Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: Post-holiday odds and ends

^{Visual source: Newseum}

Paul Krugman:

It appears that the Obama campaign has decided to ignore the queasiness of Democrats with Wall Street ties, and go after Mitt Romney's record at Bain. And rightly so!

After all, what is Romney's case ' that is, why does he want us to think he should be president? It's not about ideology: Romney offers nothing but warmed-over right-wing platitudes, with an extra helping of fraudulent arithmetic, and it's fairly obvious that even he himself doesn't believe anything he's saying.

Fareed Zakaria:

Many liberals believe that the Affordable Care Act ' Obamacare ' is unpopular only because most Americans don't understand it. There is some truth to this: Studies show that the core provisions of the bill are more popular than the bill itself. But there's also a reason, rooted in reality, why many Americans worry about Obamacare ' its cost.

Most Americans have health care. What they worry about is the cost of insuring 20 million to 30 million more people. Unless the meteoric rise of health-care costs is slowed, a big expansion of coverage might well remain unpopular, no matter how it is explained...

But the situation on the ground suggests that markets work imperfectly in this realm. A new study conducted by the pharmaceutical company Novartis and McKinsey and Co. shows a stunning difference among countries with regard to health-care efficiency.

The column is actually about the inefficiencies of the market, and worth a read.

Chris Cillizza:

On July 4, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney tried to explain the (close to) unexplainable: How a penalty in Massachusetts is a tax nationally.

Eleanor Clift:

Pelosi put everything on the line to push for passage of the ACA. She had confronted Rahm Emanuel, then the White House chief of staff, who was urging President Obama to adopt a scaled-back version that would cover only children. She dubbed it 'Kiddie Care,' likening it to the 'eensy, weensy spider, teeny tiny,' a legislative effort so small it wasn't worth her bother. Emanuel told the Chicago Tribune after the vote that he had advised the president about the political cost of doing this. 'And thank God for the country, he didn't listen to me.'

I'll be on Daily Kos radio with David Waldman for his 2 hour show for a short segment ~9:10 ET. Listen here.

The Blue Skies Netroots Radio Player

Recap: Joan McCarter's post about the Pew poll is here.

Susan Reimer:

That's the other reason I was grateful for the Supreme Court decision.

Insurance coverage for my children's generation need no longer be employer-based. And that's a good thing, both because our kids will probably have many employers and because businesses may jettison health care coverage for employees, the same way they ended pension plans.

They will be on their own, forced to find their own health insurance and to save for their own retirement.

It is possible that the Affordable Care Act is deeply flawed ' there is nothing like the fine print. But at least there is a framework for reform going forward. If the law had been struck down in its entirety, I don't think our acrimonious Congress would have successfully tackled it again in my lifetime.

But I can rest a little easier knowing that the kids who can't find a toehold in this miserable economy ' and health care of their own ' can piggyback on mom or dad's policy for a little while longer.

Great website: Have we found the Higgs boson yet?

EJ Dionne:

When Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton proposed that the federal government establish a Bank of the United States in 1790, his idea was strongly opposed by James Madison, his partner in writing both the Constitution and the Federalist Papers that defended it.

Madison wasn't just against the bank. Setting a pattern for the future, he insisted that its creation would be unconstitutional. Those who claim we can be so certain of the 'original' intentions of the Founders should take note: If two of the authors of the Constitution came to such a stark point of disagreement so quickly, what exactly does 'originalism' mean?

Gail Collins:

How come the Democrats are so short on billionaires? Whenever you hear about some guy tossing $20 million into a 'super PAC,' it always seems to be a Republican.

I asked a top Obama operative that very question the other day. He sighed and said: 'Our billionaires are principled. They all want to spend their money curing malaria.'

Do you think that's it?

To be fair, Republican rich people are also interested in curing terrible ailments. (Donald Trump once told me that he had been looking for a cause along that line but decided that all the best diseases were taken.) And the answer to the Democratic billionaire shortage is probably closer to what Alec MacGillis of The New Republic diagnosed as an 'existential' problem, a rich-person contempt for the whole sordid mess that campaign fund-raising has become. It would so be the Democrats' luck to get stuck with billionaires cursed with existential angst.

Couldn't they give the money secretly? I heard rumors you could do that.

Yes, under the current system you can give a ton of money to, say, defeat Barack Obama, and keep it a secret as long as you give it to a nonprofit organization dedicated to social welfare activities, like the one founded by Karl Rove.