Thursday, February 6, 2014

Democrat: The Party of Less Work!

National Review ^ | 2/5/2014 | Rich Lowry

The Democrats once styled themselves the party of workers. Now, they are the party of people who would have been workers, if it hadn’t been for Obamacare.
The Congressional Budget Office released a new analysis of the economic effects of the health care law on Tuesday that estimates that it will reduce the number of workers, in effect, by 2.5 million in 2024. This unleashed a torrent of arguments from the Democrats implicitly denigrating the value of work. Perhaps not since Southern fire-eaters attacked Northern “wage slavery” in the mid-19th century has a good honest day’s work been talked about so dismissively. It turns out that discouraging work is just another one of the wonders of Obamacare. The old jobs crisis was people not having jobs; the new jobs crisis is people having to work. The party devoted to combating inequality is now blithely unconcerned about a law discouraging people — especially people down the income scale — from earning more. So much for its championing of economic mobility. White House press secretary Jay Carney declared the CBO report a validation of the law: “At the beginning of this year, we noted that as part of this new day in health care, Americans would no longer be trapped in a job just to provide coverage for their families and would have the opportunity to pursue their dreams. This CBO report bears that out.” If only the number of people effectively dissuaded from working were 5 million, or 7.5 million, the health care law would be an even more stunning triumph of sound public policy and true American values. A few caveats are in order: We aren’t talking about jobs that are eliminated in the usual sense of discouraging employers from hiring, as some Republican talking points suggested. That would be the demand side for labor; this is the supply side. And the 2.5 million number isn’t for jobs per se, but for “full-time equivalent” positions, i.e., the cumulative lost hours of millions of people deciding to work less. Nonetheless, the number is devastating. Democrats like Jay Carney want to pass it all off as ending the “job lock” that keeps people in a job only to preserve their health insurance. This is what Nancy Pelosi was getting at when she airily described Obamacare before its passage as “an entrepreneurial bill, a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion.”

Mr. Speaker, We Agree that You Can't Trust Him; Can't We Agree On Impeachment Too?

