress. And they preview tonight’s final Democratic debate before the voting in Iowa and address the liberal concerns that there isn’t enough diversity on stage.

What do young liberals think of the Democratic presidential candidates? How did a Cincinnati restaurant employee end up as a D.C. reporter? Does anyone trust Pete Buttigieg (who’s over 30, by the way)? Jack invites Timmy Broderick, his friend of many years and now a reporter at the Christian Science Monitor, to discuss what Timmy’s young liberal friends think of the Democratic field (aside from not trusting Buttigieg), and what drove them to leave their mutual hometown of Cincinnati, Ohio and come to Washington in the first place.

We’ve got three compelling martinis to help you ease back into that first day back at work or school.  Join Jim and Greg as they applaud comedian Ricky Gervais for hammering Hollywood for its hypocrisy and self-importance at the Golden Globe Awards Sunday evening on topics ranging from Harvey Weinstein to Jeffrey Epstein to Chinese sweat shops.  Jim also urges President Trump to stop threatening to strike cultural sites in Iran because military targets make much more sense and discussing cultural sites could turn other nations against us.  And they cringe as the video of Julian Castro endorsing Elizabeth Warren comes across as inauthentic, with Castro coming to Warren’s house, telling Warren how wonderful she is, and Warren agreeing with him.

Member Post

 

The Democratic ticket for the 2020 Presidential campaign will be Warren-Clinton! Warren will get the Big Chief node and Everyday-Is-Chardonnay-Tuesday Hillary will get the second, highly useless V.P. seat. Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the proverbial water, these phonies will be drenching the airwaves with hideous Girl-Power! campaign ads. […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post

 

Warren Has the Remedy for Health Costs Her Medicare for All proposal would be a boon to all businesses, and especially to entrepreneurs. A millstone hangs around the neck of every company in America, and this dead weight gets heavier each year. Americans currently spend nearly 18% of gross domestic product on health care, with […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Unconstitutional Medicare-for-All

 

Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare-for-All (MfA) proposal, which calls for $20.5 trillion in new taxes on everyone but the middle class (ahem), has generated fierce political controversy that threatens to upend the Democratic presidential primary. Economic critiques of her MfA program on the left and the right are a dime a dozen. Yet surprisingly, there has been a stunning silence on the possible constitutional challenges that could be raised against the program. But because other variations of the MfA program may yet be introduced, including one by Senator Bernie Sanders, it is better to think through these issues in advance.

In general, there are two kinds of constitutional objections that that can be raised against any federal program—those based on claims that the program violates federalism, and those concerned with the protection of religious and economic liberties. Dealing with these various issues depends critically on one’s basic approach to constitutional interpretation—whether one adopts a New Deal jurisprudence or a classical liberal one. Under the earlier classical liberal view, all government action was viewed with suspicion. The dominant attitude sought to slow down adventurous legislation. Speaking generally, statutes that strengthened common law interest in property and contract were favored.

The New Deal revolution arose because the Supreme Court Justices of the time no longer showed the same respect to common law rights and duties. They invited comprehensive government intervention even into competitive markets for labor, agriculture, telecommunications—and, later on, health care. The progressives thought that private markets in these areas were riddled with market failures, which could be corrected only by expanding federal power and limiting the scope of private rights of property and contract.

Jim is on vacation but there’s still plenty of fireworks on Thursday’s Three Martini Lunch. Greg is joined by Chad Benson, host of “The Chad Benson Show.”  Today, they get a kick out Bill Gates wondering just how much of his money Elizabeth Warren wants and concluding a conversation with Warren might not be worth his time because he’s not sure how open-minded she is.  They also recoil as a judge allows police to demand DNA from one of those outfits that tracks your heritage as part of an investigation, although Chad reminds us we all have pretty much voluntarily given up our privacy. And they fire back at 11,000 “scientists” who now say the Green New Deal is not enough, but we have to engage in population control too.

The Cost of ‘Medicare for All’ Isn’t Just Taxpayers’ Dollars — It’s Also Jobs and Income

 

“Medicare for All” plans, such as those proposed by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, qualify as “big structural change,” to use Warren’s phrase. The elimination of private health insurance in favor of “free” government health coverage is certainly change that’s big and structural. Same goes for all the tax increases and the payment of much lower rates to physicians and hospitals.

