Friday, July 6, 2012

Would you date a man without a job? Unemployment is biggest turn-off for three-quarters of women!

Mail ^ | 29 June 2012 | Victoria Wellman

Despite tough economic times and a solid unemployment rate, a new study has revealed that women are not interested in dating a man with no job.

Dating site, It's Just Lunch, surveyed 925 men and women and found that a whopping 75per cent of women were turned off by unemployment.
...Job prospects? A new survey has found that women are less likely to date a guy if he is out of work and will staunchly refuse if finding a job is not a priority But a generous 43per cent said they would consider seeing someone who was unemployed if getting a job was a priority in the near future.
A mere 21per cent responded to the survey by saying they didn't care and would go out with someone regardless of what their professional ambitions may be.
The research found that women were more concerned with the idea of a man being 'engaged in an activity'
...Irene LaCota is a spokesman for It's Just Lunch told Jezebel: 'Not having a job will definitely make it harder for men to date someone they don't already know.
'This is the rare area, compared to other topics we've done surveys on, where women's old-fashioned beliefs about sex roles seem to apply.'
So while hard times have understandably left many without a paycheck, men who never had a professional goal in the first place are among those who will find it harder to appeal to women.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Jobless Class of 2012

Smart Money ^ | 7/6/2012 | Quentin Fottrell

The Class of 2012 may have few reasons to celebrate this year. Along with the long-term unemployed, experts say their prospects are the bleakest among all job-seekers.
The U.S. economy added a lower-than-expected 80,000 jobs last month, according to data Friday from the Labor Department. Though the overall unemployment rate remained unchanged at 8.2%, experts say this year’s 1.8 million college graduates have a rough job search ahead. “Over the last five years, the jobs situation has gotten increasingly intense for each successive graduating class,” says Paul T. Conway, president of Generation Opportunity, a non-profit think-tank based in Arlington, Va. “Their concern is now palpable.”
The last half-decade has not been good to graduates. Only a half of those who graduated since 2006 are now employed full time, according to a recent Rutgers University survey. More college graduates are settling for jobs that in years past would have gone to those without degrees, while people in their 30s are now occupying jobs once taken by recent graduates, says Carl Van Horn, professor of public policy and director of Rutgers’ John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development.
But if all the young people who’ve already given up looking for jobs are included — the 1.7 million people aged 18-29 who’ve been out of work for more than a year — the latest 8.2% unemployment figure would be closer to 16.8% for that age group, Conway says. That’s the highest unemployment rate for that age group since World War II. “Their story is one of few opportunities, delayed dreams, and stalled careers,” he says.
The faltering economic recovery prompted students from the class of 2012 to apply for jobs much earlier than graduates of earlier years. More than half of college seniors reported they applied for a job prior to graduating, according to a survey of 48,000 graduating seniors by National Association of Colleges and Employers, and more than a quarter of those that applied for a job found one, the survey found.
Some majors fared far better than others: Over half of those who accounting, engineering, computer science, economics and business administration graduates received at least one offer.
But faced with competition from older workers, young professionals are accepting jobs for less money. College graduates who obtained their first job between 2009 and 2011 earned $27,000 a year or 10% less than those who entered the workforce in the two previous years, the Rutgers survey found. Van Horn says many of this year’s graduates lucky enough to find employment will be disappointed with their salary. Mark Mulholland, 22, a history major from the University of Virginia, graduated in May 2012 and is now looking for work in communications. “My hope is to gain valuable experience rather than a massive salary,” he says. His target? $40,000 a year.

Welcome Fingers

Stagnant unemployment rate casts long political shadow

hindu . com ^ | 7 6 12

Storm clouds hovering above Europe, the U.S. debt overhang, and feeble housing market economics continued to hobble the prospect of improvement in the U.S. job market in June. Non-farm payroll employment showed tepid growth, and edged up by a mere 80,000 jobs, leaving the overall unemployment rate essentially unchanged at 8.2 per cent.

