« PDA by the subway entrance | Main | Top-14 or bust »

June 28, 2012

Comments

w the fuck, roberts

Did you invest in hospital companies? HCA and CYH just jumped by 8%.

Roberts was a bush appointee, so he's a corporatist. Obamacare is great for corporations.

I will be putting in the paperwork to be exempt from this tax like McDonalds and many other companies. I will need the money since the insurance companies have been cut out of the process and will go under. I am a little confused, if I do not have insurance it is free, but if I do not have insurance by choice I get taxed? Of course this leads to many other questions. Department of human health services I am sure will do a great job rather than the insurance companies.

"Did you invest in hospital companies? HCA and CYH just jumped by 8%."

Yeah, I hate that healthcare was done this way, but I'm glad that the court ruled the way they did.

You don't get it - you should.
Supreme Court "justices" ARE elites.
Harvard Elites.

They want coloreds to pay for the damage they've done to their Harvard sorority/Frathouse fellows RUNNING the insurance companies.

As I said BEFORE: The last time I looked, supreme court justices' PAYCHECKS ALL said "US Government" on them.

To look to Harvard Elites as your champion and savior is the height of foolishness.

@ Firepower,

You said: "They want coloreds to pay for the damage they've done to their Harvard sorority/Frathouse fellows RUNNING the insurance companies. To look to Harvard Elites as your champion and savior is the height of foolishness."

How so? Low IQ NAMs are exempt from pay anything. They certainly aren't foolish in this regard.

I hear Roberts was quoted as saying something or other to the effect that it's not the Court's job to protect the citizens from the consequences of their political choices. Interesting, if true.

You were right (and you usually are, which is why I enjoy your blog). Interestingly, the Court upheld the mandate on the basis of Congress' authority to tax, not the Commerce Clause. From ScotusBlog:

In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn’t comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding. . . . Yes, to answer a common question, the whole ACA is constitutional, so the provision requiring insurers to cover young adults until they are 26 survives as well.

....

Except Obama said that it wasn't really a tax. Tough to know how this one will play out politically.

Why are we holding the Supreme Court responsible for this disaster? The liberals have voted in these officials that have made this bed and the Supreme Court is saying we all have to lay in it. They also said the Federal government can not punish the states who do not expand their roles. Trust me I live in AZ and when I say that the states will be punished...well we here in AZ know how this ends up going. We, in AZ, do not have a border between Mexico and AZ. Guess who gets to pay for the services that these new undocumented Americans will receive? They will get housing, Obama cell phone with minutes, food stamps, child care, health care etc....and our state is not allowed to ask if they here illegally. Unless they have commited a felony "all is good". Our crime rate, before this political disasster, had significantly dropped.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/new-fbi-data-confirms-falling-crime-rates-arizona
We also allowed our citizens to openly carry weapons during this time frame. So now lets see how it will rise with the the Federal Government rufusing to enforce laws in AZ. It is unfortunate there is not a 1-800 number for citizens to call.

"Harvard sorority/Frathouse fellows RUNNING the insurance companies."

Moron. The insurance industry is run by people who went to Texas, Vanderbilt, Miami ...

This will hasten sovereign bankruptcy and a reset or reorg of the system. I am surprised the elites seem so in favor of this if it eventually undermines the status quo they so dearly try to keep going.

This is a weird ruling by Roberts. Seems he's created a whole new ploy for Congress to mandate individual economic activity under "penalty" of tax.

He said this wasn't a penalty because $600 isn't really much money. But he didn't make it clear at what level a tax magically transforms into a penalty (he seems to suggest that if the tax were more than the cost of the insurance, then it would be a penalty - not sure that this means if the tax is more than 100% of the price of the thing they want you to buy, then it is a penalty). Seems the distinction between tax and penalty is going to be important.

"Also, I think the Court was plain wrong on Arizona, but the Court correctly followed precedent from the 1930s and 1940s here." -- HS

The problem with "precedent from the 1930s and 40s" is that it was unconstitutional. The constitution should trump previous court rulings. An insider once told me that a lot of these politicians and justices start out conservative when they're elected and appointed. But that Washington is so liberal that it influences them to move to the left. That combined with the conservative nature not to make waves doesn't bode well.

********

"They want coloreds to pay for the damage they've done to their Harvard sorority/Frathouse fellows RUNNING the insurance companies." -- Firepower

I don't understand. Please elaborate.

