Media That Clamored Against Komen Skips Planned Parenthood Paying $4.3 Million in Medicaid Fraud Case

MSM Ignores Planned Parenthood Found Guilty Of Medicaid Fraud, 

In the first week of February 2012, the Big Three networks lunged to the defense of Planned Parenthood when the Susan G. Komen Foundation (very temporarily) withdrew its donation to abortion giant (about $680,000 the previous year). Network reporters whacked Komen, promoting “outrage and disappointment engulfing the Internet.”

But Mollie Hemingway of Get Religion pointed out that Planned Parenthood in Texas was recently forced to pay the state of Texas $4.3 million for Medicaid fraud. Where was the “outrage and disappointment” engulfing the media? The networks didn’t notice. Even the local newspaper coverage was terrible.

Hemingway noticed two small wire-service bulletins and ten reports from pro-life and Christian websites represented the media coverage.

Good for Reuters, I guess? Their story frames the fraud charge not as part of a national fraud problem for the abortion provider but as just the latest in a battle between Republican legislators and the abortion provider. But, again, at least they mentioned it. As for the Associated Press, their story is seven sentences long, includes no quotes, and could not be drier or less interesting if it tried.

It didn’t come up in my Google search but I thought I’d see about any stories in The Houston Chronicle. Well, that newsroom did report on it, sort of.

There’s a whopping four-paragraph story headlined “Planned Parenthood finalizes $4.3 million lawsuit settlement.” That was an update of the earlier story they ran — the seven-sentence AP story that said the settlement was $1.3 million. Way to put those local resources to work, fellas!

Planned Parenthood trotted out the usual corporate line that settlement wasn't an admission of guilt -- which might be the shriveled fig leaf the "mainstream media" would use to say it's not newsworthy. But wait -- Texas isn't the only state where this fraud might be occurring, as the Heritage Foundation reported:

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading....

Seattle To Ban ‘Potentially Offensive’ Words Like ‘Brown Bag’ And ‘Citizen’

Government workers in the city of Seattle have been advised that the terms "citizen" and "brown bag" are potentially offensive and may no longer be used in official documents and discussions.

KOMO-TV reports that the city's Office of Civil Rights instructed city workers in a recent internal memo to avoid using the words because some may find them offensive.

"Luckily, we've got options."

- Elliott Bronstein, Seattle's Office for Civil Rights

"Luckily, we've got options," Elliott Bronstein of the Office for Civil Rights wrote in the memo obtained by the station. "For 'citizens,' how about 'residents?'" 

In an interview with Seattle's KIRO Radio, Bronstein said the term "brown bag" has been used historically as a way to judge skin color. 

"For a lot of particularly African-American community members, the phrase brown bag does bring up associations with the past when a brown bag was actually used, I understand, to determine if people's skin color was light enough to allow admission to an event or to come into a pa

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Feds give laid-off Boeing workers a big helping hand

Local Boeing workers who’ve lost their jobs will receive substantial additional federal unemployment benefits after two unions at the company sought aid under a program for employees laid off due to outsourcing and foreign trade.

Thanks to a federal program lined up by their unions, local workers laid off during the current dip in employment at Boeing Commercial Airplanes will enjoy a financial cushion that’s much, much plumper than what the average unemployed state resident gets.

“Compared to what Joe Worker gets when they get laid off, our members have a pretty extensive safety net,” said Connie Kelliher, spokeswoman for the International Association of Machinists (IAM).

The U.S. Department of Labor has approved Boeing workers — union or nonunion, production workers or engineers — laid off between April 2012 and June 2015 for a package of benefits that includes drawing unemployment pay for up to 2½ years, rather than the regular six months.

The Labor Department ruling also means that if laid-off Boeing workers need to travel, say to California, for a job interview, the government will reimburse 90 percent of the costs.

If they relocate for a new job, the government will pay 90 percent of their moving expenses and provide an additional lump-sum relocation allowance of up to $1,250.

While unemployed, they’ll also get a tax credit for nearly three-quarters of their health-care premiums. And they’re eligible for a grant of up to $25,000 toward the cost of a degree.

And for those workers over 50, if they have to take a lower-paid job after leaving Boeing, the government will provide up to $10,000 over two years in supplementary pay to make up some of the difference.

Via: Seattle Times

Continue Reading...

Unemployment Climbs to 9.4% Among Hispanics; Double What It Was 7 Years Ago; Never Below 9.0% Under Obama

(CNSNews.com) - Unemployment among American Hispanics climbed to 9.4 percent in July, up from 9.1 percent in May and June, and 9.0 percent in April, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

During President Obama's time in office, the number of American Hispanics who are unemployed has increased 161,000--rising from 2,205,000 in January 2009 to 2,366,000 in July 2013.

BLS defines a person as unemployed if they are 16 years or older and do not have a job, but have actively sought one in the last four weeks.

The Hispanic community has been hit harder by unemployment in recent years than Americans generally, as the Hispanic unemployment rate has never dropped below 9.0 percent during President Barack Obama’s time in office, according to BLS.

At 9.4 percent in July, Hispanic unemployment was 2 points (or 27 percent) higher than the overall national rate of 7.4 percent.