Mononymous1/Wordpress ^ | 2/6/2014 | Mononymous1

As I posted under "Grow a Pair (Or Borrow Nancy Pelosi’s)"; I said the President cannot be trusted to enforce any amnesty related law and I am glad that Speaker Boehner has pretty much said the same thing now.
It'd be nice if we also agree on what I posted under, "The “Broken Windows” Theory – Now Applies to Government" which advocated drawing up impeachment articles that should be acted on after the elections. However, I imagine that if this is in the works it might be best to keep it under wraps until AFTER the midterms. Grow a Pair (Or Borrow Nancy Pelosi’s) Again, on the amnesty issue. The previous post commented on how the Democrats wield power. The President is playing a dictator with absolutely no regard for the constitution and the case has clearly been made about their use or abuse of power. In this regard and in particularly with respect to amnesty; the dimwitted Republicans need to take a page out of Nancy Pelosi’s playbook. Their simplest approach to amnesty and indeed, on any other issue, should be WWNPD if the situation were reversed – meaning, what would the Democrats do if they were opposed to amnesty with a Republican Senate and President? Do they think, for instance, that NP as Speaker, would be entertaining any of these considerations right now? The answer: hell no. They might have, for example, passed a border security bill first and send it over to the Senate where it’d probably die. They would then go into the election saying, “Hey, we started the process but the President and his party refused to take action on the first step. Don’t blame us!” They could then go on to explain why border security is an extremely important first step and try to rally the country in getting something done about it. Perhaps they’d even go on to warn that, unlike the Obamacare monstrosity that has spawned so many unintended consequences, a “comprehensive reform” bill of 2000 or more pages is absolutely not the way to go. They could then point out that the President has seen fit to act unilaterally on enforcement of laws, has been busy using regulations to circumvent them, that these things are not acceptable and that this is yet another basis for refusing to act on a total reform package because, simply put, he cannot be trusted. But no. In their typical spineless fashion, the Republicans are willing to cave to whatever unseen forces guide them because it certainly isn’t the will of their constituents. It is still quite interesting as to what these unseen forces are. Where are the “conservative” members of the House and why wouldn’t they come out and expose what is going on here? Anybody, somebody, grow a pair or borrow Nancy Pelosi’s! The “Broken Windows” Theory – Now Applies to Government There are other ways to say this, e.g., a fish rots from its head, but given the lawlessness involved, the “broken windows” theory is most applicable. Why? It started at the top, the current administration has set the tone for what now appears to be the “new normal.” Enemies lists have been developed and across this great country, every politician – mostly Democrats, have been given a license to do whatever it is they want or feel like doing to their political enemies; revenge, payback, whatever it is. If, at the federal level, they take back the House of Representatives, we have seen nothing yet. There are some differences between the two parties; a key one is the fact that the Democrats know how to wield power and the Republicans, well, they just want to get along. If, for example, the shoe were on the other foot on passing Obamacare, there is absolutely no way the Republicans would have done it in the manner in which Pelosi and Reid passed that bill. They are spineless. Instead of having Ted Kennedy (as a Republican) write his “No Child Left Behind” bill, George W. Bush (as a Democrat) would have abolished the Education Department, if this is something he wanted to do. It’s just the way it is; Democrats use the power they have to advance their odious agenda and Republicans just try, in vain, to make nice. This is precisely why the battles over the last 60 + years are being lost to the progressives even if the people remain largely opposed to the direction in which it takes the country. So here we are. The lawlessness of the Obama administration has been well documented; no one does anything. This then trickles down to the rest of the government and we have Chuck Schumer actually calling for the stifling of dissent by using the powers of the IRS – something, the President once called “outrageous” but then and again, nothing happened. Next, we have Chris Christie’s people seemingly exacting revenge on their enemies; in this one instance (and we all know why), the subpoenas are flying. And then there are the generalissimos of New York, the self-appointed arbiters of how and what the population of an entire state and city should think. The Governor, who has referred to anyone who dares to hold a different opinion on the issues of abortion, gay marriage and the second amendment as “extremists,” and the Mayor of NYC who agrees with him 100%. In keeping with the broken windows theory, it’d seem that the latter exacted his own revenge on the people of the UES of Manhattan because they dared to not vote for him. Again, there’s nothing to be done or seen here. Next, we’ll be hearing about trains out of NY with passengers on their way to a gulag some where; it’s the fascists’ way. There was a time when liberals would run around mouthing the words, “I disagree with everything you say but I’ll defend your right to say it…” Like all the qualifications we missed on Obama’s various lies, there is one here too; “I disagree with everything you say but I’ll defend your right to say it…until I can make you shut up!” This, from the folks who talk about inclusiveness, diversity, peace, love and all that other good crap. It wasn’t that long ago that to them, “dissent was the highest form of patriotism” except, maybe, for paying taxes. Now, dissent is extremists and they’ll use the force of government to ruin your life in whatever way possible in order to shut it down. This is un-American and tyrannical. All of this lawless behavior from a president who threatens to rule by executive authority with a willing and able cabal of bureaucrats to carry out his every whim and what does the House want to do? Work with him on amnesty knowing full well that no matter what they compromise on to make law; the president, as he has demonstrated with Obamacare, will ignore, postpone or use executive/administrative authority to either override or thwart the law. Why do these people even work with him? What they should be doing is drawing up articles of impeachment which, should they retain the House, follow up on next year and let the chips fall where they may. As our government is now making examples of some of us who dare to speak up in opposition, we need to make an example of what should happen to presidents who have become lawless: impeachment. Otherwise, the broken windows theory dictates that lawlessness will continue to spread like a cancer across this country.

Obama Considering Three Year Extension To Start Obamacare!


