Money Bomb Feature

A headline at Organizing For Action proclaims - By 2014, The Health Care Law Will Help Nearly All Uninsured Americans Get Coverage. During remarks in the Rose Garden last year, President Obama lauded a study that indicated "through new options created by the Affordable Care Act, nearly 6 in 10 uninsured Americans will find that they can get covered." So it stands to reason that tracking the uninsured who have been helped by ObamaCare would be an important task, especially for Democrats who supported the legislation.

Not so, according to Gary Cohen, Director at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), administration official, and proponent of the ACA.

A health care reporter for the National Journal tweeted this message yesterday:

CMS' Cohen, asked how many uninsured signing up for ACA: “That's not a data point we are really collecting in any sort of systematic way”

The entire point of passing Obamacare was to alleviate the problem of 'folks' without insurance. So is the administration to be believed when they say they're not tracking this particular data point, or are they simply trying to sweep the results under the rug?

The Washington Post almost immediately provided the answer, running an article explaining that two separate surveys show what the White House and Democrats don't want the public to know - health insurance marketplaces are simply not signing up the uninsured.

The new health insurance marketplaces appear to be making little headway in signing up Americans who lack insurance, the Affordable Care Act’s central goal, according to a pair of new surveys.

Only one in 10 uninsured people who qualify for private plans through the new marketplaces enrolled as of last month, one of the surveys shows. The other found that about half of uninsured adults have looked for information on the online exchanges or planned to look.

One of those surveys by the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform shows that nearly half of the previously uninsured have not paid their premiums and thus have not purchased insurance.

Another chart indicates why a majority of the uninsured did not commit to purchasing a plan - affordability.

Let that sink in for a minute. A health care policy that has the word "affordable" in the title, has been deemed unaffordable by a vast majority of those who remain uninsured. Not technical glitches, not indecision, and not lack of information. Affordability.

American Commitment's Phil Kerpen explains that as bad as these numbers seem, they're actually much worse.

Bob Laszewski reports that another two to five percent of enrollees who paid their January premiums failed to pay in February. That group is also likely skewed toward the previously uninsured.

So 10 percent of the uninsured "selected a plan," about 5 percent of the uninsured actually paid a first month premium, and even less than that stayed a second month.

This new information is devastating to a White House already on edge as the end-of-March deadline to enroll draws near. A deadline that, if delayed, would cause insurance costs to soar even higher.

Here are three possible budgetary futures for the US government. Which one do you prefer?

Option A: Balance in 3 Years. If we freeze all federal outlays (spending) at the 2014 level, the budget will balance in three years (by 2017).

Option B: Balance in 10 Years. If we freeze all outlays at the 2014 level except the "big three" entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security), the budget will balance in ten years (by 2023).

Option C: Balance Never. If we do nothing to rein in spending, federal deficits will grow in perpetuity, the national debt will reach unprecedented heights, and by the 2030s the US government will be forced to default on its debt.That, in turn, will in all likelihood trigger a global economic crisis and impoverish millions of working Americans.

Which option do you prefer?

If you answered either A or B, congratulations, you're a member of the tea party.

Dean Clancy, a former senior White House budget official, is FreedomWorks Vice President for Public Policy.

==================

NOTES: All figures are annual. All three options are based on projections by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in its Budget and Economic Outlook: 2013 to 2023. All three options assume that on average GDP and total receipts grow at about 4 percent, with total receipts remaining constant at about 19.1 percent of GDP. Option A assumes total outlays grow at 0 percent. Option B assumes total outlays grow at 3.6 percent overall, with the Big Three programs together growing at their currently projected rate of 6.2 percent and the remaining programs growing 0 percent. Option C assumes total outlays grow at 5 percent. In both Options B and C, Medicare and Social Security grow at 6 percent and Medicaid grows at 7.5 percent.

Personal Freedom and Prosperity 110: The Rule of Law

In drawing up the Massachusetts Constitution, John Adams described the Rule of Law as “to the end it may be a government of laws, not of men.”

