EU-Greece Talks on Bailout Break Down, Setting Up Showdown

At WSJ, "Greek Prime Minister Tsipras bets on securing better deal directly from eurozone leaders":

BRUSSELS—Talks between Greece and its European creditors collapsed over the weekend, setting up a high-stakes showdown in which the country’s prime minister is gambling he can wrest a softer bailout deal directly from eurozone leaders.

The swiftness with which European officials dismissed the Greek government’s latest proposals on Sunday—calling them “vague and repetitive”—suggests Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras is placing all of his bets on appealing for better terms to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the 17 other eurozone leaders at a Brussels summit on June 25. If he fails, a default on the country’s debt and a possible exit from the currency bloc loom.

Ahead of the summit and a big debt payment due on June 30, Mr. Tsipras also risks triggering a run on banks by panicked depositors and being forced to restrict withdrawals and transfers of euros within and out of Greece. That could quickly create a situation beyond Mr. Tsipras’s and the government’s control, officials from the country’s creditors fear.

After a flurry of meetings aimed at mending Greece’s moribund €245 billion ($275 billion) international bailout, the European Commission, which has been leading the negotiations, sent out a brief statement Sunday, saying the gap between the two sides over what spending cuts and other concessions Greece would have to make was still as high as €2 billion of budget revenues annually.

“There remains a significant gap between the plans of the Greek authorities and the [creditors’] requirements,” it said.

The breakdown in talks marked the end of a tumultuous week for Athens and its creditors, which include the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

On Monday, Greece sent new proposals on how to break an impasse that stepped away from budget targets its creditors thought it had already agreed. On Thursday, the IMF pulled out of the bailout talks, citing lack of progress. Later that day, senior officials from eurozone countries for the first time jointly discussed a “Plan B” to the negotiations—that no deal will be found and Greece defaults on June 30.

That is when the eurozone portion of the rescue program expires and the government faces a €1.54 billion payment to the IMF, which it won’t be able to make without a new bailout transfer...

Greece won't default. There won't be a "Grexit." The EU states don't wont a collapse of the EMU and they'll find a way to save monetary union, even if they don't like bailing out Greece.

More.

Eurozone Agrees on Four-Month Extension of Greece Bailout

At WSJ:

BRUSSELS—Greece struck a tenuous agreement for a four-month extension of its bailout Friday, removing immediate concerns over a potential exit from Europe’s currency union but setting the stage for more tense negotiations over the country’s financial future.

The deal, reached after weeks of often harsh exchanges between Athens and other European capitals, forced the left-wing government of Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras to temper many of the anti-austerity pledges that swept it into power last month.

The tough negotiations have frayed relationships between Greece and other governments, and particularly with Wolfgang Schäuble, the German finance minister.

“Now we hope that trust can grow again. There’s a lot of room for growth,” Mr Schäuble said afterward.

Markets rose on Friday as the agreement was reached, with the Stoxx Europe 600 edging up 0.6% to reach its highest level since November 2007. Both Germany’s DAX index and the U.K.’s FTSE 100 climbed 0.4%. The euro was up against the dollar and the yen.

U.S. stocks also rose on the news, as the Dow industrials, the S&P 500 and the Russell 2000 small-company index hit record highs.

Greece’s Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis rejected claims that Friday’s deal constituted a surrender of the government’s anti-austerity promises. “Our pre-electoral program was about four years. This deal is about four months,” he said.

The agreement to extend the bailout that was due to run out Feb. 28 should fend off immediate concerns about Greece’s deteriorating finances and help stem an outflow of deposits from its banks.

However, concerns about Greece’s ability to pay its debts will linger. The deal leaves a series of hurdles that could trigger further bouts of nervousness, with the first to be encountered next week.

Under the agreement, Greece has to present by Monday a list of budget cuts and economic overhauls, which has to pass the scrutiny of the supervisors of the bailout, the so-called troika of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund. On Tuesday, finance ministers will review the proposals.

