This trend line has been headed in an alarming direction for decades, but hitting the 50 percent threshold only seems like a matter of time at this point.  We're almost there already (via the Washington Times):
 

Some 48 percent of first births in America are now to unmarried women. This means “the nation is at a tipping point, on the verge of moving into a new demographic reality, where the majority of first births in the United States precede marriage,” said the study, “Knot Yet: The Benefits and Costs of Delayed Marriage in America,” released by several organizations including the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia. This emerging trend is alarming, as social scientists have long linked unwed childbearing with poverty, family instability, school failure, substance abuse and mental-health problems. But bringing marriage and childbearing “back into sync” will not an easy task, study co-author Kay Hymowitz, who joined other family and economic policy scholars Wednesday at a Brookings Institution event. “Of course, we also recognize that marriage is not for everyone, and that not all parents can or should get married,” Ms. Hymowitz wrote in the report. But when 20-somethings are in a good relationship, they may want to “marry earlier than today’s social norms suggest,” and other 20-somethings may want to postpone parenthood “until they are in a relationship with someone whom they would choose as a good partner for life.”

There are moral arguments to be made against out of wedlock births, but some people aren't interested in being "scolded" about morality.  Fine.  This pattern also also fuels a core sociological crisis that affect every American.   It is established social science that children from intact two-parent households are statistically less likely to be poor, to fail in school, to develop substance abuse issues, and to go to jail.  Simply put, marriage is one of the most effective sources of social stability known to man.  The increasing percentage of women who have their first child before tying the knot speaks to an American marriage crisis that has nothing to do with the issue of same-sex marriage.  (Indeed, less than five percent of the US population identifies as gay or lesbian, despite a public perception that the number is far greater).  Writer David Frum -- of whom I'm not a great fan -- penned an important column on this subject last month:
 

Among the 95% to 97% of Americans who are not gay, the institution of marriage continues to weaken -- with ominous consequences for the next generation. About 40% of all the babies born in the United States are born to unmarried women. Just about everybody agrees that this is a worrying development... Of course there are exceptions to every rule. On average, however, children born to unmarried women do worse in all kinds of important ways compared to children born to married couples... The dwindling of marriage is both cause and consequence of America's evolution away from a society of equal chances. The restoration of marriage is crucial to reviving the middle class and offering hope to the poor. Marriage means two incomes at a time when most Americans find two incomes essential to earning a middle-class livelihood. Marriage secures the active presence of fathers in children's lives. Marriage means more asset accumulation: Married families save more at every income level. Marriage means fewer accidents and illnesses, less stress, and more happiness and personal fulfillment. Yet even as we reach a new social consensus about marriage's importance, marriage seems to have become increasingly elusive, difficult, and uncertain.  

The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector has explored the relationship between family structure and poverty in depth, discovering enormous disparities between the financial well being of two parent vs. single parent households.  Here are a handful of charts illustrating the statistical evidence (bear in mind that poverty has reached an all-time high in the United States):
 

None of this data is intended to shame or scapegoat single parents, particularly single mothers; in many cases, absentee fathers shoulder the majority of the blame for the status broken families.  These unwed parents -- many of whom work heroically to provide for their children -- aren't the cause of these social ills, but we also cannot afford to wish away the numbers out of respect and empathy for single moms.  Which brings us back to the eminent importance of marriage.  It seems as though our political class is fixated on the wrong marriage discussion -- while we fight over the legal rights of a relatively tiny handful same-sex couples, the broader institution withers on the vine, to the detriment of us all.  I'll leave you with with a pro-life coda: Even though single parenthood is far from ideal (as established above), we must also value a culture of life, in which children are welcomed into the world regardless of the marital status of their parents.  We must never the tragic dystopia of Russia, for instance, where up to 70 percent of pregnancies end in abortion, precipitating a deepening demographic crisis.

Well, this inspires confidence:
 

With time-running out before the major provisions of President Obama’s health care law are set to be implemented, the official tasked with making sure the law’s key insurance exchanges are up and running is already lowering expectations. “The time for debating about the size of text on the screen or the color or is it a world-class user experience, that’s what we used to talk about two years ago,” Henry Chao, an official at the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services who is overseeing the technology of the exchanges said at a recent conference. “Let’s just make sure it’s not a third-world experience.” Chao also described himself as “nervous.”

