Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Friday, January 16, 2026
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 978)

The Washington Post reported late Friday that the board of the Maryland ObamaCare exchange will vote at a meeting Tuesday to junk the current system that has thus far cost, at least, $125.5 million. The vote will take place just one day after the end of the first enrollment period under ObamaCare.

If they can get have a successful experience, then Maryland residents will still be able to use the exchange as it is being replaced with technology from the Connecticut exchange, Access Health CT said. The state is reportedly turning to the consulting firm Deloitte for help in the effort, which will replace the Maryland ObamaCare exchange with technology from Connecticut’s marketplace.

Maryland, as well as Connecticut, built their own exchange. But, unlike Connecticut, Maryland’s has been plagued by computer problems since its rollout on Oct. 1. Improvements have been made, but the computer problems are still too vast. It has been a complete waste of taxpayer money.

The state reports that just 49,293 Maryland residents have enrolled in private health plans as of last week, which is far short of their original goal of 150,000.

Gov. O’Malley said Friday that reporters should expect an official announcement on the future of the exchange next week.

“We still have stuck applications. We still wrestle with it every day,” O’Malley said. “The clock was ticking, and we have been changing the flat tires on this rolling car for the last five, going on six months now. And it has gotten better with every new fix applied to it, [but it is] still not working as it was supposed to work.”

Last month, analysts released a report that found that the state’s unworkable health care exchange would cost the taxpayers $30.5 million because the state is unable to determine whether people are even eligible for Medicaid. The 31-page report also found “there is significant uncertainty about the way forward.” Or, in other words, there is no telling how much money could be truly needed to fix the site as problems arise in the future.

Last month, Maryland’s health exchange board voted to fire the state’s prime information technology contractor, Noridian Healthcare Solutions. Rep. Andy Harris, who is the only Republican congressman from the state of Maryland, recently announced that the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services had agreed to review the state health exchange after requesting an investigation in February.

Earlier this month, the Government Accountability Office, which is the investigative arm of Congress agreed to look into problems with state health exchange websites. The agency accepted an initial request from a group of House Republicans seeking an audit on how $304 million in federal grants were spent on the Cover Oregon website, which has yet to even enroll a single person online without special assistance.

The board of the Maryland ObamaCare exchange

At a United Nations human rights meeting Friday in Geneva a North Korea envoy told diplomats to “mind your own business” during a vote to punish the regime for crimes against humanity.

The comment drew laughter from those in attendance, underscoring the lack of authority the UN human rights bureaucracy actually has over rogue regimes. But the violation, themselves, are no laughing matter. Back in Feb., a United Nations report called for an international criminal investigation into human rights violations by the oppressive-leftist North Korean regime.

The three-member panel found myriad evidence of human rights crimes, such as “extermination,” crimes against humanity, against starving populations and a widespread campaign of abductions of individuals in South Korea and Japan.

The embarrassing event came as the UN Human Rights Council voted for actions against the rogue regime for crimes investigators likened to Nazi-style atrocities, Reuters reported.  Responsibility for the crimes reportedly reach as high as the Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un, the report said.

Those at the UN human rights meeting admitted that despite efforts, charges against Kim are unlikely to actually come down. The typical actors are opposed to such action. China and Russia, which have seats on the U.N. Human Rights Council, both voted against the resolution.

So Se Pyong, the ambassador from Pyongyang, told the group in attendance that “cooperation can never be compatible with confrontation.”

“In the DPRK, we have a proverb saying ‘Mind your own business’,” So said, “which means that one needs to see his or her face in the mirror to check how nasty it is before talking about the others.”

At a United Nations human rights meeting

Russian President Vladimir Putin called President Obama to discuss the situation in Ukraine, but Washington and Moscow have differing versions of the conversation.

The White House said President Obama told Russian President Putin during the phone call Friday that the U.S. strongly opposes Moscow’s aggression in Ukraine, and urged him to pull back Russian troops from the Ukraine border.

The White House said in a press release that Putin called Obama to discuss the U.S. proposal for a diplomatic solution in Ukraine, which Secretary of State John Kerry had already pitched to his counter-part Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

From Saudi Arabia, the release said Obama asked Putin to deliver a written response to the proposal, and the two agreed to have Kerry and Lavrov meet again.

Obama also claimed he urged Putin not to undertake further military provocations in Ukraine. Obama said Ukraine’s government is pursuing a strategy of de-escalation, even though Russia continues to position themselves to invade Ukraine after their incursion into Crimea.

