Showing posts with label New York Post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Post. Show all posts

Friday, September 4, 2015

Longtime Clinton aide grilled by House committee on Benghazi

Longtime Clinton aide grilled by House committee on Benghazi
WASHINGTON — Long­time Hillary Rodham Clinton aide Cheryl Mills was grilled for hours Thursday by a House committee — a day after a former Clinton staffer said he would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights to avoid giving testimony.
Mills’ appearance followed the release last week of 7,000 pages of ­emails from Clinton’s private server — including many to and from Mills that were heavily redacted.
The appearance by Mills, who testified behind closed doors before the House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attack, came after it was revealed that former Clinton tech expert Byran Pagliano would refuse to answer committee questions.
That created another political embarrassment for Clinton, who “has made ­every effort to answer questions and be as helpful as possible, and has encouraged her aides . . . to do the same, including Bryan Pagliano,” said campaign spokesman Nick Merrill.
Pagliano isn’t just any staffer. He was responsible for Clinton’s private server during her 2008 presidential campaign, and followed her to the State Department as a “special ­adviser.”

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Top de Blasio backer mulling run against ‘anti-business, anti-cop socialist’

One of the nation’s wealthiest black business leaders is considering mounting a self-financed campaign to topple Mayor Bill de Blasio in 2017 — saying he has lost faith in the candidate he once supported.
“I’m giving serious thought to running for mayor of New York City . . . I was a political supporter of Bill de Blasio,” real estate mogul Don Peebles told The Post on Tuesday.
Peebles and wife Katrina contributed $9,675 to de Blasio’s 2013 campaign and inaugural committees, records show.
But during an extensive interview, the lifelong Democrat — who is reportedly worth $700 million — delivered a withering attack on the mayor’s handling of taxes, charter schools, stewardship of the NYPD and chilly relations with Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
“I’ve lost confidence in him. It would be irresponsible of me to do nothing,” said Peebles, 55, who owns the largest African-American-run real estate company in the United States.
“He’s anti-business, he’s anti-wealth, he’s anti-accomplishment. His performance has not been up to par. He’s failed.”
Top de Blasio backer mulling run against ‘anti-business, anti-cop socialist’
Top de Blasio backer Don Peebles (right) says the mayor has failed the people of New York City, and that he would consider running against the candidate he once supported.

Peebles’ mulling of a mayoral run comes amid reports that some disaffected Democrats are looking for an alternative to the mayor in the next election.
Among the names being mentioned are city Comptroller Scott Stringer, Brooklyn Rep. Hakeem Jeffries and Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr.
Peebles said that if he runs, there’s a “90 percent chance” he would challenge de Blasio in a Democratic primary.
He added that he would self-finance a campaign and spend “whatever it takes” to win.
Describing himself as a “pro-business” Democrat, Peebles described de Blasio as a divisive “socialist” who wants to punish wealthy people with higher taxes.
“My approach is to expand opportunity by increasing the size of the pie, not taking away from others. The mayor is supposed to be the mayor of all the people, not be the mayor of the Socialist Party.”
He slammed de Blasio on numerous fronts, from his management skills to his chat with his son, Dante, about how to act if approached by cops.
“That was disrespectful,” Peebles said. “What he should have been saying is that the NYPD is the best police department in the country.”
Peebles argued that the mayor hurt himself by continuing to press for an income tax hike on the rich to fund his pre-K program even after Cuomo offered state money for it.
“It’s very frightening. His basic view is that all businesses and wealthy people are not paying their fair share. That’s not true. It’s wrong,” he said.
Peebles also took issue with the mayor’s handling of education, saying he’s siding with the teachers union instead of standing up for kids and charter schools.
Peebles said he and his wife have supported faith-based and alternative schools in Florida and his native Washington, DC.