...As originally pitched, the exchanges were to be easy to use — like Expedia or Orbitz for health insurance — allowing users to fill out basic information, have the government database verify their eligibility, and then enable them to choose among competing plans. But achieving this has been proving to be a huge hurdle. The exchanges are supposed to be available for open enrollment by Oct. 1 and benefits are supposed to kick in on January 1. Also adding to the workload — 26 states have chosen to let the federal government set up their exchanges. The CQ article also quotes Gary Cohen, director of the federal Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, as conceding that the exchanges may not be fully functional in all 50 states in time.  

Four years and billions upon billions of dollars later, Obamacare might well face a 'failure to launch' meltdown.  That wouldn't just be an embarrassment, it would create a truly frightening healthcare crisis for the millions of Americans who will already be counting on a functional system. All of this has some of the law's political champions uneasily grinding their teeth.  President Obama was cunning enough to delay the stickiest elements of his signature law until after he would face voters for the final time, but some of his allies won't have that same luxury:
 

President Obama’s health care law—a killer issue in 2010 but an afterthought among voters in 2012—will face another round of attacks in 2014 as its thorniest parts go into effect, potentially supplying Republicans fresh ammunition in their war against "Obamacare" and creating renewed problems for a plethora of vulnerable Democrats. Neither party knows for sure how smoothly the law will be implemented or if Americans will ultimately support it. But it’s clear that seismic change is coming in health care, and that any disruption to the system could alienate voters who today are mostly ambivalent toward the law. Businesses are starting to scramble to meet the law’s requirement that they offer health insurance by the start of next year, which is also when new taxes and regulations will kick in that critics say will result in “rate shock” for young consumers. State and federal officials may not have insurance-enrollment programs fully operational in time, sowing red tape and confusion as people who have never bought insurance try to navigate flawed and complicated systems. Insurers are already warning that premiums are set to spike.

Indeed they are.  Why, here's another example from just yesterday:
 

Health insurers are privately warning brokers that premiums for many individuals and small businesses could increase sharply next year because of the health-care overhaul law, with the nation's biggest firm projecting that rates could more than double for some consumers buying their own plans. The projections, made in sessions with brokers and agents, provide some of the most concrete evidence yet of how much insurance companies might increase prices when major provisions of the law kick in next year—a subject of rigorous debate...In a private presentation to brokers late last month, UnitedHealth Group Inc., UNH -1.13% the nation's largest carrier, said premiums for some consumers buying their own plans could go up as much as 116%, and small-business rates as much as 25% to 50%. The company said the estimates were driven in part by growing medical costs not directly tied to the law. It also cited the law's requirements that health status not affect rates and that plans include certain minimum benefits and limits to out-of-pocket charges, among other things.

The "Affordable" Care Act at work, folks.  It seems Kathleen "Zero Tolerance" Sebelius may be rather busy over the next few years.  So many companies to punish, so little time.  Happy anniversary, America.

UPDATE - 3.2 million American jobs are threatened by Obamacare, according to a new survey.  Weren't we told that it would create 4 million jobs?  Sure, but that was before a former Obama adviser conceded that the law "is not a jobs program."

UPDATE II - Via American Action Network:
 

In case you were wondering why Senate Republicans pushed so hard for the Sessions amendment last night, knowing full well that it didn't stand a chance in Harry Reid's house, here's your answer:
 

Both President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner recently said the country doesn’t have an immediate debt problem. Nearly 7 voters in 10 say they are wrong. Conversely, 27 percent agree the debt can be handled several years down the road. Voters are similarly at odds with Washington on the budget deficit. Almost all think the federal government should be required to balance its budget (85 percent) and believe reducing the budget deficit is a worthy goal “in and of itself” (85 percent). When asked about investment spending versus spending cuts, more voters say cutting spending to reduce the deficit should be a higher priority in Washington right now than increasing spending to create jobs (54-38 percent).