I think there is some strategic value for conservatives to be seen as being strict defenders of the overall intent of the Constitution and not merely to be seen as using some mere technicalities to get the policy they want. The mandate argument to a large degree seemed to be semantics if it was a tax or an unconstitutional forcing of commerce.

As the voting demographics change, the only means the right will have to stop or significantly slow encroaching socialism will be to demand a strict adherence to all the original and accrued constitutional checks against simple majoritarianism, especially the filibuster. The ruthless use of the filibuster in the legislature and the rigorous defense of its inviolability because of long-time precedence in the courts (similar to the left's use of the accrued meaning through precedent of the commerce clause in this case)seems like it will be the only way to hold back the coming new majority.

Basically then Congress can tax you if you own a gun, or not. Tax you if you eat broccoli, or not. Tax you if you buy condoms, or not.

But wait there's more ... the tax is NOT paid to the federal government, but to insurance industries. So basically a "fine" aka "tax" can be levied if you don't buy a gun, or buy one, don't buy broccoli, or buy it, don't buy booze, or buy it. ANY part of ordinary life comes under Congress i.e. the White House control.

But wait there's more ...

Practically this means death panels, rationing, killing older White Americans to get nearly all of Mexico to come to the US (no border enforcement in the AZ case and no possibility of the states doing it in view of the Fed's abdication) to elect a new people.

Kill off older Whites to provide free health care to Mexican girls at age 16 and their newborns. That's basically it.

And like all fights over MONEY it will be brutal and to the death. Either the elites are killed off, or ordinary people will be killed off, that MONEY fight is entering its decisive, Wallenstein phase.

"As the voting demographics change, the only means the right will have to stop or significantly slow encroaching socialism"

Seriously guys, "socialism" (Western Euro-style) isn't a bad thing in and of itself. It works quite well in these countries (the PIIGS are another matter, tho).

" the only means the right will have to stop or significantly slow encroaching socialism will be to demand a strict adherence to all the original and accrued constitutional checks against simple majoritarianism"

The only means will be the iron laws of economics. Blue California, New York and Maryland all have cut budgets. All across Europe they are cutting budgets. Russia had to cut the budget.

There are some issues that should be addressed politically rather than judicially, and this was one.

Can we please dispense with the idea on this blog that electing Romney is essential because of his Supreme Court appointments?

Unless you think Romney will appoint justices to the right of Roberts?

If it's a tax then it still should have been struck down because taxes must originate in the House but Obamacare originated in the *Senate*.

"Harvard sorority/Frathouse fellows RUNNING the insurance companies."

No, the insurance companies opposed the reform.

The key supporters of the bill are and were the Cathedral institutions (BIG Govt Unions, BIG Education, BIG Think Tanks, BIG Regulatory Agencies) which keep waging war against the private sector.

The Cathedral sector employees depend on building bigger and bigger government to make more jobs for liberals. With each regulation or government agency comes the need to hire more liberals in the Cathedral apparatus to "solve" a problem that the liberals either invented out of thin air (Racial diversity, Global Warming) or make worse than it already is (health insurance).

Moving away from this particular ruling,

"Harvard sorority/Frathouse fellows RUNNING the insurance companies."

The problem the right has had fighting the left is that all of the right's energy has been devoted to attacking the Democrats, not the Cathedral/Big government apparatus and it's defenders. The GOP has proven to be rather good knocking at out Democrat presidential candidates, but conservatives have failed to bring their big government enemies to heel, especially the big government agencies outside D.C. such as colleges, non-profit doogooder agencies, the news media, etc.

Fortunately for conservatives, the Cathedral sector institutions are creaking and vulnerable. Scott Walker dealt a devastating defeat against public sector unions. The news media is rapidly going out of business as they fail to make up in digital ad revenue what they used to earn in more lucrative print ads. Computer Tablets and 4G LTE internet speeds in particular will accelerate their bankruptcy.

Anything that threatens to defund the Cathedral institutions is good, but there is one Cathedral institution that hasn't been bankrupted: The Colleges, or, more specifically, the Liberal Arts Departments where the most hardcore leftist fanatics not only reside, but protected with tenure from having to answer to anyone for their disastrous decisions.