Sunday, August 16, 2015

De Blasio is padding City Hall with jobs for all of his friends

Mayor de Blasio’s patronage mill is churning out junk jobs funded with taxpayer money for longtime pals, campaign grunts and acolytes.
In addition to creating a $150,000 post for Stephanie Yazgi — the longtime girlfriend of his top strategist, Emma Wolfe — de Blasio has created positions to amp up his progressive agenda and national profile and spread propaganda touting his “transcendent” accomplishments.
The city’s television station — led by de Blasio buddy Janet Choi — devotes much of its taxpayer-funded $5.7 million budget to broadcasting his ribbon-cuttings, announcements and features about his friends, including his wedding singer.
His $105,000 digital director, Jessica Singleton, shapes his social-media image while his $69,000 media analyst, Mahen Gunaratna, measures the influence of his messages.
But the bulk of his buddies land jobs at City Hall in the mayor’s Community Affairs Unit.
The CAU traditionally had staffers represent the mayor at community-board and civic-group meetings across the city, reporting back to the administration on neighborhood concerns.
“The CAU has now turned into a four-year organizing arm of the de Blasio campaign,” said a former liaison with the unit.
Stephanie Yazgi, Emma Wolfe, Janet Choi and Jessica Singleton
Photo: Facebook ; Rob Bennett for the Office of Mayor Bill de Blasio (2) ; Assoc. Commissioner at New York City Mayor's Office of Media and Entertainment
The unit now employs Pinny Ringel, a $65,000-a-year liaison to the Jewish community and a former Public Advocate’s Office staffer under de Blasio.
Sarah Sayeed is a liaison who specializes in the Muslim community. And Jonathan Soto is senior community liaison to the Clergy Advisory Council, another de Blasio creation.
Kicy Motley, a de Blasio campaign worker who tweeted “F- -k. The. Police.” in 2012, found a home in the CAU office as $55,000-a-year Brooklyn borough director.
And Rebecca Lynch, a Teamsters union lobbyist who backed de Blasio’s campaign, landed a gig as an $85,000-a-year special assistant in the CAU before taking a leave of absence to launch a bid for City Council in Queens.
De Blasio’s politicized CAU failed him in the Legionnaire’s disease outbreak, when there was a disconnect between City Hall and South Bronx community leaders.
“The CAU is supposed to know everything happening in the boroughs in every community,” said political consultant George Arzt. “There should have been briefings on what is going on and what they hear on the ground.”

Thursday, August 13, 2015

[VIDEO] Anchor walks off live broadcast: ‘I’ve had enough Kardashians!’

A Florida news anchor with zero interest in keeping up with the Kardashians stormed off the set during a live broadcast — rather than report that Kylie Jenner has a new bunny named Bruce.
“Nobody cares about this family anymore!” anchor John Brown can be heard screaming off camera in the “Good Day Orlando” clip, which aired last Friday.
“I’m having a good Friday, so I refuse to talk about the Kardashians!” the anchor seethed as he stood up and walked off set. “You are on your own, Amy. I can’t do it, I’ve had enough Kardashians! I can’t take any more Kardashian stories on this show!”
His co-anchor, Amy Kaufeldt, was left sitting alone on the couch, bleakly saying, “He left me.”
A replacement anchor quickly joined Kaufeldt, as the onscreen team attempted to calm down a fuming Brown, who was still wearing his mike.
Rumba 1003 radio host and broadcast guest Jenny Castillo attempted to de-escalate the situation by asking Brown, “How would you like it if your daughter named her pet John? That’s exactly what Kylie Jenner did.”
“I don’t care about this family. I’m sick of this family. It’s a nonstory!” Brown yelled back.
Brown later posted a video of the outburst to Facebook, and included an apology.

Sunday, August 9, 2015


Walmart has joined several other major supermarket chains with its own commitment to enforce its policy of placing Cosmopolitan magazine behind blinders in their stores across the nation.