The Republican brand may be a smoldering mess, but voters still side with many of their policies, particularly on deficit reduction and spending restraint.  The House-passed Republican budget balances in ten years without raising taxes.  Neither Senate Democrats' plan nor the president's yet-unseen proposal ever achieves balance, now or in the future.  More than eight in ten Americans think that result is wrong.  Democrats have given Republicans an opening to return to the tried and true "tax and spend liberal" line of attack.  The GOP isn't going to let the opportunity slip away:
 

The message of bringing the federal government’s books into balance — the central idea behind the Wisconsin lawmaker’s 2014 spending plan — was quietly tested in 18 competitive House races in a late-February poll by the National Republican Congressional Committee. It was a winning argument across a broad swath of politically moderate — and nearly split — districts…The internal party polling shows that Republicans think there’s massive political upside to talking about balancing the budget. In fact, Republican leadership think it’s the winning argument as the party again starts battling with Democrats over the nation’s fiscal future… The poll showed that 45 percent of Democratic voters think “balancing … the federal budget would significantly increase economic growth and create millions of American jobs.” A sky-high 61 percent of independents and 76 percent of Republicans agree.

As I mentioned earlier, Republicans are already loading the 'unbalanced budget' fodder into their campaign cannons:
 

The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC with ties to House Speaker John Boehner, released its first series of television ads for the 2014 mid-term elections, a signal that Republicans plan to play offense in the messaging battle over their budget. The ads, seen first at Yahoo News, target Democratic Reps. Joe Garcia of Florida and Sean Maloney of New York for voting against the Republican budget resolution, which the House approved Thursday. The identical spots emphasize that Ryan's proposal balances the budget within 10 years, and they will air during cable programs popular with women in their districts. The initial buy is very small--just $300 in Florida and $900 in New York for four days of cable ads, according to a media source--but it offers a peek into how Republicans will defend the budget until Election Day...The ad is part of a larger House Republican strategy to emphasize the balanced budget aspect of the Ryan proposal in their messaging efforts.  

The Fox News poll quoted above (which also contains some interesting data on the public's reaction to sequestration) isn't the only new survey that should worry Democrats.  As we've seen in recent weeks, President Obama's job approval has slid back into the 40s, suggesting that his post re-election honeymoon has evaporated.  Pew Research is the latest arrival at the party:
 

Barack Obama’s job approval rating has tumbled since shortly after his re-election, as the public’s economic expectations for the coming year have soured. Despite substantial public awareness of recent gains in the stock market and rebounding real-estate values, the percentage saying economic conditions will get worse over the next year has risen to its highest point in nearly eight years. Obama’s job approval measure has fallen eight points since December, from 55% to 47%. His rating is comparable to George W. Bush’s (45%) at the same point early in his second term and is much lower than Bill Clinton’s 60% rating in February 1997.

The poll shows that Americans have grown increasingly pessimistic about the economy since last year.  

UPDATE - Sen. Jeff Sessions has had about enough of Democrats using the word "balanced" to describe their demonstrably unbalanced budget:
 

Let's face it: Budget fights aren't always the sexiest of topics, but since yesterday, the US Senate has been debating a series of amendments to the chamber's first budget resolution in nearly four years.  Here are a few significant developments so far:
 

(1) Senators defeated Jeff Sessions' provided that would have required the Democratic majority to balance their budget within ten years using any combination of tax increases, cuts, and reforms they'd like.  This was essentially a "show us how you'd balance the budget" amendment.  It failed 46-53, with all Republicans and West Virginia's Joe Manchin voting yes, and all other Democrats voting no.  Thus, Harry Reid's caucus overwhelmingly defeated even the concept of demonstrating to the American people how Democrats would balance the federal budget ten years from now.  As others have pointed out, a number these same Senate Democrats actually campaigned on balancing the budget -- and several served as governors of states where the law required them to do so every year.  Balanced budgeting has broad public support, and Republicans will seek to leverage this advantage over the next two years.  A group aligned with John Boehner is already going on offense against House Democrats with new ads that will actually air in competitive districts.  An early salvo in the 2014 midterm fight:
 

(2) Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray introduced the House-passed budget as an amendment, just to show that it doesn't have support in the Democrat-held Senate.  It was defeated 40-59.  This may change later today, but since 2009, every single Senate Democrat has voted against every single budget with which they've been presented.

(3) Utah's Orrin Hatch offered an amendment to repeal Obamacare's job-killing medical device tax, over which even many Democrats have grown anxious.  The whole purpose of this tax was to conjure up some on-paper "revenue" to help manufacture a lower CBO score for Obamacare in 2010.  Democrats wanted to claim that the law wouldn't add to the deficit (ha!) and would cost less than a trillion dollars (ha ha!), so every last drop of revenue they could squeeze was essential -- no matter how damaging the actual policies would be.  Thankfully, the Senate opted to eliminate this tax in a lopsided vote lasy night, 79-20.  In the process, the Democrat-led Senate dealt another blow to Obamacare on its third anniversary.  Katie has more details.