Only once these measures have been implemented will Athens received the next €7.2 billion slice of a €240 billion ($273 billion) bailout that has kept it afloat for almost five years.

Crucially, the four-month extension only takes Greece to the end of June, upping the pressure to negotiate a follow-up rescue deal in time for almost €7 billion in bond repayments to the ECB in July and August.

The Greek finance minister can take some small victories back to Athens. Greece will likely be allowed to run a smaller primary surplus—a measure of its budget balance that strips out interest payments—than the 3% of gross domestic product mandated by its bailout deal this year.

But the ministers’ statement stressed that this concession had been made only because the economy has performed worse than expected.

“Today we have found partners among those who up until very recently looked at us with suspicion,” said Mr. Varoufakis. “There are some partners who still look at us with suspicion.”

Keep reading.

Greek Prime Minister Rejects Extending Bailout and Seeks Loan to Keep Country Afloat

Hmm...

It's not going too well for the Greek Che Guevara.

At Euronews, "Greece needs a bridge loan not a bailout according to its new prime minister: A defiant Alexis Tspras has laid out his plans to dismantle what he calls Greece's 'cruel' austerity programme."

Obama Expresses Solidarity for New Greek Communist Government

Well, the new radical left government, with the Marxist "Greek Che" prime minister, is a godsend for the communist-loving Barack Hussein.

At the Wall Street Journal, "Obama Expresses Sympathy for New Greek Government: U.S. President Said There Are Limits to How Far European Creditors Can Press Athens":

President Barack Obama expressed sympathy for the new Greek government as it seeks to rollback its strict bailout regime, saying there are limits to how far its European creditors can press Athens to repay its debts while restructuring the economy.

“You cannot keep on squeezing countries that are in the midst of depression. At some point there has to be a growth strategy in order for them to pay off their debts to eliminate some of their deficits,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria aired Sunday.

He said Athens needs to restructure its economy to boost its competitiveness, “but it’s very hard to initiate those changes if people’s standards of livings are dropping by 25%. Over time, eventually the political system, the society can’t sustain it.”

Mr. Obama expressed hope that an agreement would be reached so Greece can stay in the eurozone, saying, “I think that will require compromise on all sides.”...

FLASHBACK: "Greece Still Wants Free Lunch."

Same as it ever was...

Outspoken, Marxist and Anti-Austerity: Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras Unveils His Cabinet

Heh, the Independent UK calls out Greek Prime Minister Tsirpas on his Marxist radicalism.

See: "From a political economics professor to the Marxist head of Syriza's far-left: Greek PM Alexis Tsipras unveils the members of his new cabinet."

Syriza and Europe's Collectivist 'Social Responsibility'

Here's how the radical left views the radical left's victory in Greece.

From far-left political scientist Marianna Fotaki, at Informed Comment, "Greece move left would Give Europe Chance to Rediscover Social Responsibility":

The European Union should not be afraid of the leftist opposition party Syriza winning the Greek election, but see it as a chance to rediscover its founding principle – the social dimension that created it and without which it cannot survive.

Greece’s entire economy accounts for three per cent of the euro zone’s output but its national debt totals €360 billion or 175 per cent of the country’s GDP and poses a continuous threat to its survival.

While the crippling debt cannot realistically be paid back in full, the troika of the EU, European Central Bank, and the [International Monetary Fund or] IMF insist that the drastic cuts in public spending must continue.

But if Syriza is successful – as the polls suggest – it promises to renegotiate the terms of the bailout and ask for substantial debt forgiveness, which could change the terms of the debate about the future of the European project.

It would also mean the important, but as yet, unaddressed question of who should bear the costs and risks of the monetary union within and between the euro zone countries is likely to become the centrepiece of such negotiations.

The immense social cost of the austerity policies demanded by the troika has put in question the political and social objectives of an ‘ever closer union’ proclaimed in the EU founding documents.