The retailer’s decision to enforce its 10-year policy of wrapping the regularly sexually explicit publication cover comes on the heels of a joint campaign by Victoria Hearst, granddaughter of William Randolph Hearst, founder of the corporation that publishesCosmo, and the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCSE).
As Breitbart News reported in late July, supermarket chains Rite Aid and Delhaize America – which owns Food Lion and Hannaford Stores – also made a commitment to place Cosmo behind blinders in their stores as a result of the Cosmo Harms Minorscampaign which was launched in April to protect young children and adolescents from the blatant sexual material on the magazine’s covers.
NCSE executive director Dawn Hawkins states that while Walmart has had a policy of placing Cosmo behind blinders for 10 years, “the enforcement became increasingly lax in recent years.”
“I applaud Walmart for its decision to place Cosmopolitan behind blockers in order to protect minors from being targeted by a magazine that prides itself in promoting a pornified culture through its explicit articles and images,” she said in a statement. “Cosmopolitan regularly targets children, yet continues to print adult content which children should not see or read.”
Hawkins said an example is that the current issue of Cosmopolitan features both a drawing by a 6th grade Girl Scout reader and a detailed description of sexual acts that are purported to please a man.
In response to a request for comment about Walmart agreeing to place the magazine behind blinders, a spokesperson from Cosmopolitan said in an email statement to Breitbart News, “Walmart’s approach to Cosmo’s newsstand presence in their stores has been consistent for more than a decade, there is no new information to share. Any indication otherwise, by the NCSE or other, is simply untrue.”
Hawkins, nevertheless, forwarded a letter to Breitbart News from Michelle Malashock, of Walmart Executive Communications, who wrote, “We are in the process of reemphasizing the blinder policy and the importance of following it with the appropriate people. Thank you for flagging this.”
NCSE, explains Hawkins, received a commitment from Walmart to adopt the policy of covering up Cosmo in the early 2000s during a campaign at that time. In nearly every Walmart, however, that NCSE checked recently, the magazine was uncovered. Hawkins said the organization followed up and sent Walmart photos from their stores around the country where it was not covered, resulting in the company’s executives assuring the group they would enforce the policy.
“NCSE claims another victory as the editorial content of the magazine seems to be shifting, at least in the next issue,” Hawkins added. “The September issue, featuring yet again another Disney teen star, has removed the usual graphic sexual headlines from the cover. This is a significant departure from Cosmopolitan’s norm, as over 85 of Cosmopolitan’s recent issues were found to feature explicit headlines.”
In an interview with Breitbart News in April, Hearst, who operates a Christian ministry, said she had tried for years to talk to fellow family members on the board of directors of the Hearst Corporation about the fact that Cosmo is harmful to young people, but to no avail.
“Minors shouldn’t be able to buy Cosmo, it’s adult content and minors shouldn’t be exposed to it,” Hearst said. “Apparently, my family members in authority in the Hearst Corporation don’t care about corrupting and harming children. They only care about money.”
On its website, the Hearst Corporation states, “Cosmopolitan is the best-selling young women’s magazine in the U.S., a bible for fun, fearless females that reaches more than 18 million readers a month.”
Hearst, however, begs to disagree.
Cosmo is anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-marriage, and promotes a deviant lifestyle centered on sex,” she said. “It promotes promiscuity – with its risks of getting STDs, being raped or murdered, and its promise of emotional and psychological damage, including suicide.”
Hearst stated her campaign has no intention of limiting the First Amendment rights of the Hearst Corporation, but warned most states have “harm to minors” laws that should prevent the display of such blatant sexual content at the checkouts of stores where children can readily be exposed to it.
“If they want to put sexually explicit materials and words on the covers of Cosmo, and if they want to fill their magazine with photos of sexual positions and articles about how to enjoy anal sex, knock themselves out,” Hearst said, “but have it where other adult material like Playboy and Penthouse is sold – not where children and adolescents can be exposed to it.”
According to a report in the New York PostCosmo editor-in-chief Joanna Coles has called Cosmo Harms Minors a “sexist” campaign with a “double standard,” since men’s publications such as GQ and Men’s Health run stories on sex that are regularly highlighted on their covers.
Hearst said she would be happy to debate Coles on the subject, but Coles has refused.
“I have no time for a debate,” Coles reportedly said. “I am too busy putting out a magazine and encouraging American women to have more and better orgasms.”
Coles added she believes the notion of having a debate is a publicity stunt, observing that young kids can use their smartphones to easily look up the topics seen on Cosmo’s covers. She said the magazine’s legendary editor – Helen Gurley Brown – who started Cosmo on the road to its sexually explicit content, was key in putting a stop to censorship, and that placing blinders on the cover “sends a signal to young women that their sexuality is shameful.”
“We’re not just about sex, we’re about empowering women in all aspects of their lives,” Coles said, adding, however, that “to assume that everyone has a vanilla sex life is absurd.”
Walmart has over 5,000 stores across all 50 states.