However, the Kremlin gave a completely different account of the phone call, with the Kremlin claiming Putin led the conservation with Obama. The Kremlin said Putin told Obama that the international community needs to work together to stabilize the Ukraine situation.

Moscow also said Putin was able to redirect Obama’s attention to the “continued rampage of extremists” in Ukraine, stating they are intimidating citizens, law enforcement officials and the government.

Putin calls Obama as Ukraine’s government and the West become increasing concerned about what appears to be an imminent Russian invasion into eastern Ukraine.

Russian President Vladimir Putin called President Obama

Pop culture being what it is, Lena Dunham is making quite a splash these days. Parading around half naked in her show “Girls” has gotten her a lot of attention. Some of that attention, though, is not the best kind.

Showing off her prowess as a great comedienne, her style of humor basically involves a grotesque caricature of the female anatomy, displaying all the prowess of a chimp on Ambien. The baloney-armed Ms. Dunham now is taking exception to people who criticize her oh-so-special brand of humor.

Taking to Twitter with the vengeance of an aggrieved housecat, the battered Dunham seems to be taking the low road in insults and blathering idiocy, claiming that her critics are “fat-shaming” her and not understanding her need to undress for comic relief.

Well, she might have a point, because her comic timing and skill are something left to be desired.

The real tragedy though is that there is something more to her whole “take off my clothes, look at me, I’m funny” routine. It’s an old leftist trick called “elevation of mediocrity.” In society today, a prime tool of leftism is the equalization of man and society through the elevation of mediocrity, something that Ayn Rand waxed poetic on in her book, The Fountainhead.

It is virtually impossible to tear down the institutions which have made America, and mankind, great. To try and tear down emblems of greatness, such as the Empire State Building or marvels of political thought, such as the Constitution, would only label one a troublemaker in society, or worse. So, rather than openly attacking or pointing fingers of accusation, instead the leftist simply elevates the mediocre to the level of the superior, thus lowering greatness to that of mere insignificance.

Taking off your clothes to display a merely ordinary human form and, promoting the idea, thus takes down a peg those that strive for a better aesthetic. Dunham claims she is being “fat-shamed,” but really what she is doing is “beauty shaming.” Perhaps, it is comic shaming, as well, considering the flat jokes and smarmy attitude her show takes.

Americans should be aware that the struggle between left and right political thought is an important one, and should understand that leftism seeks to disrupt and alter the political theories that lead America to greatness. Self-sufficiency and individualism needs to be defended and taught with as much vigor as those that support the philosophically opposite theories as socialism, communism and leftism.

It is also critical that Americans understand that leftist leaders are as aware as conservatives that their thoughts have no intellectual merit. Liberals merely take this position as a method to insert themselves as would-be power brokers, and to control the masses.

In leftist education, children are taught that the results of work were not nearly as important as the effort. Grades are issued on a curve, and then the curve is lowered so that the bottom end children on the grading curve were rewarded equally as the top-end children. Kids are passed on and promoted to higher grades if they merely “try” to complete the course work, rather than understanding the subject matter.

Instead of the winners of contests receiving a trophy, everyone is given a trophy — thus making the trophy in and of itself, meaningless. This is the heart of liberal theory — that people who come out on top in society are not doing so by hard work and good decisions, but by luck and criminality, and thus de facto promote such behavior. In history books, children are taught incorrectly that America was not built by hard work and rugged individualism, but by the theft of land, slavery and criminal behavior.

As a result, America is kept in a perpetual state of turmoil and inefficiency driven by political correctness theory, which is not the end goal of leftism, but rather the instrument with which it destroys American capitalism and our value system. The end result will be a planned peasantry economy, i.e. a majority of Americans completely dependent on its government masters, who sit and laugh at ‘stupid Americans’ as they cling to their bibles and guns, while directing the strings of power.

So, put your clothes back on Ms. Lena Dunham. The corruption of America makes me nauseous enough.

Thomas Purcell is a nationally syndicated columnist and host of the Liberty Never Sleeps podcast hour and author of “Shotgun Republic.”

Opinion: Pop culture being what it is,

The latest economic data is being tossed around by traders as relatively positive, but in truth, the past week has been hit and miss for the economy and the American people.

U.S. consumer spending matched Wall Street’s expectation for February, but gross domestic product missed the mark, according to two Commerce Department reports.

The Commerce Department said Friday that consumer spending increased 0.3 percent last month after 0.2 percent in January, though the government initially reported spending to have increased 0.4 percent in January.

Consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, which was a disappointment on Thursday. The Commerce Department said the U.S. economy grew at an annual pace of 2.6 percent in the fourth quarter, up from a previous reading of 2.4 percent. However, the reading was slightly below the 2.7 percent rate Wall Street expected.

Spending in February was lifted by an increase in services consumption, likely driven by Americans paying for utilities in a harsh winter. And the cold weather has been blamed for other market troubles, particularly the housing market.

The National Association of Realtors reports signed contracts to buy previously-owned homes fell 0.8 percent in February, to the lowest level since October 2011. Wall Street was expecting the rate to remain unchanged. The gauge is off 10.5 percent from the same period in 2013.

The NAR has been scapegoating the winter for months, as the latest economic data on housing shows a slumping market, which no one is spending money on.

When adjusted for inflation, consumer spending rose 0.2 percent in February after gaining 0.1 percent in January.

The so-called real spending measure is used to calculate gross domestic product. Though economist polled by Reuters expected growth to be at a faster rate, US consumer spending rose at its fastest pace in three years in the fourth quarter, which is largely responsible for the annualized pace of 2.6 percent during the period.

Income rose 0.3 percent last month — and, rose by the same margin in January — but tt continues to be propped up artificially by government transfers for healthcare payments.

Disposable income for households — after adjusting for inflation — rose 0.3 percent. The saving rate, which is the percentage of disposable income households are socking away, rose to 4.3 percent last month from 4.2 percent in January.

The latest economic data is being tossed

Larry Sabato, of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, responded to Nate Silver on NewsmaxTV, appearing with Steve Malzberg on The Malzberg Show. Silver was just ostracized by Democrats for admitting Republicans are likely to retake the Senate. Sabato called Silver’s analysis “ridiculous,” but not for the reasons you may infer from other headlines.

Larry Sabato runs the renowned Crystal Ball, a political forecast publication, which he says is actually more precise the Nate Silver, the founder and head of FiveThirtyEight.

“The Crystal Ball has projected this for months, if you listen carefully to what he said, we’ve actually been more precise than he has,” Sabato said. “He said that Republicans would get six seats plus or minus five. What does that mean?”

The numbers focused on by ABC reporter Jon Karl and other media who ran the story, were 6 and 11 net pickup seats for Republicans. The predictive model used by Silver has a margin of error of 5, which is how Karl got to the possible 11-seat gain. But that also means Republicans could only pick up 1 net seat. For Sabato, and myself despite agreeing with Silver that the net pick up could be much bigger than 6, the idea of only 1 net gain is “ridiculous” when we examine the individual races.

South Dakota is lost to the Republicans, likely for the next several decades. Sabato, as well, agrees. West Virginia, too, will be represented by a split delegation after the 2014 midterm elections with Manchin and Capito a WV duo. Again, Sabato agrees.

But this is where Sabato and I part ways.

Montana, according to Sabato, “will be close but the Republicans have a slight edge.” It is worth noting that he made comments very similar to these regarding West Virginia. In fact, it wasn’t more than a few months ago he rated West Virginia a “Toss-Up,” while we have had the race going Republican for some time, waiting for him and others to come around.

Montana, I suspect, will soon have a deeper shade of red on the Crystal Ball Senate Map, more or less resembling the “Likely Republican” rating on our 2014 Senate Map Predictions. Steve Daines has a large advantage for myriad reasons, but you can read our rating and race analysis on Montana can be here.

I could do back and forth on states and ratings, but we I will end this on a positive note, one in which even I can again agree with the guys at the Virginia Center for Politics. “It’s going to be a good Republican year. The question is, is it going to be a great Republican year?”

Larry Sabato, of the University of Virginia

A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld the recently passed Texas abortion ban, which pro-abortion activists claim placed harsh restrictions that closed many of the abortions clinics in the state.

The New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court federal judge who decided the rules violated the U.S. Constitution and served no medical purpose. However, in their opinion, the appeals court said the law “on its face does not impose an undue burden on the life and health of a woman.”

Texas lawmakers last year passed restrictions on when (no late-term abortion after 20 weeks), where (only in facilities where doctors have access to hospital facilities and meet health standards) and how women may obtain an abortion. The Republican-controlled state legislature required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and placed limits on doctors’ abilities to offer abortion-inducing pills late in the pregnancy.

Most Republican leaders in Texas oppose abortion, except in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. Following the public trial of Doctor Kermit Gosnell, who ran a house of horrors abortion clinic in Philadelphia, Republicans argued they needed to take action to protect the health of the woman.