Formally established through the Treaty of Rome in 1957, the European Economic Community between France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries tied closely the economies of erstwhile foes, rendering the possibility of another disastrous war unaffordable. Yet the ultimate goal of integration was to bring about ‘the constant improvements of the living and working conditions of their peoples’.

The European project has been exceptionally successful in achieving peaceful collaboration and prosperity by progressively extending these stated benefits to an increasing number of member countries, with the EU now being the world’s largest economy.

Since the economic crisis of 2007, however, GDP per capita and gross disposable household incomes have declined across the EU and have not yet returned to their pre-crisis levels in many countries. Unemployment is at record high levels, with Greece and Spain topping the numbers of long-term unemployed youth.

There are also deep inequalities within the euro zone. Strong economies that are major exporters have benefitted from free trade and the fixed exchange rate mechanism protecting their goods from price fluctuations, but the euro has hurt the least competitive economies by depriving them of a currency flexibility that could have been used to respond to the crisis.

Without substantial transfers between weaker and stronger economies, which accounts for only 1.13 per cent of the EU’s budget at present, there is no effective mechanism for risk sharing among the member states and for addressing the consequences of the crisis in the euro zone.

But the EU was founded on the premise of solidarity and not as a free trade zone only. Economic growth was regarded as a means for achieving desirable political and social goals through the process of painstaking institution building.

With 500 million citizens and a combined GDP of €12.9 trillion in 2012 shared among its 27 members the EU is better placed than ever to live up to its founding principles. The member states that benefitted from the common currency should lead in offering meaningful support rather than decimating their weaker members in a time of crisis by forcing austerity measures upon them.

This is not denying the responsibility for reckless borrowing resting with the successive Greek governments and their supporters. However, the logic of a collective punishment of the most vulnerable groups of the population must be rejected...

A perfect summation of radical far-left ideology. Imagine that. This time, at the international level. Still the same, though. Redistribution from those with more to those with less, screw personal responsibility. For the left, Syriza's win isn't about optimizing opportunities to cut ties to Brussels and the economic engines of Europe (especially Germany), but rather to cling tighter and suck harder at the teat of continental collectivism.

Another example of how right and left "fringe parties" differ radically in their ideological tendencies.

Lowlife leftists are scum-sucking dirtbags.

Still more.

The Greek Warning

At WSJ, "Radical parties rise when mainstream parties tolerate stagnation":

The exit polls Sunday night suggested that Greece’s far-left Syriza party will score a major victory in the weekend’s parliamentary election. The fallout for Europe will take time to sort out, but the warning should be clear enough about the political consequences of economic stagnation.

With Syriza poised to capture around 35% of the vote barely four years after it rose to national prominence, its leader, Alexis Tsipras, will have the first chance to form a new government. Mr. Tsipras is a former civil engineer who once favored Greece leaving the eurozone. He has tempered that demand as he sought power, but at a minimum he will try to renegotiate Greece’s bailouts with the troika of the European Commission, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund.

A Greek euro exit isn’t likely, at least not immediately or intentionally. Some on the left favor the idea, but polls show most Greeks don’t. They know a return to the drachma would mean a crushing devaluation with catastrophic results for the average Greek’s standard of living.

The Syriza victory is nonetheless a rebuke to European leaders. Greeks believe, not unreasonably, that the conditions imposed by the troika have been disastrous. The 2010 and 2012 bailouts came with draconian fiscal tightening, in the usual IMF fashion, with too little attention to promoting pro-growth reforms. The result has been falling wages and pensions and rising taxes, with no growth in return for the pain.

Those results cost the incumbent center-right New Democracy party led by soon-to-be-former Prime Minister Antonis Samaras. His chief failing was a lack of conviction and skill in implementing reforms to labor markets, business regulations and a crackdown on corruption that would have promoted growth.

Instead he chose to meet the troika’s fiscal targets through the growth-killing combination of much higher taxes and deep but unevenly applied spending cuts. As one example: Greeks now pay a 23% value-added tax, while the eurozone average is 20.8%. Ireland also has a high VAT rate but it has a 12.5% corporate tax rate to attract capital. That‘s an example for Greece to follow...

