Vermont governor drops plans for Gruber-designed government healthcare. He’s spent time and taxpayer money on this idea for four years. He ran for re-election this year based on this idea. But now that the election is over, he’s coming clean and admitting it would send state taxes through the roof. Clearly, this is a Democrat with potential as a presidential candidate.
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
View Comments (9)
Another spectacular failure for liberalism, we were all for it, until we found out we had to pay for it.
Another body blow to barrycare. Damn now if we could actually get Gruber to tell who it was in the WH that "chatted" with him before he went in front of Congress.
I'm pretty certain that he was all agog for this healthcare nightmare when it was being shoved down our throats and up our asses, but now that he is looking "reality" in the face he has a new set of priorities...self preservation.
Wonder of wonders - a Progressive bows to reality.
Yes, reality. There is a definite tendency to come to grips with that. Unfortunately, it applies pretty much only to chief executives.
It's pretty tough to tell the people the streets are plowed when your car is under 3 feet of snow. Snow ended the political career of the RINO among RINO's - John Vliet Lindsey, mayor of NYC. Extending the sales tax onto toilet paper ended the political career of governor James "Flim-Flam" Florio on NJ. A "monetization" plan to get a load of cash from the NJ Turnpike ended the political career of the extraordinarily generous Jon Corzine, also former governor of NJ. It was a plan only a bond-trader could come up with. It was also a plan only a bond-trader could understand. The people didn't, so they unelected him.
Ed Koch, when he was in the US House, was a screaming liberal. When he became mayor of NYC, in short order he was despised by most liberal interest groups. Because as mayor, he had no choice but to bow to at least some reality.
Wow! Great examples of stupidity in NY and NJ. I would have added something from Kalifornia, but then it would have been harder to stop.
Just start with Social Security and go from there. The list of progressive wet dreams is endless and they all end the same way.
Well, I don't think Social Security was a bad idea, but it was handled all wrong. First, there should have been a limit to income from other sources, like pensions, where you wouldn't qualify for SS, keeping it for the truly needy seniors. Second, the government should have never been able to borrow money from SS, because, as we all know, it never repays it's debts. Third, the abuse of SS Disability should have been stopped dead in it's tracks, people that genuinely need the help, are given such a tough time and given the barest minimum, while the undeserving whiners manage to find a way around the system, and get way more than they need or deserve.
If all the above had been handled properly, not only wouldn't there be a shortfall in funding, but also, those that really need the help wouldn't be struggling with a 1.5% increase, while the real inflation rate is closer to 15%.
No, it's a Ponzi scheme, and all Ponzi schemes are destined for failure. All the things you speak of would slow down the failure, but it would still happen. When you start off a retirement plan by paying out money to people who didn't pay in, taking money from the future, it's not going to work.
Take a look at what you've paid into Socialist Insecurity, do some quick calculations to see what a reasonable return on investment would have gotten you over all those years. Instead of begging for a government pittance, you'd be quite well off by now. We've been ripped off.