(4) Michigan Democrat Sen. Debbie Stabenow's amendment to disapprove of voucherizing Medicare passed easily, 96-3.  Republicans felt comfortable backing her symbolic effort because Paul Ryan has insisted all along that his bipartisan Medicare plan does not involve vouchers, but rather "premium support" -- a concept that has a significant lineage of Democratic support.

(5) Just moments ago, Senators blocked Kelly Ayotte's proposal, which would have prevented consideration of any budget that raises taxes, so long as the national unemployment rate remains above 5.5 percent.  Why hike up taxes on successful individuals, families, and (especially) businesses when so many Americans are out of work?  Well, the irresponsible, unbalanced Reid/Murray budget includes $1.5 trillion in tax increases, so it's no surprise that every Democrat voted against the Ayotte amendment.  It was beaten back, 45-54.

(6) Ted Cruz's Obamacare repeal amendment was shot down along strict party lines, 45-54.  Every Republican voted yes, every Democrat, no.  But hey, the law's going great.

More votes are upcoming, culminating in a "vote-a-rama" flurry of amendments later this afternoon.  Will Senate Democrats finally pass a budget?  Stay tuned for more...

UPDATE - Sen. Crapo's amendment just failed, along party lines (45-54).  It would have provided tax relief for low and middle income families by repealing Obamacare's taxes for those groups.  Forced to choose between tax cuts for the middle class and Obamacare, Democrats sided with Obamacare.  Again.

Don't furlough me, bro:
 

More than three dozen federal workers picketed outside the Bolling Federal Building in Kansas City Wednesday, calling for an end to the automatic federal spending cuts known as sequestration. “Sequestration stinks,” one protest sign said. The automatic sequester cuts went into effect earlier this month. They require tens of thousands of federal workers to take unpaid furloughs, and many workers are now being notified of their furlough schedule. Most furloughs won’t take effect until April. “Federal employees are hard-working Americans just like everyone else,” said a statement from Shannon McPeek, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1336. “Less money in their pockets means less money to spend locally on food, clothing, and other goods and services.” The demonstration was part of a national day of protest by federal workers and labor leaders.  

"Sequestration stinks"?  Hey, blame the president -- it was his idea, and he rejected every realistic option to replace it.  This wasn't just a Kansas City event, incidentally; Buzzfeed compiled a highlight reel of news coverage from around the country yesterday, as federal workers took to the streets to vent about the brutal, across-the-board "cuts" that reduced overall spending by...less than two percent.  They were wasting their breath anyway; the Democrat-held Senate passed their version of the House's CR earlier this week, thus solidifying the sequester-induced lower spending baseline for the remainder of the year.  Sorry, bureaucrats, those slightly lowered outlays are here to stay -- at least for the rest of 2013.  (Senate Democrats undo the last nine years of sequestration in their new budget, replacing the cuts with hundreds of billions in tax increases and double counting the "savings" while they're at it).  The president is expected to sign the funding measure, although he'll undoubtedly use the occasion to grouse about the built-in sequester cuts that, er, he proposed.  

In any case, "sequester stinks" just ain't going to cut it in terms of breaking through to the public.  To accomplish that, you really need to exaggerate job losses, lie about pink slips and pay cuts, invent scary stories about denied healthcare services for little kids, needlessly shut off popular Washington frills, set criminals free, and -- if you're really soulless -- exploit accidental troop deaths to really make your point.  Speaking of the penultimate item on that laundry list, Sen. Jon Cornyn  is demanding that Congress investigate the Department of Homeland Security's decision to release thousands of detained illegal immigrants, including some aggravated felons.  DHS officials' excuses have ranged from incoherent to implausible, and Cornyn wants a deeper probe.  Here's a portion of a letter the Texas Republican send to New York Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer:
 