It's time to defund the public sector apparatus rather than focusing on just voting out Democrats who sacrifice themselves at election time while they leave behind unaccountable govt agencies behind them.

The best ways to defund the Liberal Arts (and possibly cripple the left in the process) is by:

1) Putting colleges on the hook for student loan defaults. This will harm the liberal arts because liberal arts degree graduates are more likely to default on their loans because their fields are less lucrative career fields compared to business and STEM.

2) Have states or the government regulate that all college majors must be offered in a British style 60 credit bachelor degree program that bypasses all gened requirements. Most liberal arts professors would be laid off if undergrads could study only their majors because the libarts professors spend most of their time teaching geneds, not libarts majors, because 80% of college students study vocational majors.

3) Federal or state imposed price controls on college tuition hikes - if, as academia claims, Health care needs price controls because insurance premiums are rising too fast then colleges need price controls even more because tuition is inflating faster than inflation.

4) Regulate schools must offer liberal arts (but not business or STEM classes) in online formats.

OT,

Sigma, voting out Democrat presidential candidates is nice and all, but there needs to be a movement to defund the non-elected Cathedral agencies the Democrats leave behind when they are voted out. Scott Walker has dealt a heavy blow to public sector unions (which have provided key monetary support to leftist causes). Private sector unions are dying off. Newspapers and the News media will soon be dead thanks to tablets and high speed internet.

Could you get back on the College Tuition scam like you did the Law School Scam?

Post about:

1) Skipping the gened for a 60 credit British style bachelor's program.

2) Requiring liberal arts classes (but not STEM or business) be offered to undergrads in online formats.

Get to work.

This is a bailout. Take from the haves and give to the have-nots.

Who? Whom?

Enjoy the decline.

Conservatives worked themselves into a tizzy over Obamacare for purely political reasons. Obamacare was a Republican proposal for how to fix the US health care system in the 1990s. Mitt Romney implemented an almost identical plan in Massachusetts in 2006.

When Democrats and Obama adopted the Republican plan, Republicans had to turn 180 deg and oppose it as the most evil, communist, socialist, freedom robbing idea ever proposed.

Wake up guys and girls. The health care system in the US is a mess and it is getting worse.

Personal or family health is simply not an insurable risk. If you or a member of your family is seriously ill or seriously injured, an insurance company can look at you and say, it is going to cost us at least $100k to insure your family next year. We cannot renew your policy for less than that.

In most states, insurance rules forbid insurance companies from refusing to renew you policy or raising your rates excessively because you get sick. But you now have a per-existing condition. You can never change your insurance coverage to another company. You cannot move out of state, because your insurance coverage is only good as long as you live in that state. If you move out of state, you will not be able to get coverage.

Individual health insurance just doesn't work. It is not an insurable risk. To the extent the US health care system works, it is because most people don't buy individual health insurance, their employer buys health insurance for them. The insurance company looks at the health of all the employees and families and comes up with a reasonable price to cover all of them. There are a few seriously ill people in that pool, but most of them are healthy.

What ObamaCare and RomneyCare do is create a new way of forming pools that will buy insurance for everyone in the pool, much like the way employers do today. These pools will be an alternative for people who don't have access to employer pools. Most employers only offer 2 or 3 health insurance options. I expect the state pools will offer many more options.

People not covered by employer health insurance will be able to move between states without risking losing their coverage. Presumable, most people will have insurance, and far fewer people will be showing up in emergency rooms for free health care.

If you don't like ObamaCare, then what are the alternative ways of fixing the system?

I have heard two ideas:

1) Move people away from employer coverage to personal coverage. As I explained above, without the state pools (or some other similar system) to buy coverage from, personal coverage just doesn't work. This proposal makes the system worse.

2) Allow insurance to be sold across state lines. This proposal is an end run around state insurance regulations. Health insurance companies would find the state with the least regulations, and insurance for the whole country would be written in that state. This would probably make health insurance plans cheaper, but they would not cover very much.

These proposals both make the health care problem worse, not better.

"I hear Roberts was quoted as saying something or other to the effect that it's not the Court's job to protect the citizens from the consequences of their political choices. Interesting, if true."

I'm sure that is exactly what he was thinking. Unfortunately, he's wrong. Congress has only a few enumerated powers, and it is totally proper for the court to overturn an act of Congress that oversteps its powers. Like HS, I was not optimistic about what the ruling would be. The court has been wrong on almost every major decision for the past 80 years. A monkey flipping coins could do a better job.

