Having squeezed the health care bill through with the sleaziest of methods and the slimmest of margins, the bill now creates a dilemma for Republicans.  If the public reaction paves the road for a return of Republican control of Congress, a possibility desired but still uncertain, will the Republicans be able to repeal the bill?

This will require returning to Congress with a majority that can override a presidential veto which would certainly occur.  More than uncertain,  a veto override is improbable.

We now have months to e-mail, Twitter and Facebook all the warts and odorous provisions of this bill. The Republicans, if they regain control, will have to face the prospect of fixing the bill they detest and possibly ensuring its retention, or being a block to changes the public wants.

It will be difficult to hold out for repeal, when the Democrats may be able to actually blame the Republicans for not fixing the bill they so bitterly and unanimously opposed. It will take exceptional clarity, leadership, and political savvy on steroids to pull this off.

If they forced the president to veto a repeal, even if they are unable to override it, they have certainly set the agenda for the next presidential contest. While it is reasonable to keep this health bill as the hot button issue for the next few months, it may be difficult to keep it in the headlights for two years.

Jimmy Carter apologized to the Jews for his statements and actions over the past few decades and it was quickly accepted by Abe Foxman from the Anti Defamation League.

Apparently Foxman now has second thoughts and has taken back his endorsement after a recent speech Carter gave in Atlanta.

Carter of course claims he is not discriminating.  His discrimination is in holding Israel to a standard no other nation is held to. No other nation is subject to existential threats, constant debasement at the UN, or is expected to negotiate with parties who not only do not recognize its sovereignty but daily threatens to annihilate its population.

Perhaps Foxman and others could be more discriminating in letting a single moment counter a history of venom. Perhaps he can learn to simply ignore him, as we all should.

When I am not blogging and I am running my business here is what I am thinking.

If the health care requirements will only affect businesses with 50 or more employees, is it possible for me to shed 12 employees to get under that requirement?

Will my customer with only 45 employees turn down more work with risks if it requires hiring 5 more employees and putting him under federal scrutiny?

Now that the 15% capital gains tax will likely rise to 20% and 3.8% Medicare tax will now be added to that income flow ( for a 59% tax increase on investment ) would I be better off just spending the money on a second home or some collectable item that I can enjoy that I won’t have to pay a tax on? How will this incentive to consume instead of invest affect job creation and unemployment?

With unemployment likely to remain high or even increase, should I upgrade my alarm system at work?  (I already have at home.)

Will the extension of unemployment benefits cause an increase in my state unemployment insurance premium for all workers?

All of these considerations serve two objectives:  avoid hiring new workers or retaining any marginal workers, and avoid any new investment unless a strong short term return is assured.  Stop thinking long term.

I speak with lots of business people daily. There is nothing unique about my thought process.

“Creating a systemic risk regulator would be a continuation of that regulatory confusion. Just as bad, a systemic risk regulator would work against Washington’s credibility in ending too-big-to-fail.  Investors would be lulled into false confidence that the government is looking out for them just as it looks out for insured bank depositors. But a systemic regulator would be no more effective than the former USSR’s central planners were in seeing and knowing all.  Just as markets seeking profits are better planners than central bureaucrats, markets protecting themselves from a credible threat of failure would be more effective regulators than a central office that stifles that threat.”

From After the Fall:  Saving Capitalism from Wall Street- and Washington by Nicloe Gelinas

Coming down from Atlanta today I sought a liberal talk show and got Lynn Samuels at Sirius 146.

The most notable difference from the conservative talk shows was the frequent use of the word ‘fuck’ by the host as well as the guest.

What was interesting was the criticism of both the health care bill and the president. While they still preferred him to  McCain/ Palin, and the host referred to George W as a ‘fucking idiot’, they were very critical of the Obama’s inability to say anything substantive or communicate well in spite of his eloquence in front of a mike.

Ms. Samuels hated the bill because medical insurance stocks went up after the bill.  Of course most stocks went up and that alone means little. But to her if the bill was any good their stock price would have gone down. She was strongly critical of Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinick and other liberals who were against the bill and changed.  She suspected them of selling out for some personal gain. She accused her party of the same strong arm techniques she hated the Republicans for.

One self described liberal caller even warned of his concern about the growth in the power of government and how this power could be easily abused in the hands of someone who comes after Obama.

If the liberals hate the bill and the conservatives hate the bill, then who voted for it?