The Rule of Law in Ukraine, Venezuela and the USA

The protests and violence in the Ukraine and Venezuela are widespread public outrage against oppressive laws decreed by the coercive powers of their governments. In both countries, the middle class is rebelling against the corruption and edicts of oligarchs and dictators. Essentially, the citizens of Ukraine and Venezuela are seeking, in John Adams words, “... a government of laws, not of men.” They are seeking to participate in a system of written rules that are universally, impartially and uniformly enforced. This is generally referred to as the Rule of Law, and for this blog is defined as:

A government with moral and legal authority promulgates written rules and universally, impartially and uniformly enforces the rules, which provides a predictable and stable legal order on which to base economic and personal decisions. The law prevails, not the proclamation or arbitrary decision of a ruler, government bureaucrat, the enforcer (e.g., policeman) or judge.

Similar to the middle class rebellions in Ukraine and Venezuela, America's Revolutionary War was fought to be free from the edicts of King George III and the Parliament of England. Remember the Sugar, Stamp, and Quartering acts. At the Constitutional Convention, James Madison created three branches of government to prevent government by proclamation. These constitutional checks and balances were to protect the freedom of every American from the proclamations or arbitrary decisions of government, especially the ruler.

Today, the citizens of Ukraine and Venezuela are seeking freedom. Michael Barone of the Washington Examiner correctly reasons that the citizens of Ukraine and Venezuela - two very diverse countries - are risking their lives because there is the “absence of the rule of law.” More importantly Barone cautions Americans:

“The rule of law is hard to establish and easy to dismantle. Something to keep in mind as our president keeps unilaterally rewriting Obamacare and our IRS targets his political opponents.”

Ukraine and Venezuela—Russia as well - are societies divided between a political elite built around patronage and corruption and an increasing, globally-aligned middle class who yearn for economic reform and a voice in decisions regarding their destiny. This is the faultline of our times.

Read more:

Real Clear Politics Follow: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

Earlier this week, President Obama released a budget plan that has to have most Americans wondering if they've found themselves in the middle of a Bill Murray Groundhog Day scenario. The budget offers little in the way of new ideas, simply a repeat of the President's failed policies of the past.

Here are the crib notes for the proposal - Tax, spend, rinse, repeat.

Obama's budget - a $3.9 trillion monstrosity that will increase spending by 63 percent and add $8.3 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years - seeks more than $600 billion in new spending designed. The plan calls for only minor spending cuts to narrow targets and a hike in taxes on the rich.

In fact, the President is calling for nearly $2 trillion in new taxes to ease borrowing over the next decade, taxes that The Washington Post explained would be a burden to major businesses and the wealthy.

Additionally, there is little that the President's budget offers by way of compromise with Republicans. Time called it "a partisan opus" and "a laundry-list of policy proposals designed to help Democrats hold the Senate and pick up seats in the House."

The President, who has mastered the art of vague yet unachievable promises during his term, proclaims his budget will provide 'opportunity for all,' and seeks to end homelessness. His debt projections are overly-optimistic, colliding with that of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

When the President does try to address specifics, his ideas are partisan and fall flat. Gun control, immigration reform, the aforementioned lack of spending cuts, or a plan to reign in benefit increases for Social Security for example.

Politico writes:

... unlike last year, when Obama was seeking a fiscal bargain with Republicans and used the budget as an olive branch, this year’s proposal contains no major compromises. Gone is the request for chained CPI, an offer to reduce the the benefit increases for Social Security and other federal social programs.

The New York Times explains that it was his fellow Democrats that sought the elimination of the chained CPI because the party is "fearful that compromises on Social Security would further demoralize the liberal base when the party needs high turnout to withstand big losses in November."

The President's budget is more about winning elections than actually governing while in office. The real world is hard.

That reality it seems, has escaped this particular budget plan. Even the normally friendly liberal media has been unable to take it seriously. Here is a sampling of media reviews:

“The White House isn’t even pretending that this year’s budget is a governing document.”

"Very little of it is expected to ... be seriously considered."

"Stands little or no chance of being approved."

In retrospect, perhaps the prospect of having "little chance of being approved" makes the President hopeful. After all, little chance is far greater than past results.

Matt Kibbe explains, "President Obama’s budgets got zero votes in 2011 and 2012. Not zero Republican votes, zero votes, period. With progressive pipe dreams like his latest budget proposal, it’s not difficult to see why."

Until Congress votes this time around, the American people are left to wallow in the President's progressive pipe dreams.

He is a broken record, stuck on tax, spend, repeat.

Follow Rusty on Twitter @rustyweiss74