I am writing to request that the Subcommittee conduct full oversight of the recent United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency decision to release 2,228 persons from immigration detention, hundreds into Texas, for no legitimate reason. These actions, made at the direction of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leadership, call into question the Department’s commitment to its core national security missions and raise serious concerns about the judgment of high-level DHS officials. As the Subcommittee with oversight responsibility for the Department of Homeland Security, I believe that it is our duty to hold hearings on this matter in the next month. Though multiple members of Congress and state governors have requested detailed information about these DHS actions, we have yet to receive a response from the Department. What we do know is that at least 700 of these detainees were directly released into Texas. We also know that at least 30 percent of these released detainees had criminal records—potentially including aggravated assault, financial crimes, theft, larceny, drug offenses, drunk-driving, and domestic violence. At least 8-10 of the criminals released by DHS were classified as “Level one offenders”—the most dangerous group of criminals detained by ICE. This is unacceptable. I am also very troubled that senior DHS officials, including ICE Director John Morton, have attempted to downplay the seriousness of releasing more than 600 criminals from their custody and into the general population.

I'm sure Schumer will get right on that.  Yesterday's protests and Democrats' histrionics help illustrate why reducing spending is so difficult in this town, even when the public supports the cuts and can smell the scare tactics from a mile away.  Hell, even when a government agency wants to shed costs, Congress stands ready to stand in the way.

The Republican-held House of Representatives has passed Paul Ryan's FY 2014 budget, as well as the final version of a "continuing resolution" that will fund the federal government through the end of the current fiscal year.  The latter item locked into place the reduced spending baseline established by the sequester.  It does not defund Obamacare, although the GOP FY 2014 budget does.  As I wrote earlier, the House rejected a trio of Democratic alternative budgets yesterday, including the Senate Democrats' offering -- which raises taxes by $1.5 trillion, increases overall spending, adds $7 trillion in new deficits and never balances.  Robust bipartisan majorities torpedoed all three resolutions.  The House Republican blueprint holds the line on taxes, reduces deficits by $4.6 trillion compared to the current path, and balances within ten years.  It passed on a mostly party-line vote, 221-207; every Democrat and a handful of Republicans voted no.  The GOP majority has complied with the law and passed a budget every year since gaining control of the House in the 2010 elections.  Senate Democrats shirked their legally-mandated budgetary duties for nearly four years, but are finally poised to pass a plan of their own in the coming days.  The president remains historically and unlawfully delinquent on his FY 2014 fiscal plan.  Here's Paul Ryan laying out the case for his latest proposal and contrasting it with Democrats' vision:
 

[President Obama] set a record this year: Two months with no plan, while we have trillion dollar deficits and a debt crisis on our horizon.  They have time for the attacks, but no time to offer serious solutions.   His party's leaders are unfortunately failing to offer a serious account of our challenge.  No serious plan to grow the economy or create jobs.  No plan to ever balance the budget.  Take more -- trillions of dollars more --  to spend more in Washington.  That's what got us in this mess in the first place."

Over on the Senate side, they're in the midst of a "vote-a-rama," in which each party is guaranteed 25 hours of debate on the majority's budget resolution.  This allows Senate Republicans to introduce a slew of amendments and force tough votes; Democrat Senators will have nowhere to hide.  This, by the way, is precisely the reason why Democrats flouted the law and refused to produce budgets for the last three-plus years.  They didn't want to expose themselves to uncomfortable votes, preferring instead to attack the other side's solutions.  This year their pay is contingent upon producing a budget, so they've cobbled one together.  So far, Democrats have already killed an amendment that would have restored funding to facilitate White House tours for school groups.  Apparently the resources associated with those sequester cuts just aren't fungible.  (Remember, the president threatened to veto a Republican plan that would have afforded him increased flexibility on this stuff.  He has since blamed a series of unpopular-by-design cuts on the fact that his "hands are tied").  Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions has also offered an amendment requiring Democrats to produce a plan -- any plan -- that would balance their budget within ten years.  That's also expected to go down in flames, likely along strict party lines.  Sen. Pat Toomey Orrin Hatch is also expected to advance an amendment that would repeal Obamacare's harmful medical device tax, which has bipartisan support.  Your move, Dems. I'm told the Senate budget debate could continue long into the night, or might bleed over into tomorrow, depending on how Harry Reid manages the schedule.  If you're interested in watching these events unfold in real time, you can click back and forth between the hoops tourney and C-SPAN 2.  