Some people are speculating that Roberts changed his position midway through the process. They say if you read Scalia's dissent, it is written like a majority opinion and several times it refers to the "Ginsburg dissent," but Ginsburg was in the majority.

It looks like initially the vote was 5-4 to overturn, with Scalia assigned to write the majority opinion and Ginsburg to write the main dissent. Apparently Roberts would not sign on to the Scalia opinion and flipped his vote. Ginsburg did write some dissenting opinions on a few issues, but she was in the majority on most of the ruling.

"As the voting demographics change, the only means the right will have to stop or significantly slow encroaching socialism will be to demand a strict adherence to all the original and accrued constitutional checks against simple majoritarianism,"

NAMs won't vote for the party that doesn't want to take their money and give it to the IQ deprived. They're too stupid to assimilate and any appeals to them adhering to principles against majoritarianism will not work.

Paying nonwhite immigrants $100,000 to renounce citizenship and leave is the better strategem for conservatives to deal with the immigrant vote.

Afterall, they can't vote if they're another country. If Eduardo Saverin renounced his citizenship to make money why would one think the average NAM immigrant wouldn't leave for $100k? For $50k, half the nonwhite population in California would pick up and leave (though ironically, that still wouldn't be enough to change the state's politics because majorities of whites in California also vote Democrat. But California's standard of living would rise greatly under citizenship buyouts as low IQ immigrants clear out and white American move in their place.

Ironically, the Court may have harmed Obama's campaign by ruling in favor of the government because one of, if not the most, unpopular parts of the law, the mandate, is still standing. Had only the mandate and some related sections been struck down, Obama could have avoided the unpopularity of the law more easily heading into an election which he was likely to lose even before the Supreme Court made the Health Care law an issue again.

Like HS, I predicted that the court would affirm Obamacare.

http://mikestreetstation.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/obamacare-on-trial/

After all, the four liberal judges were rock solid in supporting it, so they only needed to peel off one judge, which they did. But I think there is a lot less to this decision than meets the eye.

The court upheld the individual mandate based on the taxing power of the constitution, not the commerce clause. So when it came to deciding if the commerce clause meant the government could do anything, they punted. So rather than ignoring the constitution, they merely ignored the text of the law. That’s a far better situation than if the court had decided to not recognize any limits to the commerce clause. This is no Kelo. This is a political decision that was only about this particular law. It didn’t set a legal precedent.

The Stolen Valor Strike Down in particular looks more like an early stage Alzheimer/Dementia "slip" than another step in the Left Wing drift/conspiracy.

Idealogy is one thing, but political Alzheimer/Dementia they are exhibting is a game changer.

"...Wallenstein phase."

Weimar phase...

Undiscovered:

1.) I'm basing my above logic for conservatives to make the filibuster their main weapon on the assumption NAMs will never vote conservative (digression: saw some poll recently that reported the nearly mind-blowing result that blacks currently favor Obama 92-1)but that there are enough white conservative states in the Plains, Upper Mountain West, South, rural Midwest to keep a near permanent filibuster against any redistribution policies.

2.)I don't think liberals would allow a pay-to-get-NAMs-to-leave movement to ever get off the ground.

3.)I think it would be very significant to get the liberal arts indoctrination program shut down but is it feasible? I guess Walker was able to cut the public employee unions off at the knees but parents love them some college. Is it possible to change the culture enough to defund the colleges and/or liberal arts? The Dems ain't dumb and will do all they can, like the above mentioned filibuster, to stop it.

@ The Undiscovered Jew,

It's simple if you want to downsize the colleges and universities. Have people take up vocational trades and have them learn Liberal Arts off the side. It's that simple. Most people don't see a ROI with their college degrees nor do they actually find college to be life fullfilling. Business degrees are waste of toilet paper as are Liberal Arts and Law degrees. With how the world is evolving, STEM fields seem to be the best bet. Other than STEM, vocational trades which is a result of STEMing, seem to be the next best thing for those mortals who are not hardcore enough and want a well paying job. Think about it, vocational fields like IT, Plumbing, auto repair, pest control and waste management are all linked to STEM fields.

Other benefits would be the elimination of Liberal entitlement and its 2 subdivisions, Feminism and NAMism. Liberals suck at STEM and won't touch trades, so do feminists and NAMs who are basically useless at all fronts.

