Unhappy Labor Day: Obamacare Edition

How the president’s signature law is making life harder for working Americans

When the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases the unemployment number for the month of August this Friday, even an improvement in last month’s 7.4 percent seasonally adjusted rate will leave the number higher than it was during any month of the George W. Bush presidency.

And it’s not just the unemployment number that is grim. That number, after all, gets better when job-seekers get so discouraged that they stop looking for work. The labor force participation rate, which measures the percentage of Americans older than age 16 who are in the work force, is the lowest it has been since the late 1970s.

Why are things so bad?

Sure, there was a financial crisis. But that was five years ago already.

It’s possible to put a good face on the declining labor force participation rate by considering it a positive development that Baby Boomers are enjoying their leisure time in retirement, or that parents are staying home with their children, or that young people are staying in school.

At least some of the people working part-time, though, say they would like to be working full time; in July an estimated 8.2 million Americans were working part-time for economic reasons, the highest number in a year.

Part of the problem is Obamacare. Sure, all the mandates haven’t kicked in yet. But businesses consider the cost of future mandates in making hiring decisions.

The clearest explanation of the effect of Obamacare on employment that I have seen recently comes in a paper by a professor of economics at the University of Chicago, Casey B. Mulligan, recently released by the National Bureau of Economic Research. He writes that the Affordable Care Act, along with other expansions in safety net programs, has created “a massive 17 percent reduction in the reward to working.” As a result, he says, “it is unlikely that labor market activity will return even near to its pre-recession levels as long as the ACA’s work disincentives remain in place.”

Via: Reason,com

Continue Reading...

Morning Bell: Countdown to Obamacare Exchanges

While America was resting from its labors, the countdown to Obamacare began.

In just 27 days, the Obamacare exchanges are scheduled to open, and people who don’t get health insurance through their employers (or through the government already) will start buying coverage.

Sixteen states are doing their own insurance exchanges, while the federal government is running exchanges in 34 states.

Many states have been aggressively advertising and promoting their exchanges. But there is still a lot we don’t know. Several questions we’re still asking:

How many insurers will participate?

So far, the number of insurance companies offering plans through the exchanges varies widely from state to state. And in some, it’s nearly chaotic. Consider Mississippi. Heritage expert Alyene Senger details that state’s woes: Initially, only two insurers applied to offer coverage in the exchange—and they weren’t even going to provide coverage for the entire state. Humana later said it would provide coverage to the uncovered counties. But it remains that the vast majority of Mississippians in the exchange will only be able to do business with one insurer.

Which doctors and hospitals will be covered?

Exchange customers may not have access to the same doctors and hospitals that other patients have. Senger writes that “limited networks have resulted in major hospitals being excluded in California’s exchange.”

Via: The Foundry

Continue Reading....

Nancy Pelosi’s Rank Hypocrisy Exposed by Syria Intervention Debate

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) spent the holiday weekend gaming out Syrian intervention scenarios with her 5-year-old grandson. The ranking House Democrat told a group of reporters assembled outside the White House on Tuesday that her grandson, just out of toddlerhood, expressed his concerns that eliminating the ability of Bashar al-Assad’s forces to use of chemical weapons on civilian population centers cannot be reasonably considered a vital national interest and American intervention is, at this time, unjustified. Of course, the child used slightly more universally understood terms to express his opposition to the forthcoming war. 

But Pelosi said that she supports intervention in Syria anyway, over the objections of her grandson. She defined America’s national interest in this case as the enforcement of the globally recognized prohibition on the battlefield use of chemical weapons. This, the first violation of this norm in the post-Cold War-era, demands a response that only the United States can deliver. Pelosi essentially told the press that the anti-war argument is a child’s argument:

The minority leader is joined today, albeit belatedly, by the GOP house leadership who expressed their support for the prerogative of the President of the United States to defend American interests with military force. Their support comes late, but that is better than never. That the GOP is supporting President Barack Obama at all is a miracle when one considers the precedents set by Democrats. One would expect the GOP to hold fast to their resistance to an unpopular military engagement championed by a president of the opposition party. It is a position not unlike Nancy Pelosi’s when Congress debated the ultimately successful Iraq “surge” in 2007.

