Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty March 26, 2014 All Deadlines for Obamacare . . . Have Their Own Expiration Dates All deadlines for Obamacare have an expiration date. The Obama administration has decided to give extra time to Americans who say that they are unable to enroll in health plans through the federal insurance marketplace by the March 31 deadline. Federal officials confirmed Tuesday evening that all consumers who have begun to apply for coverage on HealthCare.gov, but who do not finish by Monday, will have until about mid-April to ask for an extension. Under the new rules, people will be able to qualify for an extension by checking a blue box on HealthCare.gov to indicate that they tried to enroll before the deadline. This method will rely on an honor system; the government will not try to determine whether the person is telling the truth. And while we've all learned how difficult it is to read tea leaves on a Supreme Court Obamacare decision, some of yesterday's proceedings went a little rough for the administration's position: Chief Justice John Roberts wondered whether government's interest was really "compelling" as required, when the administration had already granted so many coverage exemptions — including to houses of worship, religious non-profits, small companies, and grandfathered health plans. He suggested corporate rights extend into a wider range of areas, including allowing companies — along with individuals — to bring racial discrimination claims. "Does the government have a position on whether corporations have a race?" he asked Verrilli. Kennedy later took issue with the government on another point. "Under your view, a for-profit corporation could be forced in principle to pay for abortions," which is currently not allowed under federal law. "No. I think, as you said, the law now is to the contrary," replied Verrilli, who said most women taking IUDs do not equate that with abortion. "But your reasoning would permit that," said Kennedy, sharply. "You say profit corporations just don't have any standing to vindicate the religious rights of their shareholders and owners." "Isn't that what we are talking about in terms of their religious beliefs?" added Roberts. "One of the religious beliefs is that they have to pay for these four methods of contraception that they (corporations) believe provide abortions." John Roberts once compared his role to that of a baseball umpire or referee. Come on, ref, how about a make-up call to balance out your blown call from 2012? Way to Go, Iowa Democrats. You Found a Candidate Who Sneers at Farmers Bruce Braley . . . what a jerk. Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Bruce Braley apologized this afternoon for offending Republican U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley after video footage surfaced that shows Braley mocking Grassley as "a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school." In an effort to embarrass Braley, Republican operatives today began to circulate the video of him warning some out-of-state lawyers that Grassley might become the next judiciary committee chairman if they didn't contribute money to help elect Braley. I'd say it's pretty hard for "Republican operatives" to try to embarrass Braley when he's already done such a fine job at that task himself. The remarks by Braley, a trial lawyer and congressman who is running in the high-stakes open race for retiring U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin's seat, quickly caught fire on Twitter and various national news sites, as politics watchers predicted that this incident will bruise a campaign that they've been confident would see victory in November. And Grassley's staff pulled no punches in responding this afternoon. "If you help me win this race," Braley says in the video, posted online by a donor after the Jan. 23 fundraiser in Corpus Christi, Texas and released today by the conservative America Rising PAC, "you may have someone with your background, your experience, your voice, someone's who's been literally fighting tort reform for 30 years in a visible and public way on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Did you notice he's talking about tort reform as if it's a bad thing? "Or you might have a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school, never practiced law, serving as the next chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee," Braley says. "Because if Democrats lose the majority, Chuck Grassley will be the next chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee." Chuck Todd notes, "A big unforced error on Braley's part…not just elitist, but un-Iowan to attack another Iowan the way he did." Generally Awful Motors As mentioned yesterday morning, the U.S taxpayer spent $10.5 billion to save a company that sold defective, unsafe cars, and lied about it for years. In the comment section, an NRO reader wrote, "As a former long-time GM employee with probably more than my fair share of exposure to senior managers in the company, I feel certain that this incident was much more an example of bureaucratic inertia than concerted evil-doing." I guess that all depends on how you define "concerted evil-doing." From BusinessWeek: GM's own engineers, along with newspaper auto writers, were talking about the ignition switch defect in several GM models almost a decade before the carmaker announced plans last month to recall 1.6 million vehicles… The documents GM filed yesterday indicate the company got an early indication of the ignition-switch problems as it developed the Saturn Ion in 2001. It thought the problem was fixed. Then, in 2003, an engineer investigating a consumer complaint was able to replicate engine stalls while driving. GM ended up using the same switch in the Cobalt, the G5 and three other U.S. models. Wait, did we say that they knew about this sudden-stall problem for a decade? Maybe two decades, according to Automotive News: Stung by rising warranty costs, General Motors decided in the mid-1990s to pull design work for ignition and turn-signal switches from suppliers and put its own employees in charge. One of the first projects for the in-house team was the ignition switch for the Saturn Ion and Chevrolet Cobalt. Why did GM authorize a redesign of the part in 2006, eight years before the recall? And why was the change made so discreetly — without a new part number -- that employees investigating complaints of Ions and Cobalts stalling didn't know about it until late last year? … Not assigning the new part number would have been highly unusual, according to three people who worked as high-level GM engineers at the time. None of the engineers was involved in the handling of the ignition switch; all asked that their names not be used because of the sensitivity of the matter. "Changing the fit, form or function of a part without making a part number change is a cardinal sin," said one of the engineers. "It would have been an extraordinary violation of internal processes." That doesn't prove that the company was trying to cover up a defective, dangerous part…but it sure does look suspicious. Why does this matter to us? Because $10.5 billion of our tax dollars were given to GM to steward them through the bankruptcy — and it's very likely they were lying to everyone the whole time. The National Legal and Policy Center is asking some very tough questions: The timing of the revelation (May 15, 2009, just two weeks prior to GM filing for bankruptcy) that a "potentially fatal defect existed in hundreds of thousands" of GM vehicles is of particular importance as the company is currently being accused of hiding the liabilities arising from the defects from the bankruptcy court in June of 2009. Is it really believable that the company honestly overlooked a "potentially fatal defect" and the accompanying lawsuits when they were required to disclose them to the bankruptcy court? Also, how could President Obama's Auto Task Force, which orchestrated the bankruptcy process, not know of the issues when they were so deeply entrenched at GM. If Old GM knew about the defects, New GM had to know as well. Also, meetings were held in July of 2011 regarding the known defects at a time when Mary Barra was head of product development; still, no recall. And New GM's recent responses have not been any better than the old. All through the reelection campaign, Barack Obama and his supporters celebrated the GM bailout as one of his shining successes. Now it turns out we were helping a company that sold dangerous, defective vehicles last a little longer until the plaintiffs' lawyers got a hold of them. (The argument is that by hiding the danger during the bankruptcy crisis, the 'new GM' is liable for the actions of the 'old GM.') ADDENDUM: Over on NRO today, I examine why it's so hard to use Saul Alinsky's Fourth Rule against progressives: "Ultimately, not that many liberals care whether their brethren are following their own book of rules. They've demonstrated a remarkable acceptance for one another's hypocrisy."
To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com
| Why not forward this to a friend? Encourage them to sign up for NR's great free newsletters here. Save 75%... Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the newsstand price. Click here for the print edition or here for the digital. National Review also makes a great gift! Click here to send a full-year of NR Digital or here to send the print edition to family, friends, and fellow conservatives.
| 
Follow | 
Tweet | 
NR Podcasts | 
Send | National Review, Inc.
Manage your National Review subscriptions. We respect your right to privacy. View our policy. This email was sent by:
National Review, Inc.
215 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10016 | 
Comments
Post a Comment