This dismal monthly statistics, which is entirely in line with the U.S. Federal Reserve’s earlier decision to hold federal rates low until 2014, may dampen the spirits of the Obama administration in an election year, especially as nearly 13 million people are without work.

Leaving little doubt that the stagnant unemployment rate was becoming a hot campaign issue in the run-up to November poll, Andrea Saul, presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s press spokesperson, said in a tweet, “This is weakest job adding quarter in two years.

“Still more Americans unemployed than when Obama took office.”

African-Americans comprised the only major ethnic group for whom unemployment ticked upwards, to 14.4 per cent...

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Take Off the Gloves, Mitt

American Thinker ^ | July 6, 2012 | William L. Gensert

Mitt Romney needs to get in Barack Obama's face. For our President with a compliant press and a multitude of minions, confronting the Republican candidate directly is not a necessity. Scurrilous sycophants will act in his stead as proxies with accusations and personal attacks. Mitt has no such luxury. He must transform himself into a latter-day Patton and "attack, attack, attack!"

Nothing should be off the table. It won't be for Barack Obama. Romney needs to bloody our President's face (relax Secret Service, it's a metaphor) with questions about his character, associations, truthfulness, work history and life experiences, as well as his effectiveness as President.

I'm not happy with what I have seen so far. Ten seconds after Chief Justice John Roberts' decision on Obamacare, Mitt should have been on the airwaves, both in person and with advocates and attack ads, labeling the President a "tax and spend" progressive, who has given his name to the largest tax hike in history and is proud of it. After all, it is "still a BFD."

Instead, in the style of John McCain's 2008 Presidential campaign, we had Romney use a surrogate to float a trial balloon agreeing with Obama that the mandate is a penalty and not a tax...or was it the other way around? Obama has taken so many positions it's hard to keep it all straight. First, the mandate was a penalty, then it was a tax, and now it's a penalty again. With the Romney campaign, first it was a penalty and now it is a tax...I think.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

June Jobs Report: 8.2 Percent Unemployment (Updated)

the PJ Tatler ^ | July 6,a2012 | Bryan Preston

The US jobs report is out for June 2012, and it is bleak. Unemployment remained stuck at 8.2 percent. Additionally, private sector payrolls added just 84,000 jobs while the government sector shed 4,000 jobs for a net of just 80,000 jobs gained for the entire country. In May, the economy created just 69,000 jobs. The government has been in the habit of releasing a number and then later revising it down, so today’s 80,000 number may not stand for long. Economists expected 90,000 jobs to be created in June. A healthy economy would be expected to create north of 200,000 jobs.
Despite President Barack Obama’s claim Thursday that manufacturing is “coming back,” the US manufacturing sector actually shrunk in June. Retailers also reported a “stagnant” economic environment in June.
Time reports that one-third of the new June jobs are barely jobs, they’re at temp agencies. Retail, manufacturing and the housing sector all saw no job growth at all.
The president and the White House got their communications lines crossed in response to the numbers, with the president saying that they show a “step in the right direction” while the White House warned not to “read too much” into the June report.
Mitt Romney reacted sharply, noting that the unemployment rate remains “unacceptably high,” adding that “This is a time for America to choose whether they want more of the same; whether unemployment above 8 percent month after month after month is satisfactory or not. It doesn’t have to be this way. America can do better and this kick in the gut has got to end.”

Disability Ranks Outpace New Jobs In Obama Recovery [OUTRAGEOUS]

IBD ^ | July 6, 2012 | JOHN MERLINE

More workers joined the federal government's disability program in June than got new jobs, according to two new government reports, a clear indicator of how bleak the nation's jobs picture is after three full years of economic recovery.

The economy created just 80,000 jobs in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. But that same month, 85,000 workers left the workforce entirely to enroll in the Social Security Disability Insurance program, according to the Social Security Administration.