In the forty years that BLS has been recording the unemployment rate among Hispanics, the optimal period for Hispanic employment was 2006. During two months of that year, Hispanic unemployment dropped below 5 percent—hitting 4.9 percent in May 2006 and 4.7 percent in October 2006.

At that time, the difference between Hispanic unemployment and overall unemployment was not as great as it is today. In October 2006, for example, when Hispanic unemployment was 4.7 percent, overall unemployment was 4.4 percent—a difference of only 0.3 points (or 6.8 percent).

VIA: CNS News

Continue Reading....

July: 988,000 'Discouraged' Americans Concluded There Were No Jobs for Them

There were 988,000 discouraged workers in the United States in July, an increase of 136,000 from July 2012, according to data released today the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

“Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them,” the BLS explains.

While the overall unemployment rate declined to the lowest rate since December 2008 at 7.4 percent, those not in the labor force remains near an all-time high at 89,957,000. The previous high was 89,967,000 in March of this year.

The number of Americans who dropped out of the labor force was 240,000 in July – 78,000 more than the162,000 jobs added in the month.

The BLS labeled people who are unemployed and no longer looking for work as “not in the labor force,” including people who have retired on schedule, taken early retirement, or simply given up looking for work.

Also, 2.4 million Americans were “marginally attached to the labor force,” which means they are not working but “wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months.”

The labor force participation rate in July also ticked down to 63.4 percent, from 63.5 percent in June.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading...

Documents: IRS targeting of pro-life groups continues

The Internal Revenue Service  continues to target pro-life conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status despite pending investigations into the IRS targeting scandal, according to documents obtained by The Daily Caller.

The IRS’ infamous Cincinnati office, which handles applications from groups applying for tax-exempt nonprofit status, badgered pro-life groups for information on their protesting activities as recently as late June 2013, well after IRS investigations began on the floor of the House of Representatives and elsewhere.

“We’ve had three more groups come to us that have had problems with the IRS — some very recent, some current or still pending. One of them just got their determination letter,” Peter Breen, senior counsel at the Thomas More Society, which represents pro-life groups targeted by the IRS, told The Daily Caller. “It’s continuing, and it needs to be addressed.”

Cherish Life Ministries in Virginia, the LIFE Group in Missouri, and the Emerald Coast Coalition for Life in Florida were all recently targeted by the IRS.

“This supplemental memorandum addresses three (3) new matters which provide further evidence of illegal, unconstitutional, viewpoint-based IRS harassment of pro-life organizations. These new cases also illustrate that harassment has been continuing through the present date,” reads an August 1 memo the Thomas More Society provided to the House Ways and Means Committee at the request of Republican Rep. Aaron Schock of Illinois.

Cherish Life Ministries and LIFE Group were both targeted by the same Cincinnati-based IRS agent, “Mrs. R. Medley,” and both received initial denials of their tax-exempt status with identical wording on April 8, 2013. Both groups were asked by the IRS whether they would “provide alternatives to the pro-life viewpoint,” according to the memo.

Cherish Life Ministries finally received its tax exemption letter last Friday, on July 26, 2013. The letter was dated June 26, 2013. The group initially applied for tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status on March 14, 2012.

“After we got involved and laid out the governing law, we finally just got a letter for them last week. It was stamped a month earlier,” Breen said.

Via: The Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Obama Solves Health Care Problem for Lawmakers, Staff (Updated)

Just a day after President Barack Obama told Senate Democrats he had personally engaged in the issue of his signature health care law’s effect on lawmakers and their staff, it appears there’s a solution.

Word began circulating around Capitol Hill that the Office of Personnel Management would soon issue guidance to address the way the health care law’s exchanges affect members of Congress and those employed in their offices. Senate aides initially declined to discuss the matter, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed the existence of a deal to CQ Roll Call leaving the Capitol late Thursday — and a White House official confirmed details of the plan later Thursday evening.

Basically, OPM needed to determine that the federal government could help pay the cost of premiums on the exchanges for Congressional employees.

“I’m glad it’s done,” the Nevada Democrat said, directing a request for details to the White House.

A White House official confirmed to CQ Roll Call that OPM will issue the new regulation next week, and in turn lawmakers and aides will not be eligible for the law’s tax credits and subsidies to buy insurance.

During a meeting in the Capitol Wednesday with the Senate Democratic caucus, Obama said that he would personally step in to work on the issue before the health care law’s requirement that those on Capitol Hill get insurance through the exchanges. Obama’s comments were first reported by Politico and later confirmed by CQ Roll Call.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., released a statement Thursday night reiterating that staff and lawmakers must sign up for the exchanges.

“Members of Congress and their staffs must enroll in health marketplaces as the Affordable Care Act requires.

“As we continue our work to ensure the smooth implementation of this law and look forward to the start of enrollment on October 1st, we will continue our efforts this August to educate consumers on the law’s provisions and tout the critical benefits already in place for millions of Americans,” she said, with no mention of the deal that OPM is set to announce.

Steven T. Dennis contributed to this report.

Via: Roll Call

Continue Reading...