"I'm basing my above logic for conservatives to make the filibuster their main weapon on the assumption NAMs"

Ok.

"2.)I don't think liberals would allow a pay-to-get-NAMs-to-leave movement to ever get off the ground."

So what? They also oppose stopping illegal immigration, free market economics, and national defense. That doesn't mean good policy shouldn't be advanced.

If conservatives promote aggressively enough they can win. Again, look at Scott Walker's trendsetting victory over a major leg of the Cathedral.

It would also be easier to fight the left if the cocooned Cathedral agencies outside of DC had their funding cutoff.

The key, as always, as to keep moving forward.

Defunding the Cathedral brings me to...

"3.)I think it would be very significant to get the liberal arts indoctrination program shut down but is it feasible? I guess Walker was able to cut the public employee unions off at the knees but parents love them some college. Is it possible to change the culture enough to defund the colleges and/or liberal arts? The Dems ain't dumb and will do all they can, like the above mentioned filibuster, to stop it."

Sure it's feasible.

The best way to sneak in an anti-liberal arts program would be to advertise the policies as ways to make college cheaper while avoiding any mention of the political implications of the proposal.

For instance, portray British style 60 credit bachelor degree programs as ways to cut tuition in half because students would be able to graduate two to three years earlier thanks to a more specialized workload. Online classes would reduce the need to pay for on Campus housing. Price controls would keep tuition inflation in check. etc, etc.

Just don't mention your covert political message. Use only economic justifications for these policies.

And they would work too.

Florida Gov Rick Scott is trying to reign in college tuition, and the liberals are already expressing concern about how the Gov's hostility to tuition hikes is having a negative effect on the liberal arts for the sake of funding STEM

Look:

http://news.wfsu.org/post/govs-higher-ed-task-force-considers-higher-tuition-options

In order to recruit the best faculty, you have to pay for them. Certain programs, like science, technology, engineering and math also cost more to run. Most of those programs are subsidized by liberal arts programs- which attract a larger number of students, and, have also been targeted for closure as universities deal with budget cuts. University of North Florida President John Delaney represents the state university system on the panel.

“We’re only after those programs we’ve found are a necessitative need in our community at large. Let’s state that. What do we want? What would we like to have? It would be nice to know if we’re willing to spend on it, but let’s state what would we like to have?”

Delany says the state and the schools should outline what their priorities are and then decide how to fund it. University officials say many of Governor Scott’s goals for higher education conflict with one another.

More liberal hand wringing re Rick Scott's "controversial" views on the liberal arts:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/keeping_tuition_low_in_florida.php

The average annual tuition at Florida state universities is $5,600. The national average for public universities is about $8,200 a year.

This is not the first time Scott has given controversial advice to state colleges. Back in October he tried to cut state funding for liberal arts programs, arguing that “we don’t need a lot more anthropologists in the state.”

Last July he argued that it was time to reform tenure in state universities, giving more weight to student evaluations. “Students ought to be measuring the effectiveness of our professors,” Scott said, “because ultimately, it is the family’s money paying for this.”

Students and professors argued against both of these proposals, which seemed vaguely based on models for how corporations function, and had little to do with successful higher education. Third time’s a charm, I guess.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/rick_scotts_anthropology_probl.php

Earlier this week the governor of Florida, Rick Scott, threatened to move state funding away from the liberal arts and into more “practical fields.” He argued specifically that something like anthropology was not worth of public support because,

You know, we don’t need a lot more anthropologists in the state. It’s a great degree if people want to get it, but we don’t need them here. I want to spend our dollars giving people science, technology, engineering, math degrees. That’s what our kids need to focus all their time and attention on. Those type of degrees. So when they get out of school, they can get a job.

Many critics pointed out that the undergraduate major wasn’t supposed to be preparation for a career in anthropology so much as preparation for a huge variety of professional jobs.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/scapegoating_the_liberal_arts.php

Too many students are getting useless degrees, complains the governor of Florida, Rick Scott, who argues that what Florida needs is more students with “practical” majors. This advice seems realistic, but it’s actually based on nothing but a myth stemming from some weird assumptions about the evils of the liberal arts.