The disability ranks have outpaced job growth throughout President Obama's economic recovery. While the economy has created 2.6 million jobs since June 2009, fully 3.1 million workers signed up for disability benefits.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

SHOULD WE WHIP IT? This will help you decide.

Source: Laz's twisted brain. | July 6, 2012 | By Lazamataz

This was inspired by the original DEVO flowchart, but I felt the original author had far too many logic errors and missed song lyrics.

Dems signing The Declaration Of Dependence

Obama's Problem Obeying the Law

American Thinker ^ | 7/6/12 | William A. Levinson

There is ample evidence that Barack Obama, and people under his supervision, committed at least one felony -- specifically, illegal gambling across state lines -- to fund his 2008 election campaign. Congress, meanwhile, found Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, in contempt for refusal to testify about Operation Fast and Furious. Orchestration of straw purchases of firearms, one of which resulted in the death of a law enforcement officer, could easily be another felony.

The Obama Campaign's Numbers Racket

The general definition of a lottery is an activity that includes (1) mandatory payment of consideration -- i.e., money -- as a condition of participation, (2) a prize -- i.e., anything of value, such as an expenses-paid trip, and (3) an element of chance in the selection of the prize winners. It is against federal law to conduct a lottery across state lines, and it is illegal in almost every state to conduct an unauthorized or unlicensed lottery or other gambling activity. This is true even in states like Nevada that are famous for their (licensed) gambling establishments.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

780,000 More Women Unemployed Today Than When Obama Took Office

CNS News ^ | July 6, 2012 | John W Chapman

( – The number of women unemployed in June was 5,785,000, an increase of 780,000 from when Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009 – at that time, the number of unemployed women in the United States was 5,005,000.

The number of unemployed is for women ages 16 and older in the civilian work force and is seasonally adjusted, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

The BLS data also show that the unemployment rate for women in June was 8.0 percent, up from 7.9 percent in May. That’s also up from 7.0 percent in January 2009 when Obama became president.
The overall unemployment rate (men and women) is 8.2 percent. For women, the unemployment rate has gone up fairly consistently since January 2009, with a few ups and downs, but reaching as high as 9.0 percent in November 2010 and staying in the mid-8 percent range for most of 2009, 2010 and 2011.

The unemployment rate for women in January of this year was 8.3 percent, or 5,997,000 unemployed, an increase of 992,000 since the president was inaugurated.

Initiative would let voters overrule federal law!

PHOENIX -- Voters could get the right to overrule federal laws and mandates under the terms of an initiative filed late Thursday.

The Arizona Constitution already says the federal Constitution "is the supreme law of the land." This measure, if approved in November, it would add language saying that federal document may not be violated by any government -- including the federal government.

More to the point, it would allow Arizonans "to reject any federal action that they determine violates the United States Constitution."

