text: The only problem is that the CBO’s projections are a bunch of hooey. I could bore you with a detailed enumeration of all of the technical contortions that Democrats engineered in order to apply deficit-reducing lipstick onto the Obamacare sow. But it’s all there in the CBO’s own analysis, which you can read for yourself. Knock yourself out.
  But that aside, Obamacare’s fiscal failure comes down to something a lot more basic: Government agencies nearly always overestimate the revenue generated from tax increases, and nearly always underestimate the new spending caused by new entitlements. Americans are a lot smarter than they look from inside the Beltway, and they modify their behavior to avoid new taxes and obtain new largesse. Federal bureaucrats may be good with calculators, but they’re weak on human nature.
  David Brooks, in a recent New York Times column, highlighted Obamacare’s most serious flaw: PPACA incentivizes companies to drop health coverage for their employees. Employers who drop coverage have to pay a fine, but the fine is cheaper than offering health insurance, and even the employees can be better off — they buy their insurance on state-based “exchanges,” where they can take advantage of the law’s new subsidies. (Americans making less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level are eligible for subsidized coverage on the exchanges.) AT&T has calculated that it would save $1.8 billion a year by dumping its workers into the government’s lap.
  Companies are keeping quiet about their plans for now, but make no mistake: If Obamacare remains the law of the land, nearly every corporation in America will do what AT&T has contemplated. So will cash-strapped state governments.
  Last March, the CBO projected that 26 million people will take advantage of Obamacare’s exchange subsidies in 2019, at a cost of $109 billion that year. But that number is based on the assumption that of the 162 million people who have employer-sponsored insurance today, only 4 million — 2.5 percent — will switch.
  In other words, the projection of $109 billion is absurdly low; it underestimates Obamacare’s cost by trillions of dollars.
  In a recent Politico column, former budget officials Douglas Holtz-Eakin and James Capretta calculated what would happen if the CBO’s estimates were somewhat off. By their math, if the households below 250 percent of the federal poverty line ($55,125 for a family of four) that now have employer-sponsored health insurance were to migrate to Obamacare’s exchanges, spending on those exchanges would more than triple, resulting in trillions of dollars in additional liabilities.
  It gets worse. Holtz-Eakin and Capretta’s assumptions are actually quite restrained. What happens if even more people take advantage of subsidies? What happens if Medicaid spending grows at faster rates than Obamacare anticipates? We could be talking about much, much more than $200 billion a year in additional spending.
  There was a time, not so long ago, when annual federal deficits of $200 billion would be described with alarm. For Obamacare, they’re just a rounding error.
  
  Say what you will about a Cruz nomination, that would be one clear race: Cruz vs. Hillary. By that I mean, the philosophical lines, the contrast, would be very, very clear. Stark. Something like A and Z.
  What about Trump vs. Hillary? Pretty blurry, actually. On such issues as Planned Parenthood and entitlements, the nominees would not have much to argue about. Health care, too. Trump calls Ted Cruz “heartless.” Hillary Clinton couldn’t put it better, or differently.
  Cruz-Hillary would almost be a laboratory of philosophical difference. Cruz-Sanders, of course — that would be like a cage match between Adam Smith and Karl Marx.
  I think the American people would be Smith-leaning, still. But, after what we’ve seen the last half-century, I wouldn’t bet the ranch of them (us) . . .
  P.S. On Saturday, Trump said, “Right now I’m catering to the Republicans.” Hmmm. Whom will he cater to later? Why would a party want to nominate for president a man who is “catering to” them “right now”?
  In the fall, I don’t want a race between a longtime Clinton donor and a longtime Clinton (though occasionally she has been a Rodham). I don’t want a race between Donald Trump and his marquee wedding guest (unless that was Bill). I want Cruz-Hillary — Clarity City, baby.
  
  A freshly baked musubi man escapes from the old woman's kitchen and eludes his pursuers in this Hawaiian version of the Gingerbread boy.
  
  Full-Spectrum Hemp and wholesome, organic ingredients, including Cocoa Butter, Shea Butter, Wildcrafted Arnica Flowers, and Essential Oils, Cured Max Salve is ideal for therapeutic, whole-body relief.
  For External Use Only. NEVER apply to an open or infected wound, burn, or damaged and irritated skin. Avoid contact with eyes and mucous membranes. Do not use with heat.
  To the contrary, our products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. No testimonial has been clinically proven or evaluated, and no medical claims whatsoever were made and no statements on this website have been evaluated by the FDA.
  
  While the 3D grosses of Beowulf and Hannah Montana have distributors and theater owners hungry for more 3D content and seem to be driving the appetite for digital cinema installations, NATO’s president, John Fithian, suggested at the National Association of Broadcasters’ Digital Cinema Summit, that 3D may actually be a speed bump instead of an accelerator.
  With at least ten 3D features slated for next year, including James Cameron’s Avatar and DreamWorks Monsters vs. Aliens, Fithian noted
  “We are at an extremely critical juncture in the transition to digital cinema, but the (deployment) deals have to be done. (…) We are at an impasse over the financials.”
  The deployment deals generally rely on a virtual print fee model through which studios contribute an agreed fee per screen, per movie to offset exhibitors’ installation costs.
  “Unless digital cinema deals are made in the next one to two months, we will not have time to (deploy the screens) for 2009,” Fithian said.
  Despite that, some of my friends at the studios are insisting that they should pay lower VPFs (in current negotiations) than they did in the first round of deals,” he said, asserting that the model worked in the first round. “3-D cannot be an excuse for lowering VPFs.”
  There are currently fewer than 1,000 3D screens in North America. It is estimated there will need to be more than 4,000 to support 2 major 3D releases at the same time. There are currently only 4,600 digital cinema screens in the region.
  Whatever the potential for additional box office for 3D – and it is, currently, just potential (Hannah Montana’s $67 million on just 680 screens may be less of a demonstration of the power of 3D than it is the power of 9-year old girls.) – the one certain financial benefit of the transition to digital cinema is the roughly $1 billion dollars per year the studios will save on prints forever, infinity-eleven.
  In a separate panel at NAB, NATO’s D cinema consultant Michael Karagosian pointed out that none of the VPF agreements have been signed by all studios, possibly increasing exhibitors’ share of the latest round of VPFs from 20% to 32% or more, depending on how many digital releases come from non-signatory studios. Furthermore:
  (t)he costs for an exhibitor to transition to digital cinema compared with film is 200%-300% higher in a 25-year period, Karagosian estimated. This includes the costs of installation, maintenance and other operational expenses.