In today’s American Spectator, I discuss the resignation of CMS administrator Marilyn Tavenner and her legacy of incompetence and corruption:

Marilyn Tavenner, the Obama administration official who presided over Obamacare’s worst debacles and most devious deceptions, has finally made an intelligent decision—she resigned. Tavenner ran the government bureaucracy responsible for the inept rollout of HealthCare.gov, the promulgation of phony PPACA enrollment figures, and the handout of legally dubious waivers to Democrat-friendly donors. And, when Congress subpoenaed her emails—stop me if you’ve heard this one before—she discovered that they had somehow been deleted.

Having thus committed as many blunders as can be reasonably expected of any incompetent apparatchik, she announced last Friday that she will depart next month.

To read the rest of this tawdry tale, click here.


The reaction of the Harvard faculty to the depredations of Obamacare is one of the most satisfying stories I have read since November.

Robert Pear, one of the few honest writers at the NYT, reveals how these hypocrites respond to being treated like the hoi polloi:

For years, Harvard’s experts on health economics and policy have advised presidents and Congress on how to provide health benefits to the nation at a reasonable cost. But those remedies will now be applied to the Harvard faculty, and the professors are in an uproar.

Talk about poetic justice!

Members of the Faculty … voted overwhelmingly in November to oppose changes that would require them and thousands of other Harvard employees to pay more for health care. The university says the increases are in part a result of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, which many Harvard professors championed.

Read the rest of this story. The schadenfreude is delicious. The kvetching from theses alleged progressives takes irony to a new level.


In today’s American Spectator, I discuss the employer mandate and other aspects of Obamacare whose ill effects will be personally felt by most Americans beginning in 2015:

Obamacare was designed such that its most harmful provisions would not be implemented until after the President had been returned to office for a second term and his Democrat accomplices had been reelected to their congressional seats. Fortunately for the nation, the latter part of that strategy was a spectacular failure. Nonetheless, it did provide the public with a temporary reprieve from the health care law’s most painful exactions. That brief respite is now at an end.

This year, you will begin to experience the realities of “reform” first hand and you are not going to like how it feels. In fact, you are probably already feeling the first twinges without recognizing that their source is Obamacare:

If you are among the 150 million Americans who get health insurance through their employers, for example, chances are that the coverage your company offered for 2015 has much higher premiums than did last year’s plan. The President and his toad eaters in the legacy media will do their best to convince you that these increases are caused by insurance company avarice, but this is merely another lie they are peddling in the hope that they can save Obama’s ‘signature domestic achievement.’

The actual cause was the looming employer mandate and other Obamacare regulations that took effect January 1. To read the rest of the column, click here.


Our alleged President illegally postponed Obamacare’s employer mandate until after the recent midterms in the vain hope that it would preserve the Democrat Senate majority. But it went into effect today:

Starting Jan. 1, employers with 100 or more full-time workers face hefty increases in their health insurance costs as they comply for the first time with the mandate.

It doesn’t matter that millions of employees don’t need or want many of the “benefits” Obama and his accomplices deem “essential.”

[Employers] must now offer the government’s comprehensive coverage — including ‘free- preventive care — for all employees working 30 or more hours a week, or risk being fined $2,000 per employee per year.

And guess who ends up paying the inceased cost? Many businesses can’t afford the increase in overhead. So, the employees take the hit.

Oh, I almost forgot, the customers will face price increases for the products and services produced by the affected companies.

Good job Mr. President.


Jonathan Gruber really is the gift that keeps on giving. The Daily Caller has found yet another example of the professor committing candor:

President Obama’s health care adviser Jonathan Gruber said that the Affordable Care Act would definitely not be affordable while he was writing the bill with the White House.

According to The DC:

Gruber said that Obamacare had no cost controls in it and would not be affordable in an October 2009 policy brief … At the time, Gruber had already personally counseled Obama in the Oval Office.

And how did our President respond?

Obama, meanwhile, told the American people that their premiums would go down dramatically.

In other words, Obama did what he does best. He lied. Gruber also told Obama that the only way to cut costs was to ration care:

The real substance of cost control is all about a single thing: telling patients they can’t have something they want. It’s about telling patients, ‘That surgery doesn’t do any good, so if you want it you have to pay the full cost.’

Obamacare is, like our President, a fraud.


In my latest column in the American Spectator, I point out that King v. Burwell is by no means the only legal threat that Obamacare will face in 2015.

Ironically, considering the number of apocalyptic headlines it has produced, King v. Burwell probably presents less danger to the “reform” law than either of two additional lawsuits the Court could take up in 2015.

The Obama administration also has to fight off Coons v. Lew and Sissel v.HHS.