Keep reading.

And see WSJ's main article, "Leftists Sweep to Power in Greece" (via Memeorandum):

With nearly all votes counted, opposition party Syriza was on track to win about half the seats in Parliament. In the wee hours of the morning, it clinched a coalition deal with a small right-wing party also opposed to Europe’s economic policy to give the two a clear majority.

“Today the Greek people have written history,” Syriza’s young leader and likely new prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, said in his victory speech late Sunday. “The Greek people have given a clear, indisputable mandate for Greece to leave behind austerity.”

A Syriza victory marks an astonishing upset of Europe’s political order, which decades ago settled into an orthodox centrism while many in Syriza describe themselves as Marxists. It emboldens the challenges of other radical parties, from the right-wing National Front in France to the newly formed left-wing Podemos party in Spain, and it sets Greece on a collision course with Germany and its other eurozone rescuers.

This is what's absolutely fascinating to me: It's a parliamentary system with proportional representation, which facilitates the electoral fortunes of what would normally be fringe parties. And Syriza's forming a government with a "small right-wing party also opposed to Europe’s economic policy..."

That's the populism that MSM hacks keep warning about.

The rough equivalent to that "small right-wing party" in Greece" is France's National Front under Marine Le Pen, which will vie for the presidency in 2017. These are extremely momentous times in Europe. And the onus will be on the so-called mainstream parties to reform political systems and restore robust economic growth with low unemployment. The difference between right and the left, however --- and this is huge --- is that radical leftist parties repudiate the war on terror and they encourage the political power of radical Islamists. Francois Holland took something like 90 percent of the Muslim vote when he was elected to office in 2012. And thus, while both right and left are billed as populists, the actual policy differences (and consequences) of their respective governing regimes are enormous. Ms. Le Pen is committed to pulling up the drawbridge on French immigration, and that entails working to eliminate the E.U.'s open borders regulations allowing the free flow of goods and people across Europe. The effect of these has been to allow terrorists to roam free and organize the jihad conquest. The left parties will facilitate that development rather than fight it. And on other issues as well, far-left parties will welcome the further evisceration of traditional culture and atheistic malevolence.

These are far from insignificant issues to ponder as Europe grapples with the impact of Greece's monumental election.

Jubilation in Central Athens as Thousands of Syriza Supporters Celebrate Landmark Victory

Via Euronews:

Radical Syriza Party, Under Greek 'Che Guevara' Alexis Tsipras, Set to Sieze Power in Athens

They're not my cup of tea, obviously.

The party's leader, Alexis Tsipras, zoomed around on motorcycles as a Communist youth activist in his early days. The Greek 'Che Guevara," or so they say.

Still, I can't discount Syriza's anti-EU agenda. The unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels are snuffing out popular democracy across the continent.

At the Guardian UK, "Syriza wins Greek election as Samaras congratulates Tsipras – live updates."

Also at London's Daily Mail, "Eurozone braced for 'catastrophe' as Greek PM concedes defeat in crucial election with radical left-wing anti-austerity party on brink of historic victory."

Gloomy Outlook Among the Young in Athens as Greek Election Approaches

A video at Euronews.

The economy remains in the tank, although I'll be surprised if Greek youth are much happier once the communists come to power.

At the Christian Science Monitor, "Greek leftists set for big win. Now comes the hard part: swaying Europe."

Elizabeth Warren’s Government Shutdown

It's hard to find a more revolting Democrat dirtbag than Elizabeth Warren, and they've got a deep bench, so that's saying something.

From Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary:

The specter of a potential government shutdown is haunting Washington today. But it isn’t Ted Cruz and what the liberal mainstream media considers his gang of Tea Party obstructionists who are the principle threat to the passage of the so-called Cromnibus bill that will avert the possibility of a repeat of the 2013 standoff. Instead it is the darling of the liberal media, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is seeking to derail the compromise forged by House Speaker John Boehner and Democrats. Warren is calling on liberals to vote against the deal because among its provisions are measures raising the limits on campaign contributions and scaling back some of the onerous regulations on banks and Wall Street firms in the Dodd-Frank bill that have caused such havoc. But don’t expect the same media that labeled Cruz an arsonist to speak ill of Warren’s efforts to thwart efforts to keep the government funded.