Mr. President, ObamaCare Is Creating A Part Time Economy

President Obama’s recent pivot yet again to the economy has caused Americans to wonder why we remain in an economic rut.

Although there are signs of improvement, why is our country's growth so sluggish and unemployment rate still high?

A closer look at the June jobs numbers reveals a grave problem that is flying somewhat under the radar. And Friday’s unemployment announcement will most likely reveal the same problem.

The June unemployment rate remained unchanged from the previous month at 7.6 percent, but the June underemployment rate, which includes those who have stopped looking or settled for part-time work, rose sharply from 13.8 percent to 14.3 percent.

This is partly due to the transition of employment from full-time to part-time, as the private and public sectors are forced into the perilous compliance standards of the president’s health care law.

Small businesses are a primary creator of jobs and the employer of half of all private sector employees. So, when analyzing this new part-time pattern, a look at the small business role in this trend is in order.
By and large, small companies don’t want to settle for part-time employees over full-time positions. But for many, hiring part-time employees is simply their only solution for staying in business.

The health care law forces businesses to offer health insurance to full-time workers. Surprisingly, the law defines full-time as just 30 hours a week or more. Contrast this with the fact that the average American non-farm worker puts in just over 35 hours a week.

Therefore, to remain viable, many companies and governments, like the state of Virginia for example, have been forced to cap part-timers’ hours in anticipation of the mandate.

While the administration recently delayed this requirement for one year until January 2015, many organizations had already adjusted their operations before the announcement of the delay, and some organizations are choosing to make workforce changes now rather than delay the inevitable.

Consider what small business owners have told the Small Business Committee. William J. Gouldin, Jr., president of a floral company in Richmond, Virginia, testified during an April hearing on how small businesses were complying with the health care law.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Is Congress Too Good for Obamacare?

For the past few months, members of Congress and their staffs have beendiscussing behind closed doors the worrying proposition that they will be forced off their popular health insurance program and onto the federal insurance exchanges set up under Obamacare. Those concerns reached a fevered pitch this week as President Obama, while making a rare visit to Capitol Hill, assured lawmakers that they and their staffs wouldn’t be foisted onto the same health exchange as millions of Americans. Then late last night, news broke that Obama had "solved" the problem, although no details were available. Obama and many in Congress hope that the Office of Personnel Management can somehow find a way to legally continue paying for members’ health benefits after they lose their current Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) coverage and instead have to get coverage through the new exchanges. But not so fast, say two Heritage Foundation health scholars and a former general counsel of the OPM. The three health benefit experts scoured Obamacare’s rules, along with other relevant statutes, and found nothing in the law that gives OPM the authority to pay the government' contributions to any health plan that is outside of the FEHBP. >>> Read the Full Report: No Easy Escape for Congress In other words, members of Congress and their staff will lose the health insurance they like—breaking a big promise from Obama—unless Congress passes anotherlaw to preserve its own current coverage.That's something they have so far been unwilling to do for their constituents, millions of whom are also facing the prospect of losing their current coverage. “There does not seem to be any way that OPM [and the Obama Administration] can rescue Members of Congress and their staffs,” Heritage’s new report concludes. Lawmakers and their staffs could keep their coverage by repealing a section of Obamacare, but at what political price? “Of course, Congress could enact legislative changes," the report notes. "The problem for Congress, however, is that adopting any possible legislative solution would be viewed by many of their constituents as an act of self-dealing special treatment.” Why should the people’s representatives get special treatment? Maybe they should have read the health law more carefully before they voted for it. Regardless, it would be a disservice to millions of hard-working Americans and their families for the Administration or Congress to jam through special favors rather than repeal anunpopular, unworkable, and unaffordable law. With less than two months left until enrollment opens for Obamacare's insurance exchanges, now is the time for Americans tospeak out against the unfair political maneuverings and out-of-control spending within Obamacare. Heritage’s sister organization Heritage Actionwill host town-hall meetings this month in nine cities across America. Learn more about the "Defund Obamacare Tour" and find out how you can make your voice heard.

 

NYC Soda Ban Shot Down Again: Bad Day for the Food Police

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other self-appointed nutrition czars are probably very upset. The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously upheld a lower court’s decision that the New York City soda ban is unconstitutional.

The Ban

In the words of the court, “The Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule, dubbed the ‘Soda Ban,’ prohibits New York City restaurants, movie theaters and other food service establishments from serving sugary drinks in sizes larger than 16 ounces.”

Besides grossly infringing on individual liberty, the soda ban also picks winners and losers in the food and beverage industry. For example, winners include alcoholic beverages, because they aren’t subject to the ban. However, losers include sweetened juices that are subject to the ban.

The ban also doesn’t apply to all businesses. For example, restaurants would be subject to the ban, but grocery stores would be exempt.

Why the Ban Got Shot Down

Mayor Bloomberg wanted to get his soda ban in place even if that meant going around the New York city council. This is exactly what he did, despite at least 14 council members requesting that there be a vote. The New York City Board of Health moved forward with the ban on its own. The court held that, in so doing, the board was acting outside of its lawfully delegated authority.

Via: The Foundry

Continue Reading....