That could occur through a vote of the state House and Senate with consent of the governor.
But that also could occur through a popular vote on a ballot measure, effectively allowing voters to decide which federal laws they feel infringe on Arizona's rights as a sovereign state.
Organizer Jack Biltis said he turned in more than 320,000 signatures. The next step will be for the Secretary of State to determine, after screening the petitions, if there are at least 259,213 valid names on the forms to allow the measure to go on the ballot.
Biltis, who said he has spent more than $1.2 million on the campaign so far, said it is time for Arizona to step up and reclaim its constitutional rights.
The "flagship" example, he said, is the federal Affordable Care Act. He said there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which gives the federal government the power to enact a national health care plan.
Biltis acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court, faced with exactly that question, ruled to the contrary.
"I believe the Supreme Court completely got it wrong," he said. In fact, Biltis argued, the ability of the nation's high court to interpret -- and invalidate -- federal laws itself is not part of the U.S. Constitution but was claimed by the court in 1803.
"The only portion of government that has unlimited powers are the state governments and the people themselves," he said. Biltis said that, under his measure, Arizona could simply refuse to participate, though it would do so at risk of losing federal dollars.
But Biltis' objections to federal authority are not partisan. He is equally upset with the Patriot Act, passed during the administration of George W. Bush, which gives the federal government broad powers to detain people without trial.
And then there are other issues that might not seem so weighty but that Biltis finds to be constitutionally unacceptable, like the federal law, signed during the Bush administration, which phases out the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs to save energy. The most popular replacement to date has been compact fluorescent bulbs which have their own environmental issues if broken.
"Besides the insanity of it, if you have a federal government that can choose to ban a light bulb that has existed for 100 years, that served us pretty well, what can't they do?" he asked.
Nor is Biltis troubled by the idea of individual states interpreting federal law -- and nullifying those they believe are unconstitutional. He said that is precisely what happened in pre-Civil War days when some Northern states refused to honor the federal Fugitive Slave Act which required escaped slaves to be returned to their owners.
Biltis acknowledged his measure would allow Arizona to ignore other federal mandates, such as integration of schools. But he said there are various safeguards for that, ranging from public sentiment and pressure to the ability of 34 other states to amend the U.S. Constitution to give the federal government the explicit power overrule what Arizonans might have done.
There actually will be two sovereignty measures on the ballot.
A separate proposal crafted by Rep. Chester Crandell, R-Heber, would have Arizona declare its "sovereign and exclusive authority and jurisdiction over the air, water, public lands, minerals, wildlife and other natural resources within its boundaries." Exempt would be tribal and military reservations.

Read more:

After weak jobs report, 4 more chances for Obama to show economic growth

Four more chances.
That's what President Obama has left to prove he's helped turn the economy around -- with just four more monthly jobs reports remaining before the November election. Those reports could determine whether he gets four more years.

The last three employment snapshots released by the Labor Department have been persistently weak, and marked a distinct slowdown from earlier in the year. In the latest report, the department said employers added a meager 80,000 jobs in June, leaving the unemployment rate unchanged at 8.2 percent. The number of jobs added in June was lower than expected, and rounded out a poor second quarter for 2012.
The average number of monthly jobs created in the first quarter of the year was 226,000 -- by contrast, that average in the second quarter was just 75,000.
With the economy typically polling as the top issue in the 2012 race, Obama is now under heavy pressure to demonstrate a turnaround sometime between July and October. A cascade of weak jobs reports between now and then would not bode well for his chances, though the president thus far has kept the edge over Mitt Romney in many battleground state polls.
As far as Romney's concerned, the president has run out of time. Speaking from New Hampshire Friday, the Republican candidate said Obama does not "have a plan" for the economy, and called the latest report a "kick in the gut."
"The president's policies have clearly not been successful in re-igniting this economy," Romney said. "It doesn't have to be this way."
Romney faulted the Obama administration for the country's regulatory burden and its high corporate tax rate -- though that rate was not set by Obama, who has actually proposed cutting it.
Obama, meanwhile, was courting blue-collar voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania on his first 2012 campaign bus tour, and took time out during a stop in Poland, Ohio, to address the June numbers. On the upside, the president noted that over 28 months the economy has added 4.4 million payroll jobs. "That's a step in the right direction," Obama said.
But the president stressed he wasn't "satisfied" and wants to make sure middle-class families have "basic securities."
"We've got to grow the economy even faster, and we've got to put even more people back to work," Obama said. He went on to criticize Republicans for peddling a philosophy, he said, of less regulation and trickle-down wealth.
"I think it's wrong," Obama said. "It's not a smart theory."
The president took heat last month for the worst jobs report in a year -- Friday's report was only modestly better, opening up heated criticism from Republicans.
For the U.S. economy, the only good news came in the form of incremental changes. The average work week grew to 34.5 hours from 34.4 in May, boosting many workers' paychecks. And average hourly wages rose 6 cents to $23.50.
But on a whole, none of these changes are enough to fuel an economic recovery. While professional and business services saw the best growth in June, other industries like construction and hospitality saw almost no change in June. In the second quarter of 2012, job growth has slowed across almost every industry.
A weaker job market has made consumers less confident. They have pulled back on spending, even though gas prices have plunged.
High unemployment could shift momentum to Romney, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. An Associated Press-GfK poll released last month found that more than half of those surveyed disapproved of Obama's handling of the economy.
Dismal June job figures could also prompt the Federal Reserve to take further action to try to boost the economy. The Fed last month downgraded its economic outlook for 2012. It predicted growth of just 1.9 percent to 2.4 percent for the year and little change in the unemployment rate.
Job gains in April and May were little changed from the department's previous estimates.
About one-third of the jobs gained in June were in temporary services. Manufacturing added 11,000, its ninth straight month of gains. But growth in factory jobs slowed sharply in the second quarter compared to the first. Health care added 13,000 jobs and financial services gained 5,000. Retailers, transportation firms and government cut jobs.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more:

Battle Hymn

TRULY AN INSPIRATION.....................
I want to thank the person that sent this to me, and also all of the people that had forwarded it up to them. It gave me much pleasure and pride. I hope that all the people that I forward this to will in turn forward to their friends!

Republican teachers uneasy at Obama-themed union convention

Associated Press

It had all the trappings of a re-election rally: thousands packing a convention center, Barack Obama T-shirts, videos celebrating the health care law, and a wall-size banner with encouraging messages to the incumbent president.

"You are our knight in shining armor -- Sarah C., Norman, Okla.," read one inscription.

But this Obama love fest in Washington was not a campaign event. The nearly 9,000 gathered were teachers in town for the National Education Association's weeklong annual convention.
For the Republican teachers in attendance, the digs at their political views were impossible to overlook.

"What I don't like is the harassment going on for people to be an `EFO' -- an educator for Obama," said Maureen van Wagner, a special education teacher from Anchorage, Alaska.
In interviews with The Associated Press, roughly a dozen teachers who identified themselves as Republicans said they felt pressure from union leaders and the rank-and-file to support Obama's re-election -- and felt marginalized when they wouldn't. Some interviewed said they were so worried about retribution from their colleagues that they wouldn't provide their names for publication.
National unions such as the NEA -- it's the largest teachers union in the U.S. -- have long been stalwart supporters of Democratic candidates, and to be effective, they must speak with a unified voice. But teachers, like other professional groups, are not monolithic in their political views, prompting inevitable tensions when the union mobilizes its political machine.
NEA leaders have been urging members to hold house parties to educate their friends about why Obama, who addressed the convention Thursday by telephone to thank teachers for their support, deserves a second term. So it wasn't really a surprise that the union showed its support for Obama so overtly at the convention. After all, 72 percent of delegates at last year's NEA convention voted to endorse Obama for re-election -- the earliest the group has ever endorsed in a presidential election cycle.
But what did take Republican teachers off guard was the criticism they received for expressing support for Mitt Romney.
A Republican teacher speaking at the convention was booed for doing just that. The incident prompted NEA President Dennis Van Roekel to intervene, saying that everyone had the right to speak. And when the union invited delegates to the Democratic National Convention in September to a special meeting, no such invitations went out to delegates to the GOP convention until a Republican teacher complained to Van Roekel -- an error the union said resulted from a missed newsletter deadline.
Then there were the T-shirts. Some Republicans said they were presented with NEA T-shirts featuring Obama's name -- and that it felt like being forced to choose between their profession and their politics.
"I'm not here representing myself, I'm here representing other teachers," said Chris Cvijetic, a first-grade teacher and Republican from Palm Springs, Calif. "That's the only way I can get through the day."
NEA officials said the union, which has never endorsed a Republican for president, makes every effort to ensure all its members feel welcome. The union holds a Republican Leadership Conference the same week as the annual convention. Union dues are kept separate from the NEA's political action committee, which spends donated funds to promote candidates such as Obama. And the NEA has endorsed GOP candidates who are pro-public education.
Despite the complaints, the NEA has no plans to shy away from a full embrace of what Mary Kusler, the union's director of government relations, called "the incredible legacy and vision of this current administration."
That's not stopping NEA members who disagree with Obama from making their voices heard.
In the convention center's basement-level expo center, squeezed in between the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender teacher's caucus and a stall selling designer handbags of questionable authenticity, sat a small, two-person table for the NEA's Republican Educators Caucus. The group has about 160 members, although it has seen its ranks grow in recent years, said Davina Keiser, the caucus chairwoman.
"For Republican teachers, it's almost like we're stepchildren in NEA, and then in the Republican Party we're also stepchildren, because we're public schoolteachers, and that's not part of their focus," said Keiser, who teaches high school math in Long Beach, Calif.