UPDATE - Unsurprisingly, Senate Democrats have been assailing the House-passed budget as brutally austere and devastating to children and the elderly.  This "monstrous" plan increases federal spending by an average of 3.4 percent per year, saves Medicare, and balances.  The Democrat plan accelerates spending beyond the current rate of increase of nearly five percent annually, keeps Medicare on its death march and never balances -- all despite a hefty tax hike.

UPDATE II - On a tangentially related note, Reuters is now reporting that sequester-related unemployment predictions were likely overblown.  I'm shocked.

Time flies when you're frantically moving goalposts and remaking one-sixth of the US economy, doesn't it?  Three years ago today, the House of Representatives approved the Senate-passed healthcare bill, sending it to the president's desk to become the law of the land -- all without a single Republican vote in either house of Congress.  In the lead up to that moment, were effectively peddled legislative perfection.  Obamacare would reduce family premiums, bend the national health spending curve downward, insure 46 million Americans, cover everyone for no additional cost, and actually reduce national deficits.  The law has since survived enduring public opposition and a razor-thin Supreme Court decision, even as each element of the promised panacea has begun to crumble.  Rather than launch into another new omnibus post recapitulating all the flaws of the president's signature legislative accomplishment, I'll just encourage you to go back and read these pieces, dating back to 2010.  The steady stream of bad Obamacare-related news has continued to flow this year -- ranging from projections of major premium spikes, to various unpleasant "surprises," to reports of utter logistical disarray, to attempts by Democrats to demagogue and unravel more elements of their own law, to revelations of its true long-term price tag.  Keep in mind that most of the "Affordable" "Care" Act hasn't even been implemented yet, although it has already spawned more than 20,000 pages of regulations that with govern your life.  As a very special Obamacare birthday present, here's a New York Times profile of a small business that's trying to grapple with the major hit they're about to endure:
 

The company is one of thousands of small businesses that employ more than 50 full-time employees and thus will be required to offer health insurance to their workers — or pay into a government fund — beginning Jan. 1. Rachel Shein and Steve Pilarski, the married owners of the bakery, which employs 95 people, estimate this could cost their business up to $108,000, and they are weighing their options as the date approaches. “Our revenues are about $8 million, but the food business is a low-margin industry so cutting $108,000 out of our profits, which are just over $200,000, is a big deal,” said Ms. Shein, who is the chief executive. They are evaluating different ways to comply with the new law and finance the expense.  

The three options they're weighing?  (1) Providing insurance to all required employees, wiping out most of their profit in the process (which would cripple their ability to expand or reinvest in the business).  (2) Not offering a plan, "dumping" employees into the taxpayer-funded Obamacare exchanges, and paying the associated fines.  That fine/penalty/tax, by the way, would be higher than the initial cost of providing coverage, but might be more advantageous due to concerns over creeping costs and compliance expenses.  Both of these first two options would entail raising prices and passing costs down to their customers, which would place the company at a competitive disadvantage against rivals who employ fewer than 50 employees -- and are therefore exempt from the mandate.  (3) they may slash the size of their full time staff by outsourcing certain jobs to outside vendors, in hopes of dipping beneath the 50-employee mandate threshold.  Conservative warnings about negative effects on businesses, swelling public costs and job losses weren't fantasies.  The Left's reaction to all of this?  Quit whining.  Really:
 

Just a week ago Five Guys burgers announced the cost of Obamacare compliance was going to force them to raise prices. Matt Yglesias, who writes for Slate, was quick to call them "whiners:" Obamacare is going to reduce his profits by about one-eighth and he (and any investors in his business) will eat the loss. With corporate profits as a share of the economy at an all-time high, nobody's going to cry for him either. In other words, eat the 1/8 loss of profits and shut up about it. I pointed out on Twitter that it was weird Yglesias hadn't said anything about Baked in the Sun and his response was that he'd already said all he had to say. The cost of compliance and the potential loss of revenue from smaller competitors--it's all irrelevant.  Just stop whining, he explained.

I'll leave you with two parting gifts.  First, a new poll, via Phil Klein:
 

Obamacare’s formal name is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But according to a new Kaiser Family Foundation poll, even Democrats are skeptical that the law will improve health care quality and reduce costs. Kaiser’s health tracking poll found that 37 percent of Democrats said “the cost of health care for the nation as a whole” would be better as a result of the law, just 39 percent said health care quality would be better and 27 percent said consumer protections for private insurance would be better. However, 53 percent of Democrats said the law would improve access to health care for the uninsured. The numbers are worse for the population as a whole. When Republicans and independents are included, just 21 percent believe Obamacare will improve costs and 24 percent say it will improve quality.  