Cruz has been loudly and frequently criticized both by liberals and some conservatives for deciding that his efforts to thwart the implementation of ObamaCare took precedence over the need to keep the government funded. Even those who sympathized him on the substance of this issue thought he was unreasonable in his insistence that voting for a compromise-funding bill made Republicans complicit with measures they opposed. The notion that principle ought to trump political reality and the necessity to avoid a standoff that could lead to a government shutdown (for which President Obama and his supporters were just as responsible as anything Cruz and the Tea Partiers did) was viewed as a disruptive approach that interfered with the responsibility of both parties to govern rather than to merely expound their views.

But the question today is why are those who were so quick to tag Cruz as a scourge of good government for his opposition to often messy yet necessary compromises to bills that require bipartisan support not putting the same label on Warren.

The reasons for this are fairly obvious. Most of the press clearly sympathizes with Warren’s rabble rousing on behalf of ineffective campaign-finance laws as well as a regulatory regime that has caused as much trouble as the problems it was supposed to solve. Warren’s rhetoric denouncing the rich and Wall Street is catnip for a press corps that shares her political point of view. By contrast, few in the media sympathized with Cruz’s last stand against ObamaCare, something that most in the president’s press cheering section viewed as a reactionary position that deserved the opprobrium they hurled at it.

Yet Warren’s attacks on the spending bill are no less extreme than anything Cruz was saying in 2013 or even now as he has ineffectively sought to rally conservatives to oppose the Cromnibus. Her claim that the Dodd-Frank changes were slipped into the bill in the middle of the night are false since they were negotiated with Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Barbara Mikulski, who is every bit the liberal that Warren claims to be. So is the notion that they are the product of a right-wing conspiracy is flatly false since, as the Washington Post notes, Democrats like Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and Rep. Nita Lowey voted for them in a stand-in alone vote last year.

She's a lying "Fauxcahontas" scumbag. That's why the leftist press lover her.

Keep reading.

Also at Politico, "Lindsey Graham: Elizabeth Warren’s ‘the problem’."

Lots of Grassroots Conservatives Want to See Someone Throw a Wrench in the Washington Spending Machine

From Byron York, at the Washington Examiner, "Angry at Ted Cruz, Republicans should remember what he represents":

Republicans have a good chance to win control of the Senate this November. Democrats are on the defensive over Obamacare, the president is unpopular, and history suggests second-term mid-terms are nearly always unlucky for the White House.

Given that, why is there so much division, backbiting, and bad blood among some Senate Republicans? Last seen during the government shutdown fiasco, the GOP malady returned this week with a debt ceiling mini-fiasco, and it threatens to revisit the Senate any number of times before Election Day.

There is at least one common thread in the shutdown and debt ceiling incidents, and that is Sen. Ted Cruz. For whatever reason, the Texas freshman has at times goaded his party to dysfunction, embarrassment, and defeat. (Not quite singlehandedly; others, like Sens. Mike Lee and Rand Paul, have also been done their bit.)

Many in the GOP believe Cruz is just out for himself. But even if that's true, they have to remember that he represents more than just Ted Cruz. There are a lot of Republicans -- it's not clear how many, but a significant portion of the party's base -- that cheers Cruz on when he battles with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. They want to see a Republican throw a wrench in the Washington spending machine, even if it creates chaos and damages the GOP's standing with independent voters. And it is that conviction that is really behind the party's problems; it is why Republicans would not enjoy smooth sailing even if Cruz were to retire tomorrow...

More here (via Memeorandum).

Yeah, well, I think most genuine conservatives are fed up with the same old (big-spending) story in Washington. Ted Cruz is a godsend for them.

