Wall Street Journal
Not too long ago right wingers refused to ponder any changes to Obamacare other than repealing it. How quickly things change.
The paper's coverage has been overwhelmingly condescending.
You can't find anyone defending inequality with more glee than in the letters in the Wall Street Journal.
If you liked your old skimpy health plan, you may not be able to keep it. But now you can get a new, somewhat skimpy health plan instead, at least for a little while.
It is possibly the most cynically dishonest of all the claims being made against the Affordable Care Act: that members of Congress and their staff are being “exempted” from the law. In fact, almost the opposite is the case: Capitol Hill has, for purely political reasons, been roped into the law. Back when the law was being drafted, Sen.
Tuesday night, the Wall Street Journal undertook the commendable task of calling attention to the student debt crisis. The article opens with the tearjerker story of a young couple whose dream is to create plastic cupcake toppers “in the shapes of zombies, bikes and deer antlers” and the like. Tragically, John and Christine Carney, ages 31 and 29 and both currently students at the University of Maine, can’t afford the business loan for the laser cutter their ambition requires.
First they said Obamacare would create death panels. Then they said the law would cover undocumented immigrants. Now they’re saying President Barack Obama gave Congress a special exemption, so that lawmakers and their staff members aren’t subject to the law.
Unions have shrunk. The vocabulary we use to describe them should, too.
Barely 10 percent of American workers belong to unions. Could we please stop referring to "Big Labor"?
And the Supreme Court Is unlikely to ignore that fact.
Architecture occupies a peculiar place in the life of democratic societies. Most buildings get built because some private concern, an individual or a corporate entity, commissions it. Because procuring land and constructing buildings is expensive, the private concerns that do so typically enjoy the benefits of wealth, which include social and political influence in excess of the democratic credo of one man, one vote. Yet architecture, or most of it anyway, is a public good: what any one person or institution builds, others must live with, and often for a very long time.