I was wrong about Schumer, and it feels so good

Never has being wrong felt so good, nor has a mistake been so worth celebrating.
Chuck Schumer surprised me in all the best ways. His opposition to the terrible Iran nuke deal is breathtakingly bold and opens the door to actually defeating it. That would be one of the best things to happen to America, Israel and the civilized world in a very long time.
Let us count the ways Schumer’s decision matters.
First, because he is the next Senate Democratic leader, I expected him to follow a president from his party and the majority of his caucus. He may pay a price for breaking out of the political box, but he gives cover to other Dems to do the same.
Second, his timing. Schumer ­announced his decision only a day after Obama made an impassioned, partisan appeal. Any momentum Obama had was stopped by Schumer, who effectively rebuked the president’s shameless attempt to link Republicans to Iranian hardliners. That rancid argument is now dead.
Third, the substance. Schumer issued a detailed statement demolishing supporters’ basic argument — that the deal, while imperfect, was better than no deal. Schumer persuasively showed the deal served Iran more than our side.
He broke his decision into three parts — the nuclear issues during the first 10 years of the deal, the nuclear issues in the following decade and the “non-nuclear” aspects, meaning Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism. For each, he asked whether we would be better off with or without the negotiated terms.
His conclusions were striking. We might be better off with the deal in the first decade, he argues, but almost certainly we would be better off without it in the other two parts.
He found numerous weaknesses in the text, including over inspections and sanctions. After the first decade, he wrote that Iran “can be very close to achieving” a nuke, and that the quest “will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States.”
He was just getting warmed up. The turning point, he said, was the non-nuclear issues, meaning Iran’s lethal ability to use unfrozen accounts of $50 billion to fund its terrorist programs. That added up to “a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one.”
His conclusions, which include doubts that Iran will move away from its apocalyptic theocracy, should resolve suspicions that Schumer might still side with an Obama veto. Absent a miraculous change in Iranian behavior, the senator has made the strongest possible case against the deal, so I don’t think he’ll flip-flop.
A fourth and final significance of Schumer’s position is that it makes New York the clear leader of the opposition movement. Five brave Democratic House members from the state — Eliot Engel, Steve Israel, Grace Meng, Nita Lowey and Kathleen Rice — also said no to Obama. The entire GOP delegation will do the same.
That should not be the end of it. National security is a local issue, as 9/11 painfully proved.
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani has joined the “no” chorus, and his successor, Michael Bloomberg, should, too. Former top cop Ray Kelly should sign on, as should business and civic leaders who understand the stakes.
Most important, Gov. Cuomo should lead them. Often willing to buck his party’s left-wing orthodoxy, including on school choice, the Iran deal should be the next example.
With the Empire State remaining the perennial first choice among jihadists, New York’s governor has an absolute duty to do everything he can to protect its residents, businesses and visitors from attack.
Schumer’s conclusion alone that Iran would use the end of sanctions to expand its export of terrorism is reason enough for the governor to join the opposition.
He would seem to be halfway there. Cuomo traveled to Israel to show solidarity with the Jewish state during last year’s Gaza war. When he returned, he said, “Any New Yorker who doesn’t understand that Israel’s fight is our fight is living not in the state of New York but in the state of denial.”
Now he can prove he meant what he said.