And as much as I love the Wall Street Journal, the editorial page is frequently much too establishment for my tastes. See the editors' attack on Cruz on Wednesday, for example, "The Minority Maker: Ted Cruz hurts his party by forcing a meaningless debt-ceiling vote." (And don't get me going about the WSJ and open borders, sheesh.)

'Too many people are falling further and further behind because, right now, the president's policies are making people's lives harder...'

That's the line that stuck with me most. It's something I've talked about in my classes, especially on healthcare and jobs for college aged students.

At Politico, "McMorris Rodgers promotes ‘hopeful’ agenda."

The text is here, "State of the Union GOP response: Cathy McMorris Rodgers (text, video)."

Obama Pledges 'Year of Action' on Economy and Jobs

At ABC News, "In State of the Union 2014, President Obama Pushes for Year of Action on Economic Opportunity" (via Memeorandum).

And at the New New York Times, "Obama Vows Solo Action on Economic Gap":

WASHINGTON — After five years of fractious political combat, President Obama declared independence from Congress on Tuesday as he vowed to tackle economic disparity with a series of limited initiatives on jobs, wages and retirement that he will enact without legislative approval.

Promising “a year of action” as he tries to rejuvenate a presidency mired in low approval ratings and stymied by partisan stalemates, Mr. Obama used his annual State of the Union address to chart a new path forward relying on his own executive authority. But the defiant “with or without Congress” approach was more assertive than any of the individual policies he advanced.

“I’m eager to work with all of you,” a confident Mr. Obama told lawmakers of both parties in the 65-minute nationally televised speech in the House chamber. “But America does not stand still — and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.”

The president’s appearance at the Capitol, with all the traditional pomp and anticipation punctuated by partisan standing ovations, came at a critical juncture as Mr. Obama seeks to define his remaining time in office. He touched on foreign policy, asserting that “American diplomacy backed by the threat of force” had forced Syria to give up chemical weapons and that “American diplomacy backed by pressure” had brought Iran to the negotiating table. And he repeated his plan to pull troops out of Afghanistan this year and threatened again to veto sanctions on Iran that disrupt his diplomatic efforts.

The most emotional point of the evening came with the introduction of Sgt. First Class Cory Remsburg, an Army Ranger the president had met both before and after he was ravaged by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan. As Sergeant Remsburg, blind in one eye and having to learn to walk again, made it to his feet in the first lady’s box, lawmakers of both parties gave him an extended ovation.

But Mr. Obama’s message centered on the wide gap between the wealthiest and other Americans as he positioned himself as a champion of those left behind in the modern economy. “Those at the top have never done better,” he said. “But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled.

“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 to get ahead,” he added. “And too many still aren’t working at all. So our job is to reverse these trends.”

To do so, the president announced an executive order raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour for future federal contract workers and the creation of a new Treasury savings bond for workers without access to traditional retirement options. He proposed incentives for trucks running on alternative fuels and higher efficiency standards for those running on gasoline. And he announced a meeting on working families and a review of federal job training programs.

Mr. Obama was gambling that a series of ideas that seem small-bore on their own will add up to a larger collective vision of an America with expanded opportunity. But the moderate ambitions were a stark contrast to past years when Mr. Obama proposed sweeping legislation to remake the nation’s health care system, regulate Wall Street, curb climate change and restrict access to high-powered firearms.

Republicans responded by blaming Mr. Obama for the country’s economic problems, but the party’s leaders avoided the language of last year’s government shutdown and hoped to present what Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington called “a more hopeful, Republican vision” intended to appeal particularly to women in a midterm election year...

More at the link.

Yep, #ObamaCare's 'Cementing in Place,' Which is Why Everyone's Planning for the Law's Unraveling

You gotta love the subliminal messaging at the New York Times, "As Health Law Cements Its Place, G.O.P. Ponders How to Attack."