According to an article a few days ago by Zac Anderson in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune:

Reforming Florida’s college and university system will be one of [Gov. Rick] Scott’s top priorities when the state Legislature convenes in January, the governor said in an interview Monday with the Herald-Tribune. Leading Scott’s list of changes: Shifting funding to degrees that have the best job prospects, weeding out unproductive professors and rethinking the system that offers faculty job security.

Scott said Monday that he hopes to shift more funding to science, technology, engineering and math departments, the so-called “STEM” disciplines. The big losers: Programs like psychology and anthropology and potentially schools like New College in Sarasota that emphasize a liberal arts curriculum.

“If I’m going to take money from a citizen to put into education then I’m going to take that money to create jobs,” Scott said. “So I want that money to go to degrees where people can get jobs in this state.”

This is a very odd way to look at economics. Encouraging people to study science and engineering is commendable, but when you’re talking about this only in terms of helping people get jobs, this is all just ridiculous. People don’t go to college to get jobs; they go to college to get an education. No one has ever demonstrated that students can’t get jobs because they studied the wrong things. That’s because this isn’t true.

If recent college graduates can’t get jobs in Florida, that’s probably just because Florida’s economy is in the toilet. That’s probably a more important thing to address.

What a good governor would do is say here’s what the state needs; let’s find a way to educate people to meet those needs. If Florida wants more engineers, because, say, it plans to build a lot of infrastructure in coming years, it makes sense to promote policies to make that happen. Perhaps the governor should consider making engineering degrees free for students. But there’s no real connection here between the academic majors the governor wants to hurt and the jobs that actually exist.

http://htpolitics.com/2011/10/10/rick-scott-wants-to-shift-university-funding-away-from-some-majors/

Future anthropology majors be warned, Gov. Rick Scott does not believe such programs contribute much to Florida’s economy and wants them on the losing end of university funding decisions.

Reforming Florida’s college and university system will be one of Scott’s top priorities when the state Legislature convenes in January, the governor said in an interview Monday with the Herald-Tribune.

Leading Scott’s list of changes: Shifting funding to degrees that have the best job prospects, weeding out unproductive professors and rethinking the system that offers faculty job security.

The governor has been discussing the ideas in interviews across the state as he previews a soon-to be released 2012 legislative agenda. Scott also is paving the way for the changes by making them central to his appointment process for new university board members.

Scott said Monday that he hopes to shift more funding to science, technology, engineering and math departments, the so-called “STEM” disciplines. The big losers: Programs like psychology and anthropology and potentially schools like New College in Sarasota that emphasize a liberal arts curriculum.

“If I’m going to take money from a citizen to put into education then I’m going to take that money to create jobs,” Scott said. “So I want that money to go to degrees where people can get jobs in this state.”

“Is it a vital interest of the state to have more anthropologists? I don’t think so.”

snip

But the proposals are being met with skepticism from college and university leaders who worry that the reputation of Florida schools will suffer and that the state will have a hard time attracting top faculty and students if certain programs are being slashed and professors feel under attack.

“It’s sheer and utter nonsense,” said former University of Florida President Charles E. Young. “They have a total lack of understanding about what a university is and what universities do.”

snip

While much of Scott’s higher education agenda is borrowed from Texas, his proposal to emphasize science and technology over liberal arts has been kicked around in Florida for years with limited success.

In 2010, lawmakers used federal stimulus money to increase STEM funding by $12 million. Sarasota’s New College used the money for a science program studying local watersheds.

Earlier this year, a proposal by the state Board of Governors — which sets higher education policy — to substantially boost STEM funding was ignored by lawmakers who wanted the money to come from reductions to other programs like psychology.

Led by Gaetz, lawmakers began questioning the number of psychology graduates, the most popular degree program at some state universities.

A group of psychology professors countered with a white paper noting that Florida is hardly unique.

Scott wants universities to provide students with information on average salaries for each degree program.

The median income nationwide for someone with a bachelor’s degree in psychology was $30,000 in 2006, according to the white paper.

The governor also said he hopes to come up with other ways to incentivize STEM programs and discourage liberal arts majors. But increasing overall college and university funding seems unlikely with economists predicting another budget deficit of up to $2 billion this year.

Any increased STEM funding would likely have to come from other programs, something university leaders oppose. “We do not want to, and don’t intend to, rob Peter to pay Paul,” Board of Governors spokeswoman Kelly Layman said Monday.