The justices have already received a cert petition to hear the former, whose plaintiffs hold that IPAB constitutes a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. And it is a virtual certainty that the Court will also be asked to take up the latter, which challenges the law on the grounds that it violated the Constitution’s origination clause.

Neither of these are “frivolous” lawsuits. To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator, I discuss Jonathan Gruber’s use of the term “positive selection” in one of his papers about abortion. This term, as he uses it, is right out of Eugenics 101:

The scariest words uttered during Jonathan Gruber’s recent appearance before the House Oversight Committee were “positive selection.” They were read aloud by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, from a 1997 paper the professor co-authored concerning abortion.

The opus in question made the Congressman uneasy because of the following passage:’By 1993 all cohorts under the age 19 were born under legalized abortion and we estimate steady state savings of $1.6 billion per year from positive selection.’

Rep. Massie asked the professor what was meant by “positive selection.” This question was evidently not anticipated in Gruber’s pre-testimony coaching, so he became evasive.

Considering what it means, this is no surprise. “Positive selection” is no ordinary example of academic jargon. The term is frequently used by evolutionary biologists, who tell us it is responsible for the development of “traits that define our species … And Gruber refers to mass abortions of unborn babies, whom he describes as “marginal children,” as an example of positive selection.

This is seriously creepy stuff. To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator I discuss the hypocrisy of The New Republic’s high-profile writers regarding change:

For years, the Washington press corps has been telling us that our medical delivery system was antiquated and unable to meet the needs of its 21st century customers … Over the past several days, we have had the opportunity to observe some of these people react to a similar upheaval in their own industry, and the response has been instructive.

Oddly enough, they have exhibited a surprising affinity for the status quo. This ironic attitude was revealed when the management of TNR announced some unexpected personnel, location, and format changes:

These unpleasant surprises were delivered at the behest of 30-year-old Facebook billionaire Chris Hughes, who bought the hoary liberal publication two years ago and eventually concluded that its shrinking readership is due to dull content produced by editors and writers he “came to think of as ‘spoiled brats.’”

His assessment was vindicated on Friday morning when a significant percentage of the magazine’s staff threw a collective tantrum and resigned en masse.

To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator I discuss the ironic fact that President Obama has done more damage to the Democrats than the Republicans could possibly have managed without him:

When President Obama took office in 2009, his party was in better shape than it had been since the era following Watergate. The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by very comfortable margins. They had just regained the White House in a historic election. They believed they would control Washington for decades, if not generations, to come. Yet fewer than six years later, their congressional majorities have been annihilated and their prospects for retaining the presidency in 2016 are far less promising than they were just a month ago.

Virtually all this devastation has been caused by Obama himself.

Even worse, having destroyed the seemingly invulnerable Democratic citadel, he now seems determined to sow the ground upon which it stood with salt. Most objective observers acknowledge that the resounding defeat the Democrats just received in the midterm elections can be attributed to voter anger concerning Obama’s increasing inclination to behave like an emperor rather than an elected official answerable to the people. Yet after this rebuke he doubled down, defiantly issuing his most egregious edict thus far—an executive order effectively granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

Who can stop Obama from behaving like a Manchurian candidate programmed by Mitch McConnell and John Boehner? Only the Democrats themselves. To read the rest of the column, click here.


In today’s American Spectator I discuss Jonathan Gruber’s remarks about the “stupidity of the American voter” and what they tell us concerning the deceptions that were used to foist Obamacare on an unwilling electorate:

The “father of Obamacare,” as he was known in his salad days, inadvertently acquitted nearly half of us with his reference to “the stupidity of the American voter.” The professor’s condescending comments can only apply to those people who actually believed the empty promises our President made on behalf of his health care “reform” law.

Inevitably, some of these voters have finally opened up their eyes, and they are not at all happy with what they see.

Among them is Burke Beu, a lifelong Democrat who recently described his rude awakening in the Wall Street Journal: ‘I voted for Barack Obama in 2008, then lost my job in the Great Recession … I voted for President Obama again in 2012, then received a cancellation notice for my health insurance … This was due to Obamacare, the so-called Affordable Care Act.’

This unquestionably played a role in the drubbing the Democrats just received and it also caused the Gruber videos to surface.

Most of the six now in circulation, including the original “stupid voters” clip, were found by investment advisor Rich Weinstein. Like Beu, Weinstein believed Obama’s “you can keep your insurance” lie. Thus, when his coverage was canceled and he was “forced to buy compliant insurance at double the price,” he “got pissed” and began the research that eventually uncovered the incriminating videos.

To read the rest of the column, click here.