Which brings us to our second item, in the form of a priceless* Pelosi flashback.  Here's the former House Speaker explaining how Obamacare would cut deficits and create "four million" jobs:
 

*My mistake.  It's not a "priceless" clip.  It's a $6.2 trillion clip.

UPDATE - Hey look, another story about small businesses expressing "confusion and fear" over Obamacare.

They'll debate and vote on the balanced, popular, pro-growth GOP alternative later today, but yesterday held an important moment of its own:
 

The House on Wednesday rejected the Senate Democratic budget in a 154-261 vote, with 35 Democrats voting against the blueprint from their upper chamber colleagues. House Democrats were instructed to vote for the Senate Democratic budget, but 35 of them defected...The House also rejected the budget from the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) in a 105-305 vote...The Progressive Caucus budget was also rejected 84-327, but it managed to pick up a few more votes compared to last year. Most Democrats voted against this bill, just as they did last year when it was rejected 78-346.

They would have voted on the president's budget as well, presumably, but it doesn't exist.  This executive abdication is unparalleled over the last 92 years of American presidents, dating back to the passage of the current law.  Here's a list of the Democrats who voted no on their own party's budget, perhaps because it raises taxes massively, punts on every major reform, and never, ever balances.  Coincidentally, many of the blue "no" votes were cast by vulnerable incumbents being targeted by the NRCC.  Funny, that.  Mary Katharine Ham makes two good points about last evening's events:  (1) "Opposition to Democratic priorities continues to be consistently more bipartisan than the coalition that passed Obamacare."  (2) The 'no' bloc "may be surprised to learn that they all hate old people and children, or whatever evil it is Democrat Budget Deniers are allegedly guilty of today."  Indeed.  Stay tuned for updates on Paul Ryan's latest "Path to Prosperity."  The full floor debate and roll call votes are available on C-SPAN...

Democrats' sequester tower of terror continues to collapse, floor by floor.  Amidst the media fact checks and stomach-turning posturing, Republican members of Congress are using hearings to hold bureaucrats' feet to the fire over the claims and actions of their departments.  Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) blew the cover off of the administration's duplicity on supposed cuts to pediatric vaccinations a few weeks ago; yesterday, it was South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy's turn at bat.  Watch as he grills a Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary as to why his team released ten "level 1" aggravated felons from federal custody, supposedly due to sequester cuts:
 

GOWDY: "There was nothing else [you] could do as a cost savings measure. Is that your testimony?" 

BORRAS: "No, that is not my testimony."

My personal favorite exchange was the bit where Gowdy "asks" Borras how long the department had to prepare for sequestration, knowing exactly what the correct response would be: More than a year and a half.  And yet they were hoping the American people would simply accept the notion that they couldn't spare $1,200 bucks to keep violent felons locked up, ostensibly because of small across-the-board federal spending reductions.  Not cuts, reductions in the rate of growth.  Remember, the president proposed and signed this law, then attempted to pawn off its supposed ill-effects onto Republicans -- hoping to count on the credulous media the spread the distortions.  When the GOP wouldn't cave, the administration mobilized to set the vast apparatus of the federal government to work against the interests and well being of the American people in order to justify their hysterical predictions of widespread misery.  I'll leave you with the infamous quote that sums up this deeply cynical and reckless approach to governance: "It is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be."

UPDATE - As I wrote earlier, multiple polls indicate that Democrats' propaganda isn't working.

The House of Representatives is expected to take up Paul Ryan's budget today, as the Senate begins debate on Democrats' first fiscal roadmap in nearly four years.  The House GOP version balances in ten years, without raising taxes, by reducing the rate of spending growth and reforming entitlement programs.  Senate Democrats propose $1.5 trillion in tax increases and hundreds of billions in phony savings, yet their ledger never approaches balance.  The president's offering is still nowhere to be found.  Ryan's plan would shave $4.6 trillion from deficits over ten years, compared to the current spending path; the Reid/Murray approach actually raises overall spending by hundreds of billions.  As these contrasting paths forward are discussed on Capitol Hill, read through this Wall Street Journal op-ed by two Stanford University economists.  They argue that their thorough analysis suggests that the House budget would boost the economy and inspire confidence in American employers, investors and creditors:
 

According to our research, the spending restraint and balanced-budget parts of the House Budget Committee plan would boost the economy immediately. With the Budget Committee's proposed tax reform included, the immediate impact would be even larger. The entire plan would raise gross domestic product by one percentage point in 2014, equivalent to about a $1,500 increase for each U.S. household. Ten years from now, at the end of the official budget horizon, we estimate that the entire plan would raise GDP by three percentage points, or more than $4,000 for each U.S. household...