Zerohedge ^ | 02/06/2014 | Tyler Durden

While Washington debates over what is the proper explanation of the CBO's report which explicitly states that millions of workers will drop out of the labor force over the next decade thanks to Obamacare, Obama himself may have finally thrown in the towel, realizing that the longer the full implementation of Obamacare is delayed, the longer the myth that it is a viable Ponzi scheme - as opposed to non-viable - can persist.  Perhaps this explains why AP reports that the White House is now considering an extension of the president's decision to let people keep their individual insurance policies even if they are not compliant with the health care overhaul, according to two top industry officials.  From AP: Avalere Health CEO Dan Mendelson said Thursday that the administration may let policyholders keep that coverage for an additional three years, stressing that no decision has been made. Policymakers are waiting to see what rate hikes health insurers plan for the insurance exchanges that are key to the overhaul's coverage expansions. "The administration is entertaining a range of options to ensure that this individual market has stability to it and that would be one thing that they could do," he said. Avalere Health is a market analysis firm, but Mendelson said his company was not advising the administration on exchange policy. He said he has had informal discussions with administration officials about the extension, but he didn't identify them. A spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, Joanne Peters, said "We are continuing to examine all sorts of ways to provide consumers with more choices and to smooth the transition as we implement the law." Earlier, Mark Bertolini, Chairman and CEO of Aetna and the nation's third largest insurer, told analysts during his earnings call that he had heard the plans may be extended. Perhaps a more important thing Bertolini said is that his company may pull out of markets if the Medicare cuts are too high, adding that 2015 may be challenging due to medicare cuts. This may have been the final straw that pushed the administration into action. However, even a longer extension than was rumored previously will hardly help reinstate the policies of all those millions who lost coverage in the lead up to the Obamacare enactment as insurance companies know that terms will once again change eventually, so why go through the headache of temporary reinstatement just to cut all those "non-compliant" individuals once again? Individual policyholders were hit with a wave of cancellation notices last year because their coverage was less robust than what is required under the law, and many states allowed insurance companies to simply cancel them. The wave of cancellation notices — at least 4.7 million of them — hit just when the new HealthCare.gov website was experiencing some of its worst technical problems, and it undercut the president's well-publicized promise that if you liked your plan you could keep it. You couldn't. At first the White House went into damage-control mode, arguing that many of the cancelled plans were "junk" insurance and consumers would be better off with the broader coverage available through the health care law's new insurance markets. But soon Obama was forced to reverse course, urging insurers and state regulators to allow policyholders to keep their existing plans for an additional year. Most states complied with the request. Now the administration is considering adding more years to this extension to avoid another wave of problems if rates on the exchange climb too high and people are left without an affordable coverage option. Health insurers are supposed to submit by May the rates they want to charge on the exchanges next year. Actually, the only reason why Obama is suddenly willing to compromise over every aspect of his "crowning achievement" is that finally its tactical, and strategic failure has become clear for all to see. So it would be best to enact it piecemeal, and claim success for whatever legacy aspects of the system are working, while blasting everything that his unprecedentedly complicated, centrally-planned contraption has unleashed. Finally, why three years? Because by then Obama will be gone (absent some very radical changes to presidential term rules), and Obamacare will be someone else's problem.

The Left Spins Job Losses Due to ObamaCare as a Good Thing!

Rightwingpatriot.com ^ | February 5, 2014 | Rightwingerpatriot

In the wake of yesterday's Congressional Budget Report that ObamaCare will cost 2.5 million jobs over the next ten years, the progressive left is spinning like crazy. The first is that people will be liberated from jobs that they hate but were forced to stay at, lest they lose their health insurance. Worked forty hours a week as a shipping clerk but secretly yearned to be a writer of neo-classical poetry that will make angels weep and puppies spontaneously clone themselves with joy? Well, according to outfits like The New York Times, you're now liberated to chase your dreams, away from the evil shackles of the workaday world. The reason that you're able to do so is that the government will subsidize your health care, so you can choose where you work and how much you work.
The New York Times says, "Thanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act and the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums--many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have." Other progressive liberal entities are also saying the same thing. The problem is that they're leaving something out...reality. Government does pay for anything, taxpayers do. I know it's nigh impossible to explain this to a liberal, but government money actually comes from hard working Americans who pay their taxes, not from gossamer trees where unicorns nap under. Using their liberal logic, I should be happy as hell that I'm unemployed at the current time. Funny, I don't feel happy. I actually want to work. Does anybody losing their job over the consequences of ObamaCare feel great that they now have leisure time to pursue sand sculpting or some other inane project? What about the hundreds of employees of Time Inc. who are getting laid off now? Are they happy? Of course, liberals are planning on having government swoop in and provide other aid, such as extending unemployment benefits or other aid programs. All of this is being done to make the average citizen wholly dependent upon the government for their very existence. ObamaCare has always been about control, pure and simple. The media is also spinning the CBO report by twisting the conclusions. They gleefully report that deficit spending will drop over the next few years. Other idiots are saying that the Affordable Care Act will raise wages for workers. They are, naturally enough, ignoring the fact that the true costs are being pushed down the road until after Obama leaves office. Then the true bill of ObamaCare becomes due and it won't be pretty. Deficit spending will go over a trillion dollars, and that's without the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare. The total unfunded liability for those programs range from $70 trillion to $90 trillion. The entire point is that those who are leading us off the cliff will be long gone, and secure in their mansions and investments, when the Pied Piper comes calling for the rest of us. To paraphrase the most interesting man in the world, "Stay broke, my friends."

DICTATOR

great_dictator_chaplin-obama_SOTU.jpg

Just when you thought...

obamacare-amnesty.jpg

Benghazi

benghazi_obama.jpg

Mi Culo!

111jhq8.jpg

COERCION

Coercion.jpg

Let's fire 'em!

2d7bkht.jpg

To the dump!

143696_600.jpg

..."been bangin"

1619241_348621688611989_545442052_n.jpg

After 5 years...

