Vermont, on the other hand, seems to be elevating lazy invoicing to a potential criminal offense. Here's the nub of the accusation: Gruber submitted two consecutive invoices in September and October claiming the exact same figures -- 100 hours for Gruber at $500 per hour, 500 hours for his research assistants at $100 per hour. Only one research assistant worked on the project, according to the auditor's report.That was sort of my thought too; grant billing often has nothing or very little to do with when the underlying work is being done. On the other hand, would liberals show equal understanding if a prominent conservative were to have similar billing practices? No, they would relentlessly document his time to prove it was impossible, and demand a federal investigation. I'm totally against unilateral disarmament.
Those numbers sure are suspiciously round, aren't they? They're also pretty high -- as a consultant, I once billed nearly 300 hours in a single month, and a February to boot, but I kind of had to stop sleeping to do it. But they're not physically impossible.
Moreover, the auditor doesn't seem to be arguing that Gruber was fraudulently billing for work the state didn't get: "In spite of concerns about the invoices, it appears the administration was satisfied with the work of Dr. Gruber and his RA," the report says. This is not a case of a contractor billing for work that was never performed, or an hourly employee running up his paycheck for hours he wasn't actually there. It's a case of a contractor who was given a contract for a deliverable, delivered it, and then threw together an invoice where the numbers added up to the amount the state was supposed to pay him.
Jeb Bush: Repealing Obamacare Not a Top Five Agenda Item
Over the past few days at CPAC, Sean Hannity has asked various prospective Republican presidential candidates to list their “top five agenda items.” Former governor Jeb Bush’s list did not include repealing Obamacare.Jeb is clearly running in the steps of John McCain, the "centrist" republican, preferred by the media, until the day he is nominated, at which point he becomes anathema.
Bush’s list included (1) undoing President Obama’s lawless executive actions, (2) regulatory reform, (3) tax reform, (4) encouraging economic growth, and (5) sending “a signal to the rest of the world that we’re going to be their partner for peace and security.” But it did not include repealing Obamacare or signing a conservative alternative to Obamacare into law.
Neither Governor Scott Walker nor Senator Marco Rubio listed repealing Obamacare as a stand-alone agenda item, but both did list it as a subcomponent of their first agenda item. Walker’s first agenda item was “growth,” which he said could be brought about through (in the order he listed them) tax reform, repealing Obamacare, and a pro-energy policy. Similarly, Rubio’s first agenda item was a “healthy economy,” which he said could be brought about through (again, in the order he listed them) tax reform, regulatory reform, repealing and replacing Obamacare, a pro-energy policy, and a balanced budget. (Walker listed only two other agenda items: devolving power to the states, and showing clarity and determination in our foreign policy. Rubio also listed only two others: giving “people the skills they need for the 21st century,” and ensuring a strong military.)
Senator Ted Cruz, meanwhile, listed repeal as a stand-alone agenda item, putting it first: “Number one, repeal every blasted word of Obamacare.”
Kevin Williamson of NRO catches the "fact checkers" at PolitiFact creating their own facts on Obamacare, and boy is he pissed: Intellectual dishonesty among the ‘fact-checkers’
Politifact, which is published under the flag of the Tampa Bay Times, the chief executive of which, Paul Tash, is the chairman of the Poynter Institute, a member of the Pulitzer prize committee, and a disgrace to his trade, recently decided to “fact-check” my colleague Jonah Goldberg, but it was really fact-checking me, as Jonah was citing a claim in a column of mine.It goes on (and on) about how Politifact failed to do the basic research before it awarded him multiple Pinocchios, or however they denote
The claim is a straightforward one: That under the so-called Affordable Care Act, the federal government will recognize and subsidize a great deal of hokum, things like naturopathic medicine and acupuncture that have no scientific basis, that have been clinically shown to be useless or worse, and that are rooted in rank mysticism, from the “qi” energy that acupuncturists claim to manipulate—and which does not, technically speaking, exist—to the “innate intelligence” underpinning chiropractic theory—which does not, in fact, exist, either. As endless peer-reviewed scientific studies document, this stuff is pure quackery, but it is, thanks to the Affordable Care Act and the focused exertions of former Iowa Senator Tom Harkin—one of those Democrats who really love science we’re always hearing about—it is hokum with increasing official status. Senator Harkin successfully campaigned for ACA provisions that would forbid “discrimination” against any practitioner of purported healing arts who is licensed. Many states, California prominent among them (quelle surprise!) license practitioners of superstitious hokum, including naturopathic “doctors” and acupuncturists. There are many reasons for this: One is that superstitious hokum is extraordinarily popular, and the state desires to keep an eye on its practitioners; a second is that California is, as advertised, full of lunatics and the entrepreneurs who service their lunacy; the third is that reasons Nos. 1 and 2 combine to generate revenue for the state, which will—in what must be the most perfect example of progressivism in practice—yank your license to practice medically null but voguish Eastern mysticism in the state of California for failure to pay your crushing California taxes. I once encountered a Whole Foods with a yoga studio inside it, and thought that if one could only get Chris Hayes to broadcast from there (there’s still time, Chris!) it would have constituted a turducken of lifestyle liberalism upon which there would be no improving, but losing your California acupuncturist’s license to the Sacramento taxman surely surpasses that. . .
Ann Althouse catches multiple news outlets trying to work the refs (the Supreme Court) on King vs. Burwell, the court case being argued in front of the court which may decide the legality of subsidies going to states which did not create Obamacare insurance markets.
"Obamacare threatens to end John Roberts’s dream of a nonpartisan Supreme Court."
Just one headline that I'm quoting to stand in for all the articles I'm seeing that seem to be mostly only about scaring/manipulating/massaging the Supreme Court into feeling deep down inside that it simply must not ruin Obamacare.
To my eye, this effort seems so transparent and desperate that it heightens a perception that the text of the statute just won't work for what they really, reeeeeally need it to do.
Pay no attention to that statutory text behind the curtain!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment