Friday, November 9, 2012

The Difference

Victory without Triumph: Tough Road Ahead for Obama after Lackluster Win!

Spiegel ^ | 11/07/2012 | Gregor Peter Schmitz

Barack Obama may have won the election, but it is a victory devoid of triumph.

Obama ran a lackluster election campaign, one distinguished more by harsh attacks on his opponent Mitt Romney than by pride in his own accomplishments. Just how narrow the victory was can be seen in the popular vote count. While the incumbent easily defeated his challenger in the Electoral College, he only managed to eke out a razor thin majority of total votes cast.

Republican candidate Romney proved instead to be an opponent who will quickly be forgotten by history -- an inept, even awkward politician.

(Excerpt) Read more at spiegel.de ...

Obamacare Is Still Vulnerable. Now is not the time to go wobbly.

National Review ^ | 11/09/2012 | Michael F. Cannon

President Obama has won reelection, and his administration has asked state officials to decide by Friday, November 16, whether their state will create one of Obamacare’s health-insurance “exchanges.” States also have to decide whether to implement the law’s massive expansion of Medicaid. The correct answer to both questions remains a resounding no.

State-created exchanges mean higher taxes, fewer jobs, and less protection of religious freedom. States are better off defaulting to a federal exchange. The Medicaid expansion is likewise too costly and risky a proposition. Republican Governors Association chairman Bob McDonnell (R.,Va.) agrees, and has announced that Virginia will implement neither provision.
There are many arguments against creating exchanges.
First, states are under no obligation to create one.
Second, operating an Obamacare exchange would be illegal in 14 states. Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia have enacted either statutes or constitutional amendments (or both) forbidding state employees to participate in an essential exchange function: implementing Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates.
Third, each exchange would cost its state an estimated $10 million to $100 million per year, necessitating tax increases.
Fourth, the November 16 deadline is no more real than the “deadlines” for implementing REAL ID, which have been pushed back repeatedly since 2008.
Fifth, states can always create an exchange later if they choose.
Sixth, a state-created exchange is not a state-controlled exchange. All exchanges will be controlled by Washington.
Seventh, Congress authorized no funds for federal “fallback” exchanges. So Washington may not be able to impose Exchanges on states at all.
Eighth, the Obama administration has yet to provide crucial information that states need before they can make an informed decision.
Ninth, creating an exchange sets state officials up to take the blame when Obamacare increases insurance premiums and denies care to the sick. State officials won’t want their names on this disastrous mess.
Tenth, creating an exchange would be assisting in the creation of a “public option” that would drive domestic health-insurance carriers out of business through unfair competition.
Eleventh, Obamacare remains unpopular. The latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that only 38 percent of the public supports it.
Twelfth, defaulting to a federal exchange exempts a state’s employers from the employer mandate — a tax of $2,000 per worker per year (the tax applies to companies with more than 59 employees, but for such companies that tax applies after the 30th employee, not the 59th). If all states did so, that would exempt 18 million Americans from the individual mandate’s tax of $2,085 per family of four. Avoiding those taxes improves a state’s prospects for job creation, and protects the conscience rights of employers and individuals whom the Obama administration is forcing to purchase contraceptives coverage.
Finally, rejecting an exchange reduces the federal deficit. Obamacare offers its deficit-financed subsidies to private health insurers only through state-created exchanges. If all states declined, federal deficits would fall by roughly $700 billion over ten years.
For similar reasons, states should decline to implement Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. The Supreme Court gave states that option. All states should exercise it.
Medicaid is rife with waste and fraud. It increases the cost of private health care and insurance, crowds out private health insurance and long-term-care insurance, and discourages enrollees from climbing the economic ladder. There is scant reliable evidence that Medicaid improves health outcomes, and no evidence that it is a cost-effective way of doing so.
My colleague Jagadeesh Gokhale estimates that expanding Medicaid will cost individual states up to $53 billion over the first ten years. That’s before an emboldened President Obama follows through on his threats to shift more Medicaid costs to states.
Neither the states nor the federal government have the money to expand Medicaid. If all states politely decline, federal deficits will shrink by another $900 billion.
Now is not the time to go wobbly. Obamacare is still harmful and still unpopular. The presidential election was hardly a referendum, as it pitted the first person to enact Obamacare against the second person to enact it. Since the election, many state officials are reaffirming their opposition to both implementing exchanges and expanding Medicaid.
If enough states do so, Congress will have no choice but to reopen Obamacare. With a GOP-controlled House, opponents will be in a much stronger position than they were when this harmful law was enacted.
— Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute and co-editor of Replacing ObamaCare (Cato, 2012).

John Boehner Should Just Get Out Of Obama's Way!

American Thinker ^ | 11/09/2012 | Jeannie DeAngelis

Based on the dismal state of the union and after four years of doing exactly what Rush Limbaugh said he hoped that he would do, by any thinking person's standards President Barack Obama has indeed "failed." Yet, despite the catastrophe, on Election Day the American people inexplicably invited the President to spend the next four years beating the dead horse that he killed during his first term.
The next day, after being MIA for months, Speaker of the House John Boehner crawled out of the tanning bed long enough to publicly assure the President that House Republicans plan to work with him on his sole first-term accomplishment - the looming "fiscal cliff."
Wait a minute, wasn't it way back in 2008 that Barack Obama told America that "this is the moment" when good jobs would be provided for the jobless, the rise of the oceans would slow, and the planet would begin to heal? Why then, as America drowns in an ocean of debt and sinks in a sea of unemployment, would the Speaker of the House tell Obama "This is your moment...we want you to succeed?"
SNIP SNIP
if Boehner believes that this is truly Barack Obama's "moment," why not just let the President do whatever he wants? Republicans in Congress should politely step aside and allow Obama to finish what he started. In so doing, they will inoculate themselves against any ensuing liability as well as avoid becoming the object of Obama's notorious blame game.
And so, as conciliatory bipartisanship is cultivated and John Boehner encourages Barack Obama to forge ahead, one can only hope that the newfound collegiality in Washington DC includes Republicans helping our determined liberal leader to aim that big ole' policy gun he has pointed at America's head downward toward his own foot.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Why Obama Won

American Thinker ^ | Friday, November 9, 2012 | Gary Aminoff

On election night, as the camera panned the audience waiting to hear Barack Obama give his victory speech, I was struck that the audience was primarily young people and minorities. My thought was, "These are the very people who will suffer the most under a second Obama administration. Don't they know they are voting against their own best interest?"
And then I thought about it and came to the conclusion: "They don't." They don't because they are, by and large, uneducated. Oh, some of them may have college degrees or even graduate degrees, but they are still substantially uneducated. I would bet that very few of them know the difference between Keynesian economics and Austrian School economics. I am sure that most of them have never heard of the Laffer Curve. I would guess that most of them aren't familiar with the first principles behind the origin of our country. I doubt that many of them know what evil lies in Socialism or Communism, or unbridled leftism. Or are even aware that Barack Obama is a man of the left, and what that means. They, for the most part, have no idea what the concept of individual liberty is, nor how a big, powerful central government reduces that liberty. I also am pretty sure that they feel that Barack Obama is someone who cares about the poor, women, minorities, and the "middle class," and that Republicans don't. I would stake my substance on the fact that they don't know what is meant by a limited government, or what the Tenth Amendment says. I am certain that most of them don't know anything about Benghazi. Substantially uneducated!
How is it that we have raised one or two generations of uneducated Americans? ... The answer lies in the curricula of our schools.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

California's Liberal Supermajority: Taxpayers are going to get all the government they ever wanted!

The Wall Street Journal ^ | November 8, 2012 | Editorial

For Republicans unhappy with Tuesday's election, we have good news—at least most of you don't live in California. Not only did Democrats there win voter approval to raise the top tax rate to 13.3%, but they also received a huge surprise—a legislative supermajority. Look out below.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

Obama Won County in Ohio with 108% Voter Registration!

Pundit Press ^ | 11/09/12 | Aurelius

I can't believe President Obama's luck. First, he received over 99% of the vote in districts where GOP inspectors were illegally removed. Next, he won 100% of the vote in 21 districts in Cleveland. Well, he's gotten another lucky break!

Mr. Obama won Wood County in Ohio this year. That's right, Mr. Obama won the majority of Wood County's 108% of registered voters. That's not a typo.

In 2012, 106,258 people in Wood County are registered to vote out of an eligible 98,213. But it certainly must all be a coincidence, right?

Democrat Daniel Gordon, First Ward Council Member, remarked at how well the President had done this election cycle. “There has never been a more efficient and powerful ground game in American politics,” he said. “I think this is a win for the American people, and I’m very proud of all the young people who poured their hearts out into this.”

And secretary of College Democrats Morgan Holliger chimed in, “We won Wood County, we won Ohio.”

Mr. Obama did indeed win Wood County, along with its 108% of voters.

Companies plan massive layoffs as Obamacare becomes reality

The Washington Times ^ | 11/9/12 | Kerry Picket

Freedom Works has put together a list of companies that will be laying of employees as a result of President Barack Obama's health care law:

Welch Allyn
Welch Allyn, a company that manufactures medical diagnostic equipment in central New York, announced in September that they would be laying off 275 employees, or roughly 10% of their workforce over the next three years. One of the major reasons discussed for the layoffs was a proactive response to the Medical Device Tax mandated by the new healthcare law.
Dana Holding Corp.
As recently as a week ago, a global auto parts manufacturing company in Ohio known as Dana Holding Corp., warned their employees of potential layoffs, citing "$24 million over the next six years in additional U.S. health care expenses". After laying off several white collar staffers, company insiders have hinted at more to come. The company will have to cover the additional $24 million cost somehow, which will likely equate to numerous cuts in their current workforce of 25,500 worldwide.
Stryker
One of the biggest medical device manufacturers in the world, Stryker will close their facility in Orchard Park, New York, eliminating 96 jobs in December. Worse, they plan on countering the medical device tax in Obamacare by slashing 5% of their global workforce - an estimated 1,170 positions.
Boston Scientific
In October of 2009, Boston Scientific CEO Ray Elliott, warned that proposed taxes in the health care reform bill could "lead to significant job losses" for his company. Nearly two years later, Elliott announced that the company would be cutting anywhere between 1,200 and 1,400 jobs, while simultaneously shifting investments and workers overseas - to China.
Medtronic
In March of 2010, medical device maker Medtronic warned that Obamacare taxes could result in a reduction of precisely 1,000 jobs.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...

Nothing's Changed

Posted Image

Things to do today

Posted Image

OBI

Posted Image

Your inheritance

Posted Image

For You!

Posted Image

Grayson's Back!

Posted Image

Real Debt

Posted Image

Thanks

Posted Image