28bsfg6.jpg

You had me worried!

4h9p1y.jpg

Sends YOU the bill!

1zdt0f5.jpg

Readers

2euhnvl.jpg

Miss the broom?

013014.jpg

War on Women

Owns-Women-590-LA.jpg

BULLSHIT!

1723330_622231707830998_960800575_n.jpg

Empowered

23lehpd.jpg

Insanity

29oodgo.jpg

Blood Letting

2eakxhd.jpg

Reduced

i1n1xk.jpg

Obamacare’s Attack on the Work Ethic!

National Review Online ^ | February 5, 2014 | By Charles C. W. Cooke

There is a point in almost every debate at which the losing party recognizes its predicament and concludes that its only remaining play is to try to corrupt the language. In Texas, pro-choice hero Wendy Davis has begun, risibly, to describe herself as “pro-life”; in his second inaugural, President Obama cloaked the most ambitious statist agenda in a half-century in the patois of limited government and rebellion; and, in my own country of birth, authorities that lock people up for speaking do so in the ostensible name of “respect.” If you can’t beat ’em, confuse ’em.
Yesterday morning, Obamacare’s beleaguered partisans got in on the act, too. Responding to a CBO report that suggested the law would encourage more than 2 million people either to seek less work or to leave the labor market completely, progressives picked up their tricornered hats and their muskets, and started to shout incoherently about “freedom.” In a lovely illustration of the truism that progressives really haven’t the slightest clue what it is that conservatives believe, the Huffington Post’s Senior Congressional Reporter, Michael McAuliff, spoke for the cabal, suggesting ludicrously that, There’s an irony in the GOP complaining that ACA lets people quit jobs. I mean, what’s wrong with freedom? To answer a remarkably misguided rhetorical question, there is nothing at all “wrong with freedom.” As Patrick Henry rightly argued, above all other things “liberty ought to be the direct end” of government, for, after that, everything else is mere indulgence. But there is an awful lot “wrong” with using the word “freedom” where it does not apply....

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...

Business Bid to Counter Tea Party Fizzles!

Roll Call ^ | February 5, 2014 | Eliza Newlin Carney

Business-friendly GOP organizers who launched a new crop of super PACs to counter the tea party have failed to cash in, recent campaign disclosures show, leaving them badly outraised on both the right and the left. Close to a dozen super PACs backed by the GOP’s business wing, including those with ties to Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, pulled in just under $10 million in 2013. That’s less than half the $21 million collected by a handful of tea party and anti-tax groups, including the Senate Conservatives Fund and the Club for Growth. It’s also less than a third of the $31.3 million collected last year by the top four Democrat-friendly super PACs, including those backing House and Senate candidates. The “Main Street” Republicans’ low super PAC receipts reflect donor burnout, big money’s migration into unreported channels and continued strife over who defines the GOP. “While I’m happy with where we are, I think we can do better,” said former Ohio Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, whose Defending Main Street super PAC raised $845,000 last year, more than half of it from labor unions. “And I will be disappointed if we are not able to turn it on by the end of March.” LaTourette cited donors’ preference for giving to his group’s 501(c)(4) nonprofit arm, known as Main Street Advocacy, which is exempt from disclosure rules and raised $1.1 million last year. He also blamed disenchantment among GOP contributors, who poured millions into unrestricted super PACs in 2012 with unimpressive results. “We’re caught up in some of the same stuff that I think all of [the] Republican organizations are feeling,” LaTourette said. “There was a great deal of deflation after the 2012 election.” GOP consultant and blogger Crystal Wright has had such trouble raising money for her Conservative Melting Pot PAC, which she launched a year ago to help diversify the Republican candidate pool, that she’s considering closing up shop. Her super PAC collected just $4,112, and Wright said her fundraising pitches often drew angry emails complaining about the government shutdown and inaction on Capitol Hill. “There’s a state of confusion, I think,” Wright said. “There’s no clear sign of leadership coming from the face of the Republican Party. Who are we? What do we really stand for, and what are we fighting for? And when you go out to get dollars, it makes it challenging because there’s more frustration associated with our brand than enthusiasm.” Republicans for Immigration Reform, a super PAC launched by some of the same organizers who ran the top Mitt Romney super PAC in 2012, has raised just $307,545. The group takes credit for helping spur recent GOP immigration action, but has done little advertising. Two super PACs with ties to House GOP leaders, the Congressional Leadership Fund and the YG Action Fund, have raised $1.3 million between them. A super PAC and policy website launched by GOP consultant and commentator Alex Castellanos, NewRepublican.org, has raised less than $60,000.