Yet abortion-rights supporters, particularly Planned Parenthood and The Center for Reproductive Rights, two organization who make a great deal of money through the abortion industry, claimed the measures were an attempt to stop abortions in Texas through overregulation. Because many abortion doctors do not have admitting privileges, they are limited on when and where they may prescribe abortion-inducing pills, which supposedly discourages women from choosing that option (they argue).

Other aspects of the new abortion laws, including a requirement that all procedures take place in a surgical facility, do not take effect until September.

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel ruled in October that the provisions place an unconstitutional burden on women’s access to abortion.

Three days after Yeakel’s ruling, the 5th Circuit allowed Texas to enforce the law while the state appealed the decision. At least a dozen Texas abortion clinics closed after the law took effect.

A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld

The latest Obama approval rating polls suggest the president’s numbers are not likely to rebound ahead of the 2014 midterm elections. As I have continuously hammered, because of the strong relationship between presidential approval rating and midterm election outcomes, this is bad news for Democrats.

As of March 26, Obama’s PPD average job approval rating is 43 percent approval to 53.5 disapprove, a disapproval spread of 10.5 percent. Excluding Rasmussen Reports, which recently I compared to other pollsters to justify my low-accuracy assessment and, my charge they have moved decidedly in favor of the left following their abysmal showing in 2012, the highest approval rating for Obama was measured by TheEconomist/YouGov survey at 44 percent. Unfortunately, that is for the president and Democratic candidates, these numbers come after a week of what appeared to be a slight uptick in the average job approval.

That’s all over now.

Two factors, I would argue, are keeping the president’s numbers in the low 40s, with an occasional threat to fall back down in the dirty-thirty region.

There is an age-old adage among political scientists, which was heard frequently after George H.W. Bush was defeated by Bill Clinton, and it says foreign policy cannot help a president’s numbers a great deal, but it sure can sink them.

The latest Fox News Poll found 53 percent of respondents say the U.S. is “weaker and less powerful” than it was six years ago before President Obama took office. Further, 55 percent say Obama is not a “strong and decisive” leader, with a negative 53 to 37 percent approval on foreign policy, overall.

The second issue, clearly, is ObamaCare. A Democratic pollster sent out a mayday this week when she advised Democrats not to defend a law that was “flawed from the beginning,” and deeply unpopular. But, as I warned before the FL-13 special election, polling is overestimating Democratic support and underestimating Republican enthusiasm. The Democratic pollster who conducted the George Washington University poll, however, is not.

“There is a huge turnout disadvantage and challenge,” Democratic pollster Celinda Lake said Tuesday at a breakfast with reporters. “There is always a challenge in turnout in an off year, but it’s really dramatic this time.”

She is absolutely correct. Since Nov. 2013, when the failed rollout accompanied the revelation President Obama lied about Americans being able to keep their plans, or their doctors, the president has been seen as dishonest and untrustworthy. He has also been personally like throughout the majority of his tenure, but no more.

Nothing is impossible in politics, as we’ve seen time and again. Yet the data in this specific circumstance are pretty clear, thus far. Look for Democrats to turn to wedge issues as we get closer to Nov., because as of now, Obama’s job approval rating is not likely to recover before it’s too late.

And, it may just never recover.

Data from the latest Obama approval rating

Hypocrite Harry Reid, the Democrat Senate majority leader, authored a bill that not only called for tighter border security, but also to restrict legal immigration. The now-avid supporter of amnesty was once the author of the Immigration Stabilization Act.

In what was a general opt-ed in the LA Times, as well as the video above, Reid targeted “new arrivals” — which really targeting Hispanics — for placing an “unprecedented” strain and “burden” on job markets, schools, hospitals, police, social safety nets, infrastructure and natural resources.

Isn’t funny how words and phrases change meaning when you have a media to help you create an alternative reality? In the op-ed, Reid refers to “immigration reform” as a means “to reduce immigration — legal and illegal.”

Then, Democrat Majority Leader and hypocrite Harry Reid said “most politicians agree that illegal immigration should end.” Reid, himself, proposed to “double border patrols and accelerate the deportation process for criminals and illegal entrants.” But now, however, immigration reform refers to naturalization — and certain enfranchisement (given the vote) — of the very people Reid targeted in his law, op-ed and floor speech.

And let’s look at who those people are.