That's clever headlining, especially how it implies that Republicans will have a hard time replacing ObamaCare once it's all "cemented in place." The piece even quotes Republicans who stress that any reform must account for those now covered by the ACA. At least Republicans care about people not losing their coverage. And as for that "cemented in" part, you'll have to ask the president himself, who treats little of the law as permanently settled. (See WSJ, "Flurry of Tweaks to Affordable Care Act Leaves Insurers Rattled," and "Health-Insurance Deadlines Keep Slipping.")

And interestingly, Phillip Longman and Paul Hewitt, at the far-left Washington Monthly, are looking well beyond ObamaCare with little expectation that the law will restrain healthcare costs. The authors double-down on government fail, however, saying that federal regulators should simply come in and set prices for the entire national healthcare system! See, "After Obamacare."

I don't know what's going to happen with the law, but I'm intrigued with the recent finding at the Reason-Rupe Poll, "Americans Want to Go Back to Previous Health Care System..."

Frankly, polls show that Americans think anything's better than ClusterCare.

But the left doesn't have a way forward. It's a holding pattern for the White House now, with the left hoping the bad news fades away in time to minimize Democrat midterm losses next November. And 2016's still a long ways off.

Meanwhile, some form of market-based reform's needed to get the healthcare system back on track towards quality and affordability. I think this piece by John Cochrane at WSJ is one of the best on this I've seen, "What to Do When ObamaCare Unravels":

The U.S. health-care market is dysfunctional. Obscure prices and $500 Band-Aids are legendary. The reason is simple: Health care and health insurance are strongly protected from competition. There are explicit barriers to entry, for example the laws in many states that require a "certificate of need" before one can build a new hospital. Regulatory compliance costs, approvals, nonprofit status, restrictions on foreign doctors and nurses, limits on medical residencies, and many more barriers keep prices up and competitors out. Hospitals whose main clients are uncompetitive insurers and the government cannot innovate and provide efficient cash service.

We need to permit the Southwest Airlines, LUV 0.00%  Wal-Mart, WMT +0.49% Amazon.com AMZN -0.22%  and Apples of the world to bring to health care the same dramatic improvements in price, quality, variety, technology and efficiency that they brought to air travel, retail and electronics. We'll know we are there when prices are on hospital websites, cash customers get discounts, and new hospitals and insurers swamp your inbox with attractive offers and great service.

The Affordable Care Act bets instead that more regulation, price controls, effectiveness panels, and "accountable care" organizations will force efficiency, innovation, quality and service from the top down. Has this ever worked? Did we get smartphones by government pressure on the 1960s AT&T T +0.60%  phone monopoly? Did effectiveness panels force United Airlines and American Airlines to cut costs, and push TWA and Pan Am out of business? Did the post office invent FedEx, FDX +0.92%  UPS and email? How about public schools or the last 20 or more health-care "cost control" ideas?

Only deregulation can unleash competition. And only disruptive competition, where new businesses drive out old ones, will bring efficiency, lower costs and innovation.

Health insurance should be individual, portable across jobs, states and providers; lifelong and guaranteed-renewable, meaning you have the right to continue with no unexpected increase in premiums if you get sick. Insurance should protect wealth against large, unforeseen, necessary expenses, rather than be a wildly inefficient payment plan for routine expenses.

RTWT.

White House, Desperate to Increase Enrollments, Gives More Time for #ObamaCare Sign-Ups

I first saw this report on my iPhone and thought the app needed to update.

But no, it's at the New York Times for Christmas morning, "Sign-Up Period Extended Again for Health Plan":

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Tuesday that it would provide more time for people to complete their applications for health insurance if they could show that they missed the deadline because of problems with the federal health care website.

The move was the latest in a series of deadline changes, exemptions and clarifications that have confused insurers and many Americans and opened the administration to increasing criticism from Republicans who have opposed the Affordable Care Act from the start and have repeatedly tried to overturn it.

It was not clear on Tuesday how many people would be affected, or how consumers would prove that website errors had prevented them from signing up by the deadline on Tuesday night.