"Any increased STEM funding would likely have to come from other programs, something university leaders oppose. “We do not want to, and don’t intend to, rob Peter to pay Paul,” Board of Governors spokeswoman Kelly Layman said Monday."

Unless Peter is paying for Paul's Obamacare...

Mikeca,

Opposition to Obamacare wasn't solely for political reasons. This is obscured somewhat by the focus on the mandate, which was a tactical, legalistic attack on Obamacare, rather than a substantive one. To avoid free riders, you need either a mandate or a universal tax (as with Medicare).

The problem with Obamacare is that it's a Trojan Horse for a single-payer system. By setting the penalty for not having coverage lower than the cost of insurance - and by requiring insurers to cover those with preexisting conditions - Dems can bankrupt health insurers, clearing the way for the govt as a single payer. The rich would still have access to top quality medical care in boutique practices, but everyone else would get something along the lines of Britain's NHS.

For a nuanced, positive conservative spin on the healthcare ruling, see Sean Trende's take: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/28/the_chief_justices_gambit_114646.html

The individual mandate follows from the fact that hospitals treat emergency patients who don't have insurance. Government intrusiveness into our everyday life is an inevitable part of living in a technologically advanced society, where one could easily calculate the price Precious' obesity induced diabetes and arterioschlerosis will exact on society. And if we can stop Precious, or tax her so as to recompense the state, why wouldn't we?

Technology is great. But it's important to know the price: loss of privacy and free will; ever-growing unemployment rates fueled by a rising IQ cutoff for workplace entry. ( This occurs both because jobs require ever more advanced skilsl, and since technology replaces workers, there are less jobs available. ) ;

So the mandate remains as a tax but it seems to merely operate as a penalty for not getting health insurance.

So, if one does not buy health insurance, then what exactly is that penalty? I've read that it is about $750 a year.

Now, this needs to be put into perspective. I shopped for one individual policy with an insurance company. The cost just to cover me alone was between $450 and $1500 a month. Yes, a month. The penalty seems to allow me to have insurance for $750 a year.

Of course, there will exemptions for the poor, but I do not see how this tax changes anything in the current system. A $75 a month payment within the existing system is not going to make a difference in health care costs. The option to use ER's will still remain so people without insurance will still get healthcare there. And none of this will stem the flow of illegals that are using the healthcare system.

Mikeca, ObamaCare does not establish a pooled risk. Insurance companies like insuring businesses because they discovered that your health is uncorrelated to where you work. Being black or from Chiappas, Mexico is indicative of correlative health risk, however. An ever-growing number of these people will bankrupt the country.

John,

HS WAS being optimistic because he's for Opapacare, just as he's pro Krugman and pro food stamps for all. He just writes in an unclear manner to mess with actual cons.

"In order to recruit the best faculty, you have to pay for them. Certain programs, like science, technology, engineering and math also cost more to run. Most of those programs are subsidized by liberal arts programs- which attract a larger number of students, and, have also been targeted for closure as universities deal with budget cuts. University of North Florida President John Delaney represents the state university system on the panel".

Money would be saved if the Liberal Arts programs are eliminated and student enrollment dropped. Too many people who are either unprepared for higher education or don't have the knack for it, should learn a vocation. It's that simple.

Another point, it goes to show you how NAMs, especially Blacks are of no use to society. Just go to any corporate mega store staff by them and you'll see how they work even in the most mundane tasks. Most of the time, the NAM workers have entitlement issues, and the company and customers have to put up with their drama, instead of a carefree work attitude that you find in other workers. It simply cost too much hire a person with entitlement and unefficient work behaviors.

Undiscovered, on second thought I think the pay-to-leave program could be part of an overall effort to get recent illegal immigrants from mostly Mexico and CentAmer to return home. More broadly though I still think it would be a non-starter. Obviously this is the only home blacks know. And making this offer to the post-65 Immigration Act wave of new Hispanic citizens would be perceived as unacceptably racist by 75-80% of the country, including most Republicans.

But it could be a very alluring enticement to the illegals and work better and maybe be cheaper than the enforcement path. But how could you guard against people gaming the system and getting multiple checks by continually coming and going?