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

NEW YORK CITY: De Blasio is crafting his own downfall

De Blasio is crafting his own downfall
Years ago, in a chat with then-Deputy Mayor Bill Lynch, I asked how the Dinkins administration set its agenda. Did it have daily staff meetings, consult with outsiders, poll public opinion?
Lynch, a respected, genial political operative who has since passed away, looked at me with surprise. “I wish we knew who set the agenda,” he said with a straight face.
At that moment, I realized the impression that the Dinkins mayoralty was being driven by events beyond its control was accurate. Whatever the problem, City Hall didn’t just seem to be caught off guard — it was caught off guard.
Something similar is now happening to Bill de Blasio. Mayor Putz is getting whacked like a ­piñata, and he always seems surprised.
One day, it’s murder mayhem, then an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease, then a cheating scandal in the schools. Some days, like yesterday, it’s an avalanche.
The comparison with the Dinkins years is apt, but breaks down in one key way. Dinkins’ sins were mostly those of omission; de Blasio is the architect of his dis­asters.
His main campaign promise was to change the direction of the city, and, unfortunately, he kept that promise. He is taking New York backwards.
Although murder is up by 10 percent, reports show most major crimes continue to fall. Yet it doesn’t feel that way.
Many, if not most, New Yorkers believe the city is sliding downhill, and that each day brings us one step closer to the bad old days of terrifying lawlessness and public disorder.
The fear is fueled by enough anecdotes to make it rational — gunfire sprays, with children caught in the crossfireincreased muggings in Central Park, and disheveled maniacs, some violent, taking over sidewalks and subways.
In large measure, these are the fruits of de Blasio’s policies. He wanted a kinder, gentler police force, made Al Sharpton an adviser — and the result is a more violent, bloodier city.
He said he wanted more humane policies on welfare and homelessness, and hired as commissioner Steven Banks, the former head of the Legal Aid Society who spent 30 years suing the city agency he now runs.
As Heather Mac Donald wrote in the City Journal, Banks “helped create, through lawsuit, New York’s unique obligation to provide housing on demand to families claiming homelessness.”
Given his disdain for efforts to get people off welfare and into jobs, it is fair to assume that Banks is at least partially responsible for the surge of people living in parks, shelters and on the streets.
Then there’s Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña, lured out of retirement by de Blasio because no other established educator would adopt his policies. Intent on turning back the clock on mainstream reforms, he and Fariña embraced the teachers-union cartel and are thwarting accountability measures considered standard best practices. In their warped vision, rigorous teacher evaluations and charter schools are enemies, while the union parties like it’s 1970.
The outrageous cheating scandal The Post exposed is a prime example of de Blasio’s folly. The union puts the protection of jobs ahead of everything else, so handing out unearned diplomas is a no-brainer when the aim is to shield the adults from the consequences of student failure.
As one teacher told The Post, “The state, the city, the mayor, the chancellor all look good with an inflated passing rate.”
So true — until that passing rate is exposed as a sham. That’s where we are now, and it’s a perfect metaphor for de Blasio’s tenure.
Less than halfway through his term, he needs a shakeup at City Hall. Problems are multiplying, the quality of life is declining and he is isolated inside his bubble with like-minded lefties.
On the outside, he has squandered public goodwill by showing indifference to the daily travails of city life. Among government leaders, his high-handed lectures have earned him a cold shoulder and ill wishes.
If he has a reset button, now would be the time to use it. Before he runs out of time.