The announcement itself was vague, saying only that if website problems had prevented any consumers from enrolling, they might qualify for what the government has called “a special enrollment period.” The administration did not say how long that would last. Nor did it define what website errors might be involved.

Republicans said the announcement — coming a day after the federal website recorded more than two million visits — showed that President Obama was desperate to increase enrollment, widely seen as a measure of the success of the health care law.

We're seeing changes now on a daily basis. This is totally unreal, and I've been following government and politics for a long time!

I simply have no idea what's going to happen, but clearly, as Glenn Reynolds points out in his most recent USA Today op-ed, the law's obviously not settled and the administration expects further problems well into 2014.

As always, I'll be on top of it, if for nothing else but the schadenfreude.

Continue reading.

Obama's Misguided Obsession With Inequality

An excellent piece, from Robert Grady, at the Wall Street Journal:

Here is the bottom line: In periods of high economic growth, such as the 1980s and 1990s, the vast majority of Americans gain, and have the opportunity to gain. In periods of slow growth, such as the past four and a half years since the recession officially ended, poor people and the middle class are hurt the most, and opportunity is curbed.

Consider the Census Bureau data, which measure only money income. The data show that median family income adjusted for inflation has not been on a steady or stagnating path since the 1970s. It fell, in real terms, by 5.7% from 1974-1982, when slow growth and high inflation ravaged the average family. Tellingly, in this period, real income fell for the bottom four quintiles, but held steady for the top 20%.

From 1983 to 2007, however, median family income grew substantially—by 21.6% above inflation—and real income grew for all five quintiles. Then, beginning in 2008, real income plunged again, both for the median family and for all quintiles.

The point is this: If the goal is to deliver higher incomes and a better standard of living for the majority of Americans, then generating economic growth—not income inequality or the redistribution of wealth—is the defining challenge of our time.

RTWT.

Addicted to Obama!

Heh.

From S.E. Cupp.

Women Abandon #ObamaCare as Nosedive in Public Support Accelerates

I seriously don't know what going to happen. Certainly the White House is hanging on for dear life, and as I've said before, we probably won't have a chance at full repeal until 2016, with the possibility of a unified government under GOP control across the executive and legislative branches.

Until then, I guess conservatives can continue to say "I told you so."

Here's William Jacobson, "Women declare War on Obamacare."

And see Ed Morrissey, at Hot Air, "CNN poll: ObamaCare support cratering at 35/62" (via Memeorandum).

White House Quietly Delays #ObamaCare Enrollment Deadline

Quietly? Or secretly?

Either way, another sign things are totally FUBAR.

At Jammie, "Due to Underwhelming Demand, Obama ‘Secretly’ Extends ObamaCare Enrollment Period."

And at the Wall Street Journal, "For Health Coverage Starting Jan. 1, Deadline Extended a Day: March 31 Is Next Key Date in Signing Up for Insurance":

Federal officials delayed the deadline to sign up for Jan. 1 coverage through the end of Christmas Eve.

The deadline was originally set for midnight on Dec. 23, but contractors managing the site changed configurations to allow users to sign up for the first wave of health-law coverage through Dec. 24, people familiar with the matter said.

"Anticipating high demand and the fact that consumers may be enrolling from multiple time zones, we have taken steps to make sure that those who select a plan through tomorrow will get coverage for Jan 1," Julie Bataille, director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Service's Office of Communications, said in a statement.

The extension was needed in part because technical problems continue to limit the volume of users that can navigate the site at once, and officials worried people attempting to sign up Monday might not be able to do so. The site has had a record day, with more than one million visits by midmorning, federal officials said on Twitter.

Consumers seeking coverage should attempt to sign up today anyway, Ms. Bataille said. "If you are aiming to get coverage January 1, you should try to sign up today."

News of the change was earlier reported by the Washington Post.

The change follows weeks of last-minute policy shifts for the administration. Last week, for instance, with only days before the enrollment deadline, the Obama administration said people whose plans were canceled would be exempted from a requirement that people buy coverage or pay a fee next year.

Continue reading.