It comes down to how this decision was handles or even considered to have standing.
The SCOTUS would not here the case if the mandate was considered a tax because until someone had been taxed there was no harm caused. Yet Roberts says it is a tax. So where is the harm/standing to bring this case before the court? (Scalia agrees)
Then Roberts jumps the gun in his opinion by giving reason not to bring a complaint concerning the tax. He states that congress has the right to tax, therefore don't bother.

WOW! I just had one of the LIBS in my office say that health care is a right. Really! When was the last time we were taxed on a right. Should we tax free speech? WTF

@JustSpeculating

"Another point, it goes to show you how NAMs, especially Blacks are of no use to society. Just go to any corporate mega store staff by them and you'll see how they work even in the most mundane tasks. Most of the time, the NAM workers have entitlement issues, and the company and customers have to put up with their drama, instead of a carefree work attitude that you find in other workers. It simply cost too much hire a person with entitlement and unefficient work behaviors."

A "entitled" NAM employed in minimum-wage retail is a better outcome for society than unemployed and shiftless NAM.

"More broadly though I still think it would be a non-starter. Obviously this is the only home blacks know. And making this offer to the post-65 Immigration Act wave of new Hispanic citizens would be perceived as unacceptably racist by 75-80% of the country, including most Republicans."

So?

Mainstream immigration restrictionists can't get any traction for reducing legal immigration, but that doesn't stop them from making their case.

If whites did start to overtly express support for unloading the burden of non-white legal immigration, I'd think many immigrants would get the hint that they are no longer welcome and leave in large numbers before major legislation were passed.

It would actually be quite easy and simple to move American demographics in favor of a white majority again.

The problem is willpower, not ability. Just go through any "diverse" mall in America and look at the NAM immigrants and try to guess what percentage of them would gladly trade in their citizenship/greencard for $100k per family member.

France and Spain had a program several years ago that paid unemployed legal immigrants a few thousand euros to leave and 10% of qualified immigrants chose to take the money and leave. This is despite the fact those immigrants would have almost certainly been better off financially by turning down the buyout and staying in Europe while collecting welfare checks from the French and Spanish governments.

If whites did demand a white America policy along the lines of the old (and correct) white Australia policy, don't think for a moment they wouldn't get what they want with ease.

"But how could you guard against people gaming the system and getting multiple checks by continually coming and going?"

Ordinary finger printing would take care of that problem for legal emigrants because they'd have to show ID to get a check in the first place.

Anyone trying to reenter who already left wouldn't have the documents needed to apply for more money and their fingerprints would be used to determine if they had already applied to leave the country.

Illegal immigrants should simply be deported with no financial stipend.

Sigma, what did you learn in your four years of LAW school that you could not have been taught during your four years as an undergraduate student?

@Just Speculating
"""How so? Low IQ NAMs are exempt from pay anything. They certainly aren't foolish in this regard.

and
@destructure "They want coloreds to pay for the damage they've done to their Harvard sorority/Frathouse fellows RUNNING the insurance companies." -- Firepower

I don't understand. Please elaborate."""

I wrote a more complete explanation here: http://wp.me/p2kmGE-q1

Poor white trash and the coloreds flood Big Medicine's hospital emergency rooms to get free healthcare for every ingrown diabetic toenail, blown out welfare uterus and every gunshot from a drive-by crack shooting.

The fine for not having insurance - PAYABLE TO UNCLE SAM - is the reason "Justice" Roberts voted to effectively reimburse his rich elite frat brothers.


@ Bill

"A "entitled" NAM employed in minimum-wage retail is a better outcome for society than unemployed and shiftless NAM".

No, even at minimum wage, NAMs are not effective workers. They see the workplace as if it was their neighborhood, where they joke, argue and get pissy with customers. Now take the Mexicans who earn significantly less and operate in a very effective and efficient manner. There is a reason why Black NAMs have gripes about Latinos taking over their jobs.

@ Firepower

Poor NAMs aren't stupid when it comes to getting things for free. They are happy to suck on public welfare and other social programs doled out by Liberals.

There will always be medical insurance for them at our expense.

Just in case you don't know, White trash aren't a common sight in the big cities where money is the talk of the town. That is, if you're talking about the poor ones.

@Just Speculating

I agree. Coloreds have a racket built upon GENERATIONS of gaming the free welfare system.

They will ALSO GAME THIS Free Obamacare program.

Socialist liberals like Maobama and Pelosi are counting on it.

The comments to this entry are closed.