Read more:

The Race is ON!

Posted Image

Land of the FREE

Posted Image

Now You Know...

Posted Image


Posted Image

Dependence Day

Posted Image

Our Ancestors

Posted Image

Individual vs. Government

Posted Image

The Guy Behind Me Pays!

Posted Image

Conservative vs. Liberal

Posted Image

You should be thanking me!

Posted Image

Do You Qualify?

Posted Image


Posted Image

Not Now, Janet

Posted Image

Criticize our Governmemt

Posted Image

The Potomac River Dance

Posted Image

Reserved for Eric Holder

Posted Image

The Constitution

Posted Image

The Elections are coming...

Posted Image

What is it?

Posted Image

What does he know?

Posted Image

Improving our position...

Posted Image

Brad Pitt's Mother Pens Anti-Gay, Anti-Obama Letter to Local Newspaper!

Hollywood Reporter ^ | 07/05/12 | Seth Abramovitch

An anti-gay letter urging Christians to vote for Mitt Romney that was printed today in The Springfield News-Leader has been confirmed by the newspaper as having been penned by Jane Pitt, mother of Brad Pitt.

The verification comes amid some confusion, as the Missouri newspaper first printed an editor's note denying any relation between the letter writer and movie star. That was later replaced with a second editor's note, reading, "To clear up earlier confusion, the News-Leader has verified the letter writer is the mother of actor Brad Pitt and local businessman Doug Pitt."

The letter -- itself a response to another opinion piece in the newspaper justifying Christians' rights to refuse to vote for Romney because he is a Mormon -- identifies Mrs. Pitt as "a Christian [who differs] with the Mormon religion."
But, Pitt continues, "any Christian should spend much time in prayer before refusing to vote for a family man with high morals, business experience, who is against abortion, and shares Christian conviction concerning homosexuality just because he is a Mormon."
Pitt goes on to write that "any Christian who does not vote or writes in a name is casting a vote for Romney’s opponent, Barack Hussein Obama — a man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer, and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage."
Along with Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt has long been an outspoken champion of gay rights. Pitt once told Ellen DeGeneres, "I’ve said that we would not be getting married until everyone in this country had the right to get married." The two nevertheless announced their engagement in April, after seven years and six children together.
In January, Pitt said of his mother in a cover profile in The Hollywood Reporter, "She's very, very loving -- very open, genuine, and it's hilarious because she always gets painted in the tabloids as a she-devil. There's not an ounce of malice in her. She wants everyone to be happy."
In the same story, the Moneyball star revealed his own support of Obama in the upcoming presidential election