Because hypocrite Harry Reid chose to underscore California and Nevada in the 1990s — for anyone who remembers 1993 enough to put this into context — it is crystal clear he is talking about Hispanics. Prior to his state’s demographics undergoing a dramatic shift, Nevada was a typical western state dominated by white voters. Worth noting, just because it was dominated by white voters didn’t mean that it was dominated by Republicans. That is another magical play on words and a greater false narrative that insinuates only white Republicans oppose amnesty, and they do so because they are racist.

If you are a Hispanic, particularly a Hispanic Democrat who votes as such, then you should be an independent voter as of… now. Reid, and the Democratic Party, knew the 1994 Republican Revolution was coming, and it was being fueled by a realization among mainstream Americans that these people will say and do anything to 1) get elected, and 2) quietly implement a far left agenda while a complacent media helps them to convince the American people Republicans are racist.

By the way, regarding those who now call Republicans right-wing racists for opposing amnesty, Reid once warned of us about those who “cry racism or point toward our historic role as a nation of immigrants. Charges of racial bias are unfounded.”

While hypocrite Harry Reid spends his days now calling opponents racist and unjust, when he thought the electorate was favorable to the truth, he was of the mind that the “real injustice to future Americans would be to do nothing” about an open border and social welfare for any and all.

After all, as Reid put it, “Americans have sat freely around a bountiful dinner table. Now, the table is becoming overcrowded.”

Hypocrite Harry Reid, the Democrat Senate majority

fed rejects citigroup capital plan

The Fed rejects Citigroup capital plan for the second time since bank stress tests have been conducted, sending shares more than 5 percent into the red in after hours trading.

The Federal Reserve Wednesday rejected the capital plan submitted by Citigroup  (C) as part of an annual bank stress test, saying it “reflected a number of deficiencies” in planning practices. Shares of the financial giant fell more than 5 percent in after hours trading.

Citigroup wasn’t the only bank to be rejected. Though 25 big U.S. banks examined by the Fed got a green light to go ahead with their capital plans, four others did not.

HSBC (HSBC) North America Holdings, RBS Citizens, which is a unit of Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Santander (SAN) Holdings USA, all must resubmit capital plans. Further, the three big foreign firms cannot send dividends or repatriate cash back to their parent companies until their new capital plans are approved by the Fed.

Except for  Citigroup, who has now been rejected twice by the Fed since they first did in 2012, each of the other four banks asked to resubmit capital plans never participated in the annual stress tests, until 2014.

“Although the Federal Reserve has different expectations for (banks) new to (the stress tests), weaknesses at HSBC, RBS Citizens, and Santander were considered significant enough to warrant an objection based on the Federal Reserve’s qualitative assessment,” the Fed said.

The Fed said it objected to HSBC’s  and RBS Citizens’ plans due to “significant deficiencies” in their capital planning processes, including inadequate governance and weak internal controls around the processes. Santander’s plan was rejected due to “widespread and significant deficiencies” across the bank’s capital planning processes.

Two of the 25 banks got the go-ahead, JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Morgan Stanley (MS), immediately announced they were raising their quarterly dividends in an effort to avoid share price precipitation. However, the Fed can reject banks’ plans for raising dividends and stock buybacks if the Fed says lenders fail to meet minimum standards for capital and crisis planning.

The bank stress test, which was released on March 20, are a product of the Dodd-Frank banking reform bill, which requires the Fed to determine how the banks — those in the too-big-to-fail category — would perform in the event of another financial crisis.

Zions Bancorp (ZION) with a total of $56 billion in assets, is one other bank required to resubmit a capital plan. Zions, which was the only bank to fail in the initial bank stress test results, had a tier 1 capital ratio that fell to 3.5 percent during the most severe stress scenario, naturally below the minimum.

In its current report, the Fed said Citigroup had made “considerable progress” toward improving its risk management in recent years. However, its 2014 capital plan did not reflect “sufficient improvement” in areas the Fed has already cited them on in the past.

For instance, Citigroup lacks enough of an ability to project revenue and losses under a stressful scenario at important segments of the bank’s global operations.

“Taken in isolation, each of the deficiencies would not have been deemed critical enough to warrant an objection, but, when viewed together, they raise sufficient concerns regarding the overall reliability of Citigroup’s capital planning process to warrant an objection to the capital plan and require a resubmission,” the Fed said.

“We will continue to work closely with the Fed to better understand their concerns so that we can bring our capital planning process in line with their expectations and meet their standards on a qualitative basis as well. We have not yet made a decision as to when we will resubmit our plan,” Citigroup’s CEO Michael Corbat said in a statement.

The Fed rejects Citigroup capital plan for

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial