Rep. Paul Ryan has an important article in the New York Times making the case not only for repealing Obamacare but for replacing it. “It is not sufficient,” he argues, “for those of us in the opposition to await a reversal of political fortune months or years from now before we advance action on health care reform.” To build a system that puts patients first, not bureaucrats, he favors “attaching tax benefits to the individual rather than the job” and enabling state-based reforms like risk pools to manage pre-existing conditions.

The government seems determined to enforce Matthew 26:11. A new poverty metric would count as poor not those living in real destitution but those living in relative destitution.

In the Washington Post, Brian Frosh and Jamie Raskin argue that if progressives want to undo the effects of Citizens United—a bad idea, to be sure—they ought to turn to the states, which retain broad regulatory powers.  (Full disclosure: Brian is a cousin.)

And last but not least, an amusing video of President George W. Bush wiping his hand on his predecessor.

Daniel Larison is skeptical that there’s a political constituency for repealing Obamacare. He argues that “discontent with the bill will come later as all of its measures take effect after the repeal strategy has been tried and found electorally lacking.” That doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying, though—not least because the Left views this monstrous bill as merely a first step towards still more federal involvement in health care. Sen. Jim DeMint’s short-and-sweet bill is a step in the right direction.

Steven Spruiell offers a three-step guide to socializing an industry: 1) the government subsidizes private firms; 2) the government creates a “public option” to “compete” with the private firms that have grown fat on subsidies; 3) the government federalizes the whole industry on the grounds that the “public option” is cheaper and doesn’t funnel money to private firms. Solution: don’t subsidize industries in the first place.

Apropos of nationalizing firms, Rep. Barney Frank worries that investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac might not be terribly sound. Good thing the federal government “invested” so much money on behalf of taxpayers over the past year!

While we’re on the subject of bad ideas, FEMA’s director has proposed federal disaster insurance as an alternative to federal bailouts for those who suffer a catastrophe. Of course, like federal flood insurance, such a policy effectively rewards those who choose to live in high-risk areas. Furthermore, disaster relief isn’t necessarily a federal responsibility at all, as President Calvin Coolidge argued after the 1927 Mississippi floods.

And last but not least, Armor Games offers an addictive distraction from this week’s gloomy politics (via Jonah Goldberg), and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund is raising money for an education center.

Kevin Gentry of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation was kind enough to include my take on the role of online fundraising in his “Fundraising Tip of the Week” e-mail:

Direct mail and new media are complementary and reinforce one another.  Even with the best online fundraising campaign, you’d still be leaving money on the table without an offline component, just as with the best direct mail campaign you’d be forgoing funds without an online effort.

New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Sheldon Silver, the speaker of the New York State Assembly, argue in today’s New York Times that the World Trade Center “redevelopment process was always intended to be a public-private collaboration.” They urge the Port Authority, the public agency that owns the site, to further assist with the project’s finances. Another government agency, the joint city-state Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, is also involved in the redevelopment.

Aside from mere symbolism, however, why should taxpayer money be spent to plan and construct a private office building that fairly clearly nobody wants to build? After all, if there were really demand for a 100-story skyscraper, then private financing would be forthcoming.

• Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) takes an unpopular yet important stand against deficit spending. Will his colleagues stand with him?
• Not only is the winning design for the new U.S. embassy in London embassy horribly ugly, but so are all the runners-up. Why do so many architects think their buildings have to eschew traditional design conventions to be any good?
• Simon Heffer offers some unkind words about the man who could be Britain’s next prime minister (maybe). “Cameron shifts easily on such issues because he has very few principles, other than his belief in himself as prime minister. If it is feasible one day to reward marriage through the tax system, he will do so. If it is not, he won’t really care less. Such is the mindset of the former public relations man, whose elastic intellect can be placed on whatever side of whatever argument.”
• And last but not least, Wired’s article about Google’s algorithm provides not only a fascinating look at search technology but an interesting case study of an organization that consistently innovates.