But those are the known big structural changes, or BSCs — at least the ones mentioned in candidate plans. But what about other BSCs that may be less obvious? Would, say, overriding drug patents affect the type of early-stage development done by biotech firms and funded by venture capital? Undercutting that innovation mechanism would qualify as a BSC.

Or how about this: The Washington Post points out that economists “have projected as many as 2 million jobs could be lost under a Medicare-for-all system that eliminated all private coverage.” That also qualifies as BSC. When a reporter recently asked Warren about the job loss issue, the senator responded, “So I agree. I think this is part of the cost issue and should be part of a cost plan.”

Warrencare

 

Elizabeth Warren recently rolled out her new “Medicare-for-All” plan with the strong claim that “Health Care Is A Basic Human Right.” She then backed up that claim with a story about how, when she was in middle school, her father had a heart attack and their health care expenditures nearly cost her family its home. From those two observations, she has crafted her massive entitlement system which will, when the dust settles, collapse. It will fail as individuals become unable to receive timely health care, and it will exacerbate the dislocations that plagued the Warren family. Why? Because her two points represent the worst way to think about health care, both on the revenue side and on the expenditure side.

On the first point, the stirring claim that health care is a “right” obscures all references to correlative duties. Under classical legal thought, a right to health care referred to the ability of a person to take his own money and spend it on health care with whatever health care providers that he chose. The correlative duties on the rest of the world were not to fund his care but to stand aside and let those contracts go forward as the parties chose. As in all areas of human endeavors, voluntary transactions normally generate gains for both sides. In health care markets, families and individuals are often unsure what contracts to make or why. But their best cure is to hire agents who can fill their knowledge gap, whether as personal advisors, employers, cooperatives, or religious or social groups.

Warren’s radical approach requires the negation of these traditional rights to acquire health care. Her positive right to health care necessarily imposes on someone else the correlative duty to supply that needed health care. But this broad task then faces two insuperable obstacles. First, on whom does the duty of provision apply? The Warren answer in large measure enables a government coterie to coerce employers, large corporations, and a select group of the ultra-rich to discharge that obligation. Once these payors are identified, the state will then set out the terms of coverage by running a planned economy, deciding what bundle of services will be provided, and through which institutions. Friedrich Hayek’s prescient warning about the abuses of centralized power is recklessly thrown to the wind.

Warren’s Health Plan, SNL, and Partial Equilibrium Reasoning

 

That Saturday Night Live cold-open about Elizabeth Warren pitching her “Medicare for All” plan to skeptical Iowa voters may seem like an in-kind donation to the Warren campaign. Kate McKinnon’s impression of the Massachusetts senator is both spot-on and compelling.

But there was one way in which the sketch was unfair to Warren. At one point, “Warren” is asked why she claims her plan will cost $20.5 trillion over a decade even though many economists put the cost at 50 percent higher or more. “Warren” then dismisses all these estimates as “pretend,” then adding, “You ready to get red-pilled? Money doesn’t exist!”

But the real Warren has a more thoughtful answer than that. Her plan would supposedly spend far less than commonly assumed through lower administrative costs than private insurance, reimbursing physicians and other non-hospital providers at current Medicare rates, and “reining in out-of-control prescription drug costs” through a variety of government-driven means.

After a surprisingly brief venting about how bad their football teams are, Jim and Greg serve up three good martinis.  They welcome New York Times polling showing Warren as the weakest major Democratic candidate against President Trump and an NYT editorial blasting Warren for falsely claiming that only billionaires would see higher taxes in her plan to pay for single-payer health care.  Then they relish the exit of Beto O’Rourke from the 2020 Democratic field and also hammer the media for building up Beto as some sort of transformational figure in 2018 when he was always an empty suit.  And Jim highlights his extensive profile of U.S. Attorney John Durham, the tight-lipped prosecutor tapped to investigate how the Trump-Russia investigation began in the first place.

