Dear Mark: The president's prized legislation, Obamacare, is now estimated to cost $1.76 trillion over the next 10 years according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. That is nearly double what President Obama told us it would be when he signed his health care bill into law. There has been almost no coverage of what should be a major news story. If Democrats are so proud of this piece of legislation, why aren't they crowing about this news? — Numbers Don't Lie
Dear Numbers: President Obama must be the luckiest politician alive, as headlines about the new price tag of his infamous law are being buried under an avalanche of other news. Who would've thought that the president would be happy about high gas prices, Afghanistan massacres and Iranian nukes leading the news?
Democrats aren't crowing because polls show that Obamacare remains wildly unpopular, and the more Kathleen Sebilius unveils, the more controversies erupt — i.e., mandatory free contraception. Don't forget the Supreme Court will take up the constitutionality of the "mandate" portion of the law later this month with a decision expected later this summer. If I were a Democrat senator or congressman, I wouldn't order my "Give Me Obamacare or Give Me Death" bumper stickers just yet for my re-election campaign.
To paraphrase Obama's favorite pastor, Jeremiah Wright, "The Democrats' chickens have come home to roost." As you know, I'm not one to say I told you so, but dang it people, opponents of Obama's health care debacle warned you of the accounting tricks being used to get the price tag under a trillion dollars in order to put lipstick on this pig.
Dear Mark: We Texans believe you should show a photo ID when you cast that sacred vote. Then along comes Barack Obama's head goon Eric Holder, tellin' us we can't do that. Why doesn't the federal government just mind its own cotton pickin' business? - Teed Texan in Mexia
Dear Teed: President Obama cries that photo IDs will disenfranchise minority voters. Well, if a person can't figure out how to obtain a free ID card, they probably don't need to vote anyway.
Dear Mark: I just read a Bloomberg story that said the Obama administration will not disclose the wines being served at the White House during official functions such as this past week's state dinner with British Prime Minister David Cameron. The article discussed that possibly the White House doesn't want to make public the expensive wines being consumed during tight economic times when most Americans can't afford such luxuries. What happened to the promise of transparency by President Obama? — Boones Farm Bob in Boston
Dear Bob: I'm sorry, but did you say the transparency of President Obama? I seem to recall Candidate Obama discussing transparency, but for the life of me I can't find where PRESIDENT Obama has shown any transparency ... well except for his NCAA basketball tournament bracket.
The president had two options when it came to his choice of wines: He could have chosen more modestly priced bottles in deference to the tough economy and the struggles of average Americans, or he could hide the fact that he and Michelle are liberal elites guzzling wine that costs more per bottle than filling up your Suburban. Let them eat cake, I suppose.
I don't really understand the secrecy. We all know that Obama's favorite wine is a bitter cabernet that lingers on his palate called "It's All Bush's Fault."
Dear Mark is a public platform for your enrichment and entertainment. E-mail your questions to email@example.com. To find out more about Mark Levy, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.