Planned Parenthood’s pathetic ‘3 percent’ lie

Planned Parenthood’s pathetic ‘3 percent’ lieThe nation’s premier provider of abortions doesn’t want to be known for providing abortions.
Planned Parenthood, embroiled in a scandal over secret videos capturing its cavalier dismemberment of unborn babies and sale of their body parts, insists that abortion is only 3 percent of what it does.
Practically every defender of the organization, fighting to preserve its federal funding, reverts to the 3 percent figure.
How could you possibly, they ask, defund a group that devotes itself overwhelmingly to uncontroversial procedures and services for women?
The 3 percent figure is an artifice and a dodge, but even taking it on its own terms, it’s not much of a defense. Only Planned Parenthood would think saying that they only kill babies 3 percent of the time is something to brag about.
How much credit would we give someone for saying he only drives drunk 3 percent of the time, or only cheats on business trips 3 percent of the time, or only hits his wife during 3 percent of domestic disputes?
The 3 percent factoid is crafted to obscure the reality of Planned Parenthood’s business.
The group performs about 330,000 abortions a year, or roughly 30 percent of all the abortions in the country. By its own accounting in its 2013-2014 annual report, it provides about as many abortions as Pap tests (380,000). The group does more breast exams and provides more breast-care services (490,000), but not by that much.
The 3 percent figure is derived by counting abortion as just another service like much less consequential services.
So abortion is considered a service no different than a pregnancy test (1.1 million), even though a box with two pregnancy tests can be procured from the local drugstore for less than $10.
By Planned Parenthood’s math, a woman who gets an abortion but also a pregnancy test, an STD test and some contraceptives has received four services, and only 25 percent of them are abortion. This is a little like performing an abortion and giving a woman an aspirin, and saying only half of what you do is abortion.
Such cracked reasoning could be used to obscure the purpose of any organization.
The sponsors of the New York City Marathon could count each small cup of water they hand out (some 2 million cups, compared with 45,000 runners) and say they are mainly in the hydration business.

Or Major League Baseball teams could say that they sell about 20 million hot dogs and play 2,430 games in a season, so baseball is only .012 percent of what they do.
Supporters of Planned Parenthood want to use its health services as leverage to preserve its abortions, as if you can’t get one without the other.
Of course, this is nonsense.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides free or low-cost breast and cervical cancer screenings — without aborting babies. State health departments provide free cancer screenings — without aborting babies. Community health centers provide a range of medical services — without aborting babies.
These organizations are genuinely committed to women’s health, with no ideological commitment to abortion.
Planned Parenthood’s twisted conception of “reproductive health” doesn’t extend to the baby that has been reproduced. All you need to know about its priorities is that it only provides 19,000 “prenatal services,” which means that it performs roughly 17 times more abortions.

Friday, July 3, 2015

NYC Cop Throws Fists To Protect Female Partner From Knife-Wielding Suspect

NYC Cop Throws Fists To Protect Female Partner From Knife-Wielding Suspect (screenshots: Live Leak)
A video surfaced Thursday of an NYPD officer using force to protect his female partner from a hostile-suspect resisting arrest.
Police officers had stopped Saykou George whom, according to the New York Post, they had seen carrying a blade in plain-sight. After having his ID checked by the officers, George — who had two outstanding warrants and a history of violence — began to grow increasingly belligerent, eventually lashing out at the female officer when she tried to place him in handcuffs.
According to police commissioner Bill Bratton, Internal Affairs is currently reviewing the video of the Wednesday arrest, but in his, “preliminary review of [the video], [he] saw nothing inappropriate with the officers’ behavior.”
George was slapped with a variety of charges, including resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer and criminal possession of a weapon.

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Parishioners gather for emotional return to Charleston church

CHARLESTON, S.C. — The Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church threw open its doors for Sunday morning service, as heavyhearted worshipers filed into the same sanctuary where nine of their fellow parishioners were slaughtered nearly four days ago.
The organ played “Amazing Grace” as 400 seats inside historic black church were filled by worshipers who vowed that a racist gunman would not break their faith.
“I woke up at 6 a.m. and I was determined to come here. In spite of what happened, the strength still remains in our unity,” said Eva Bryant, 55, with her 10-year-old granddaughter Demiyah in tow.
“I brought my granddaughter because I want her to see all races coming together and know that just because one bad thing happens, you don’t shut yourself from the world. Being active is important and so is showing our support for the victims’ families.”

Via: New York Post

Continue Reading....