The long-run economic gains from restraining government spending would not, despite what critics claim, harm the economy in the short run. Instead, the economy would start to grow right away. Why?  First, the lower level of future government spending avoids the necessity of sharply raising taxes. The expectation that tax rates won't need to rise provides incentives for higher investment and employment today. Second, since the expectation of lower future taxes has the effect of raising people's estimation of future disposable income, consumption increases today. This change comes thanks to Milton Friedman's famous "permanent income" hypothesis that the behavior of consumers reflects what they expect to earn over a long period. According to our macroeconomic model, the higher level of consumption induced by the House budget's effect on consumer expectations is large enough to offset the reduced growth of government spending.

Third, the new budget's reduction in the growth of government spending is gradual. That allows private businesses to adjust efficiently without disruptions. Still, our macroeconomic model likely underestimates the positive impact of the House budget plan. The model doesn't account for the greater economic certainty that results from preventing the national debt from soaring to dangerously high levels and from stabilizing the federal tax burden.

Meanwhile, what would the Senate budget accomplish?  Ta da:
 

Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee summarize many of the budget gimmicks we've covered and conclude that Democrats' plan amounts to "virtually no deficit reduction whatsoever" -- a far cry from Murray's claim of $1.85 trillion in lowered deficits:
 

Even the claimed deficit reduction is a fallacy because it relies on several egregious gimmicks and accounting tricks. The largest such gimmick is that the budget eliminates the sequester but does not count the elimination of these cuts as the spending increase that it is. (Chairman Murray’s staff conceded under questioning that, properly accounted, their actual deficit reduction would be closer to $700 billion.) Other gimmicks further reduce that figure, including an unrealistically low estimate of war spending and a doc fix that is assumed but not paid for. Altogether, the Senate Democrat budget contains virtually no deficit reduction whatsoever. Underneath all the gimmicks and spin is more a fundamental issue: what’s actually in the Murray budget? What are the actual policies and reforms? They don’t exist. The never-balancing budget contains no actual fiscal reforms of any kind—just a massive tax increase to fuel a massive increase in government.

Over the coming weeks and months, the two parties will battle over ownership of the word "balance."  Democrats will embrace the president's definition: A political euphemism for raising taxes in exchange for any spending "cut," no matter how counterfeit.  Republicans will promote their actually balanced budget.  This is a fight the GOP believes it can win because balanced budgets are widely popular, even among many Democrats:
 

But the message of bringing the federal government’s books into balance — the central idea behind the Wisconsin lawmaker’s 2014 spending plan — was quietly tested in 18 competitive House races in a late-February poll by the National Republican Congressional Committee. It was a winning argument across a broad swath of politically moderate — and nearly split — districts…When talking about the Democrats’ plan, Republicans criticize it for attempting to raise taxes and the fact that it doesn’t balance the budget. Republicans say they’re trying to seize the message “balanced” back from President Barack Obama, who said last week he doesn’t consider balancing the budget a top priority. The internal party polling shows that Republicans think there’s massive political upside to talking about balancing the budget… The poll showed that 45 percent of Democratic voters think “balancing … the federal budget would significantly increase economic growth and create millions of American jobs.” A sky-high 61 percent of independents and 76 percent of Republicans agree.

Jim Pethokoukis is skeptical of Republicans' substance here, suggesting that their balanced budget is more of a messaging tool than an airtight set of policies.  Fine.  This budget has no chance of becoming law with Harry Reid and Barack Obama standing in the way, so why not try to win some narrative fights for once -- especially while pursuing generally sound policies and goals?  Whether Republicans can stay on message is another story, though yesterday's budget press conference was a decent start:  
 

At the very least, they successfully coordinated tie colors, in honor of St. Patrick's Day.