Surprises In Supreme Court Ruling on Obamacare

Town Hall ^ | July 05, 2012 | Richard Larsen

Well, it’s official. It’s now constitutional for politicians to tell huge lies, and not only get away with it, but be rewarded for it. The Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare this week confirmed what most of us realized all along, that President Obama and congressional supporters of the “Affordable Care Act” lied to the nation, to all of us! They told us that it was not a tax increase, ardently, vehemently, and ad nauseam, yet that’s the very justification the Supreme Court used to rule it constitutional this week.
While debating the Act in congress, proponents claimed constitutional authority for the hostile takeover of the health care industry based on the commerce clause. And when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued the case in front of the Supreme Court justices, the Act’s constitutionality was based on the commerce clause, not on its merits as a tax.
But the end result is that one of the largest and most regressive tax increases ever, $1.76 trillion over ten years, according to updated figures from the Congressional Budget Office, has been thrust upon the taxpayers, courtesy of Obama and congressional Democrats. In a bizarre twist of irony, it’s their lie that allowed it to be ruled constitutional! And from a constitutional basis, we’re supposed to ignore the fact that as a tax bill, it originated in the Senate, another strike against its constitutionality.
Prior to Obamacare’s passage in 2010, Obama denied it was a tax. In September 2009, Obama told ABC News that the law “is absolutely not a tax increase.” In fact, in nearly every major sales pitches for the Act he would reassert, "for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.”
And he was not alone. All the congressional Democrats sang the same tune. Notably, the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, declared in 2010 that not only was it not a tax increase, but it certainly didn’t violate Obama’s pledge of absolutely no new taxes on the middle class. We all remember him promising in every campaign stop through the 2008 campaign, “I can make a firm pledge – under my plan, no family making less that $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.” Yet, of the 21 taxes included in the Act, nearly half will affect the middle class; the economic stratum that Obama promised no tax increases to.
There is one truly significant aspect to the ruling Thursday that is actually encouraging. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts ruled the “individual mandate,” relative to the commerce clause, was in fact unconstitutional. Roberts wrote, “The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do.”
The significance of this aspect of the ruling is nearly as great as upholding of the Act itself. This means there is now judicial precedence limiting congress’ authority to compel American citizens to purchase anything, or to be fined or otherwise punished or regulated for not engaging in certain behavior. They simply cannot mandate citizen behavior under the Commerce Clause. Those of us thinking the entire Act would be ruled unconstitutional because of the mandate were right. Little did we know that it would pass muster based on the taxing authority of congress.
Regrettably the Act is much more than a tax, as it takes complete control of our health care delivery mechanism. Tom Price, a congressman from Georgia and a medical doctor, said on Friday, “We clearly chose in 2008, and we’re now as a nation living under the consequences of that political choice. But as a physician, I can tell you that the doctors and the patients of this land are very troubled. Because this law violates every single principle we hold dear as a nation in health care. Whether it’s accessibility or affordability, or high quality care or choices for patients, this law violates all of those things and makes them more difficult.”
The oxymoronic title of the Act has already proven, in two short years, that it is anything but “affordable,” as premiums and health care costs have skyrocketed in anticipation of full implementation over the next two years. It was the wrong prescription for the ailments of health care delivery, and there were many less intrusive and cheaper ways to provide insurance to the uninsured, short of a hostile takeover of the entire industry.
Perusing the Roberts ruling from the NFIB v. Sibelius decision, there is a very strongly worded line in there that goes to the heart of the issue for those of us who are strict constructionists. He said, "The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”
He continues, "The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power."
“The Federal Government ‘is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers.’ That is, rather than granting general authority to perform all the conceivable functions of government, the Constitution lists, or enumerates, the Federal Government’s powers,” he wrote.
Although we perceive the ruling to be a loss to the constructionist argument, the first few pages of Robert’s explanation is a reaffirmation of the limits of federal government authority, based upon enumerated powers. He really gave us a gift, for by ruling as he did, he’s reaffirmed the constitutional limitations of the federal government and motivated the masses in revolt against the current regime. For as Roberts said later, whether the government should even be involved in mandated health care is a political question, one that we can address at the polls.
It seems sadly ironic that we would learn of the constitutionality of the one piece of congressional legislation most restrictive to personal freedom and liberty ever, on the eve of our national observance of our Independence Day. We can only hope that with a change in the White House and gains in the House and Senate in the November election, that this onerous legislation can be rewritten or repealed. For as it stands now, Obama’s win with the Supreme Court is a loss for the American people.
AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at

A plan that offers Obama a fighting chance!

