Flipping The Calendar

Flipping the calendar is pretty meaningless as the rest of the week is likely to be more or less the same as the beginning. Most things happen with little regard for calendar conventions.

Well, not everything. Healthcare is different this year. The pharmaceutical, hospital and health insurance industries are set to cash in on years of bribery. Investment tip: short the word “affordable” in the proper name of the law we call Obamacare.

Missed investment tip from last year. Short the word Obama.

While on the subject of names for laws, here is an interesting story by Adam Liptak in the New York Times called Laws Deserve More Than Those Cute Names.  According to Liptak, there is some evidence that there is more to the problem than a bit of sophomoric puffery by low level political spinners.

If all you knew about the new healthcare law was that it was either affordable or named after the Messiah-wanna-be, you might well have liked it. Truth is, nobody knew what was in it including Nancy Pelosi, who probably still hasn’t read it. Actually, she might well be getting an idea of what is in there from her fund raisers who are now enjoying the delights of payback time.

Despite being the beneficiary of some wholly undeserved reflected glory from naming opportunities for laws, I would end the practice entirely. Unless …

What if names for laws could be sold like the names of stadiums with the proceeds used to pay off the national debt? That would certainly appeal to a flinty-eyed, bill-payer scold like me. [Note: I love being a scold because Paul Krugman hates us. I also love being right because whiney Paul hates that too.]

If the naming rights idea takes hold, poor Harry Reid might regret having killed the filibuster. They could have been televised under the banner of Depends or some other provider to the “embarrassing urgency” demographic. Rand Paul could provide periodic shout outs to the sponsors as he hopped from one foot to the other.

Sadly, with the turn of the calendar, we providers of political snark must bid adieu to long-time hero Silvio Berlusconi. He will be greatly missed. Fortunately, he leaves us with a much-anticipated successor in Toronto Mayor, Rob Ford.

For these and other beauties, the City Council has stripped Mayor Ford of his powers though he retains his title.

  • Proclaimed his skill at oral sex on TV
  • Smoked crack on a video
  • Turned up drunk at a local festival
  • Got kicked out of a Santa Claus parade
  • Been asked by the Toronto Argonauts to quit wearing their jersey
  • Been admonished by Iceberg Vodka for drinking and driving

Well Mayor Ford, you might have little more than a powerless job that only Paul Krugman could love but you are the winner of the highly coveted libertyPell Silvio Berlusconi Award as the year’s most shameful politician.

Subscribe

The process is easy... First name, last name, email address and you are in. You will receive an email when a story is posted.

Subscribe now

Haven Pell

At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Without hesitation, Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

View all posts

4 comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Spent some time today contemplating the absurdity of income taxes in a world where the Fed can print as much money as it needs or even just wants. Pure thievery, but I suppose it maintains the illusion that the dollar still has some value: what a laugh…. As one blogger put it, the Fed can print as many dollars as it wants. We
    not only have to work for them, but then have to give most of them back to their creator. Keynes once said that if the public ever realized what they were doing, they’d revolt. I don’t suppose Krugman mentions that in his classes, if he even still bothers with classes. The Democrats keep saying that debt doesn’t matter, and from their stantpoint they are correct. If you can debase the currency to essentially zero, what do you actually owe? If you still think you owe too much, print more and watch the wonderous ability of inflation to eliminate debt. Moreover, if your endgame is “equality of outcome” (of everyone but politicians and their crony capitalist conspirators) what better way to accomplish that than to improverish the middle class and all of those people who do not share your political objectives? Interesting times… This year’s elections may prove to be even more crucial to the nation’s future than those of 2012. Both Obama and big government have been exposed for the failures they are, but is the public sufficiently intelligent to see it? If so, do they care?
    What I fail to understand is the press’ collusion in all this. Is it political correctness run amok? If not, what is their interest in seeing the country destroyed by Progressive-ism?
    Have you read Hayek’s “The Fatal Conceit; The errors of Socialism?” Just finished it: Marvelous… If you can’t guess, the Fatal Conceit is to imagine that you can control the future.
    Happy New Year, Haven

    • I especially liked the phrase “equality of outcome” (of everyone but politicians and their crony capitalist conspirators)

      I will look for the book on audible. Many thanks.

  • I should have said that the Fatal Conceit (as set forth by Hayek) is to imagine you can control the future, and especially the economy, and expect a better result than would have occurred naturally. All you really do, in his opinion and mine, is create a bunch of unintended and wholly counter-productive results because politicians are not Gods; rather they are crass and fallible human beings like the rest of us. The Founding Fathers were fully aware of this, which is why they developed a system of checks and balances. Why have their teachings been forgotten?
    Hayek is also brilliant on why Progressives “have” to oppose essentially all of a our traditions and customs. These have developed naturally in accordance with man’s necessity of living together cooperatively in society. They were not the creation of either reason or government. In order to justify social engineering, you have to reject anything that was not the product of “scientific reason,” I don’t do him justice with this over-simplification, so check out his book if you have the chance.