Back to the normal format today, but plenty of good Friday fodder awaits.  Today, Jim and Greg are happy to see better-than-expected numbers in the October jobs report.  They shred Elizabeth Warren’s ludicrous plan to pay for government-run health care, explaining why it’s a fiscal pipe dream and a health policy nightmare for everyone.  And they roll their eyes as Katie Hill and all of her liberal and media apologists ignore the actual reason she is resigning from Congress today.

Chad Benson, host of “The Chad Benson Show,” borrows Jim’s stool again today.  In this episode, Chad and Greg break down the latest Democratic presidential debate.  First, they get a kick out of watching Elizabeth Warren squirm out of answering whether she would raise taxes on the middle class to pay for government-run health care and watching mild-mannered Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg hammer her for not answering.  They also groan and protect their wallets as Warren pitches her wealth tax yet again and Andrew Yang counters by touting the horrendous value-added tax.  They note how Tulsi Gabbard was the only Democrat on stage who admits President Trump won in 2016 and thinks impeachment will only help Trump in 2020.  And they have fun with some of the really bad answers candidates gave when asked to name people who think differently than them but have had a profound impact on their lives.

Elizabeth Warren, Corporate Bully

 

The fast-shifting winds of American politics have increased the odds that Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts will be the next Democratic nominee for President of the United States. Joe Biden has been lackluster at best, and his potential conflicts of interest arising from his son’s dealings in both Ukraine and China may well derail his candidacy even before the primary season begins. Bernie Sanders’s heart attack will likely scare voters, and the rest of the pack—Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Beto O’Rourke, Amy Klobuchar—have failed to connect with the public.

The bad news is that a Warren presidency would be one of the most terrifying prospects ever to hit the American system. Long on confidence but short on judgment, Warren uses her fake professorial air to support proposals that are so dangerous to the nation’s economic welfare that even potential Democratic Wall Street backers are now shying away from her candidacy.

The most recent illustration of her destructive behavior is found in her October 3 letter to Jamie Diamond of JP Morgan Chase, which demands that he follow through on the Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation that the Business Roundtable (“BR”) published to mixed reaction during the summer. The BR blundered by arguing that every corporation should be committed to delivering value to all of its stakeholders. The dodgy term “committed” blurs the line between legal obligation and business relations. As Milton Friedman argued long ago, the only stakeholders in a corporation with legal entitlements are its shareholders.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America get a kick out of watching Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren battle over whether the government ought to break up big tech.  With little appetite for Warren’s big government intrusion or Zuckerberg’s pathetic efforts to protect user privacy and free speech, Jim and Greg plan to enjoy watching these two liberals devour each other.  They also slam President Trump for cheerfully congratulating China on it’s 70th anniversary since the communists took hold in 1949, making no reference to China’s brutal repression of people and freedom that continues to this very day.  And they hammer the Washington Post for running an op-ed fantasizing about impeaching both Trump and Vice President Mike Pence so Nancy Pelosi can become president.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America take note of how it took less than 48 hours for Democrats to turn the impeachment process into a farce as House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff opened Thursday’s hearing with a stunningly twisted version of the transcript documenting the Trump-Zelensky phone call in July.  They also walk through the declassified whistleblower report and point out what is likely to matter most as this process moves along.  And they get a kick out of Elizabeth Warren changing her mind on whether it’s OK for the children of vice presidents to sit on the boards of foreign companies.

Member Post

 

Over the last few weeks, I’ve given y’all humorous accounts of my travails with one Inept Government Agency (IGA) after another. From the comments after each post, a lot of you have had similar experiences. There is one very important group of people who cannot say the same: The moral paragons who want to control […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Democratic Debate Wrap-Up: The Race Remains the Same

 

Two hours and forty-eight minutes later, the third Democratic primary debate is finally over. Nothing said Thursday night will significantly impact the race; Biden still leads with Warren and Sanders close behind.

ABC News hosted the latest scrum, filled with more Trump-bashing, tax-raising, and spending, spending, spending. According to party rules, only ten candidates appeared. In addition to the top three, the dais included Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Harris, Klobuchar, O’Rourke, and Yang.

Without Tulsi, Marianne, or the red-state outliers, Thursday’s debate was duller than the previous affairs — and that’s saying something.