Sunday, June 7, 2015

If Supremes slap ObamaCare, it’s health insurers who lose

This week health insurers announced they will hike premiums on ObamaCare plans by double digits in 2016. Yet it’s not ObamaCare buyers who are getting gouged.
For the most part, what consumers have to pay is calculated based on their income.
They don’t pay the sticker price. It’s you — the taxpayers — who get taken to the cleaners, because you foot the bill for the subsidies paid directly to the insurers.
That makes the Supreme Court ruling in King v. Burwell, expected this month, even more consequential. It will determine the fate of these subsidies in 37 states.
Without subsidies, ObamaCare buyers in those states will have to pay the actual — and unaffordable — sticker price of ObamaCare. And you — taxpayers — will not have to fork over hundreds of billions of dollars to subsidize insurers over the next decade.
But the dirty secret is that insurers stand to lose the most from King v. Burwell.
The Affordable Care Act compels the public to buy their product, and forces taxpayers to subsidize it. What a sweetheart deal.
The giant players — United Healthcare, Cigna, Aetna, Anthem and Humana — have seen stock prices double, triple, even quadruple since the law was passed in 2010. The coming ruling threatens to put an end to their gravy train.
Democrats are predicting disaster if the court rules against President Obama.
Republicans will “rue the day” they let millions of people lose their subsidies, says Nancy Pelosi. That’s crazy talk.
No one will lose their coverage immediately, the poor will be unaffected and the biggest losers will be insurance companies.
Employers, job-seekers and taxpayers actually stand to win here.
In addition, most Republicans in Congress are inclined to compromise with the president to provide some type of financial help for insurance buyers. If the Supremes gut ObamaCare, there will be many more winners than losers. Here’s how it shakes out:

What King v. Burwell and the downfall of Obamacare would really mean

Before the ACA was passed, Democrats screamed, “The sky is falling!  We must pass this law!’  Now that the Supreme Court stands poised to finally drive a stake through the heart of one of the worst misuses of legislative power exercised by a single party this century, the Democrats are again screaming, “The sky is falling!”

But is it?

Betsy McCaughey’s June 3rd New York Post article, “If Supremes Slap ObamaCare, it’s health insurers who lose” nails the post-decision fallout from King v. Burwell, should the Supremes actually apply the “plain meaning” of the ACA and gut Obamacare’s subsidies.  (Emphasis added)…

Any of the 37 states that want to can set up an exchange and immediately qualify for the subsidies. But most are controlled by the GOP and won’t do it.

Without subsidies, the employer mandate is toothless, because employers are only fined if their uninsured workers go to an exchange and get a subsidy.

Employers who have been struggling to keep their workforce under 50 (where ObamaCare kicks in) and use part-timers (who aren’t subject to ObamaCare) won’t have to worry any more.
Nullifying the employer mandate is likely to ignite a hiring boom.

According to the US Chamber of Commerce, that looming mandate has caused 21 percent of small businesses to reduce workers’ hours, 41 percent to delay hiring and 27 percent of franchises (such as fast-food restaurants) to replace full-timers with part-timers.

People facing a penalty for being uninsured will also come out ahead. Without subsidies, most will be exempted from the penalty, saving them $2,000 on average next year.

Despite Democrats’ dire warnings, the poor won’t be hurt. An amazing 89 percent of people who are newly insured because of ObamaCare are on Medicaid, which won’t be affected.

Ignore the alarmist rhetoric. A loss for the Obama administration in King v. Burwell will be a win for most Americans.

We all know Democrats are nothing if not audacious, so here’s the rub – If the subsidies are overturned, the Dems will then take credit for the sure-to-follow hiring boom! 

The ACA choked economic growth by forcing small businesses to stay below 50 employees to avoid paying unaffordable health insurance premiums for all their employees.  Striking down the subsidies adds certainty to an unstable market and small business can finally invest and expand, putting many hundreds of thousands of the unemployed to work.

Dems caused the economic slowdown with trillions upon trillions of spending with virtually nothing to show for a 6 year malaise, which they deliberately aggravated and accelerated in order to expand the liberal socialist agenda and governmental power.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

Popular Posts