The Washington Post ^ | July 5, 2012 | Jonathan Rauch

At this point in 1980, Jimmy Carter was on the path to oblivion but didn’t know it. Barack Obama may share Carter’s fate if he doesn’t change course soon.

The 1980 presidential race was neck and neck until the end. It finally broke for Ronald Reagan when voters concluded that Carter could not cope with the economy and that Reagan, despite his conspicuous flaws as a candidate, was a viable alternative.............

This election will be decided largely by independent voters, most of whom can probably tell you that Mitt Romney’s economic plan is to repeal Obamacare and shrink the government. It may not make much sense, but it’s clear. Ask what Obama’s plan is, and they won’t be certain. They will know, however, that what he has done hasn’t worked. And by the fall, many independents will have made up their minds.
The president’s failure, so far, to show that he understands the scope of the economy’s problems and knows how to fix them does not stem from having nothing to say: investment in education, energy, innovation and infrastructure are reasonable things. But they are also slow-acting, small-bore stuff. Such talk does not include additional economic stimulus, an element that many economists, especially Democratic-leaning ones, consider crucial to prevent a double-dip recession. Nor does it deal realistically with long-term growth in spending.
So Obama should draw a map and send it to Capitol Hill in the form of a bill — a president’s strongest statement that he intends action. A big legislative proposal can frame the issue and paint Obama’s intentions in bold colors. It should include three elements:..........
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013

Fox News ^ | 7/5/2012 | John Kartch

While the individual mandate tax gets most of the attention, the ObamaCare law actually contains 20 new or higher taxes on the American people. These taxes are gradually phased in over the years 2010 (with its 10 percent “tanning tax”) to 2018 (when the tax on comprehensive health insurance plans kicks in.)

Six months from now, in January 2013, five major ObamaCare taxes will come into force:

1. The ObamaCare Medical Device Manufacturing Tax
2. The ObamaCare High Medical Bills Tax
3. The ObamaCare Flexible Spending Account Cap
4. The ObamaCare Surtax on Investment Income
5. The ObamaCare Medicare Payroll Tax increase

As you can understand, there is a reason why the authors of ObamaCare wrote the law in such a way that the most brutal tax increases take effect conveniently after the 2012 election. It’s the same reason President Obama, congressional Democrats, and the mainstream media conveniently neglect to mention these taxes and prefer that you simply “move on” after the Supreme Court ruling.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Socialization Of America Is Economically Impossible

ZeroHedge ^ | July 5, 2012 | Bandon Smith

I understand the dream of the common socialist. I was, after all, once a Democrat. I understand the disparity created in our society by corporatism (not capitalism, though some foolish socialists see them as exactly the same). I understand the drive and the desire to help other human beings, especially those in dire need, and the tendency to see government as the ultimate solution to all our problems. That said, let’s be honest; government is in the end just a tool used by one group or another to implement a particular methodology or set of principles. Unfortunately, what most socialists today don’t seem to understand is that no matter what strategies they devise, they will NEVER have control. And, those they wish to help will be led to suffer, because the establishment does not care about them, or you. The establishment does not think of what it can give, it thinks about what it can take. Socialism, in the minds of the elites, is a con-game which allows them to quarry the favor of the serfs, and nothing more.
There are other powers at work in this world; powers that have the ability to play both sides of the political spectrum. The money elite have been wielding the false left/right paradigm for centuries, and to great effect. Whether socialism or corporatism prevails, they are the final victors, and the game continues onward…
Knowing this fact, I find that my reactions to the entire Obamacare debate rather muddled. Really, I see the whole event as a kind of circus, a mirage, a distraction. Perhaps it is because I am first and foremost an economic analyst, and when looking at Obamacare and socialization in general, I see no tangibility. I see no threat beyond what we as Americans already face.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...