Via: Mediaite.com

Continue Reading...

Rangel Calls Obama-Syria Situation 'Embarrassing'; Press, Other Than Politico, Ignores

Monday morning, 22-term Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel of New York, as reported by Tal Kopan at the Politico, said that President Barack Obama's drawing of a "red line" on Syria is "embarrassing," and that he is against "putting our kids in harm’s way to solve an international problem."

Rangel is the third most-senior House member of either party. If a senior Republican congressperson similarly criticized opposed a Republican or conservative president in a matter such as this, there would be widespread establishment press coverage. In this case, there's very little. This is not unusual for stories detrimental to Democratic Party interests, as the rest of the establishment press all too often seems content to say, "Oh, that was already in the Politico, so we don't have to cover it."

Here are several parargraps from Kopan's item, wherein Rangel also expresses displeasure with having the entire matter pushed onto Congress:

Charles Rangel says no to troops in Syria

Rep. Charles Rangel on Monday called the situation for the United States on Syria “embarrassing,” saying America should not put its troops in harm’s way because of a “red line” drawn by the president.

The New York Democrat was responding to a question on MSNBC about whether he’s concerned that if Congress doesn’t support President Barack Obama’s move to authorize a military strike in Syria, it will send the wrong message.

MSNBC host Mara Schiavocampo asked Rangel, “In terms of that red line, the president was clear about that a year ago. Are you concerned if there is not action once that line has been crossed that it will send a message to the world about United States’ influence and their strength in the face of countries openly defying them?”

“I love Obama, and you’ll never find a truer Democrat than me,” Rangel responded, “but this whole idea of any president of the United States drawing lines saying that if any country does something that he considers wrong that the nation is going to war, it’s unheard of, drawing a red line. So, of course, it’s embarrassing. I wish it didn’t happen. ...

... Rangel said he was glad the president realized the situation is not urgent and he hopes the time for discussion Obama is urging will have positive results.

... I hope that other people in the international community would come forward and take this great decision off of the Congress because we have to make it. Take it off of the Congress and provide some solution where we are not putting our kids in harm’s way to solve an international problem that we feel bounded, not by law, but because the president has drawn a red line,” Rangel said.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading....

[CARTOON] Oversight

Via: California Political Review

Gen. Michael Hayden: Assad Army Weakened Just by US Threat of Action

While debate swirls in Washington over whether the United States should take limited military action against Syria, a former head of the CIA and NSA says that just the threat of action has already weakened the capabilities of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

"He's dispersed his forces, he's camouflaged his forces, he's hidden his forces. That means he can't use his forces," Gen. Michael Hayden said Monday on CNN. 

That said, the political fracturing that has evolved in the West while President Barack Obama has threatened action without actually taking any has weakened the impact of that threat, Hayden said.

"So if our purpose here is to show resolve, we can do it physically. I just don't know that the psychic effect now is going to be all that we wanted it to be," Hayden told CNN.

Assad and his Iranian and Hezbollah allies are going to want to show resolve, too, Hayden said. "So I would expect one of those actors, particularly the Iranians, engineering some sort of response. Once you start this, it's hard to control it."

Hayden said he supports taking action, but that the limited "one and done" firing of Tomahawk missiles into the area won't likely end U.S. involvement. 

"Once you start using heat, blast and fragmentation to text messages to another leader things can get out of control," he said.

"Our strategic reach weapon is air power and those Tomahawk missiles with the fleet in the eastern Mediterranean," Hayden said. "Their strategic reach weapon is Hezbollah. And they could then use Hezbollah to attack Americans, American interests in the region, and perhaps as far as North America."

Via: Newsmax

Continue Reading....

WATCH: Greg Gutfeld's Hilarious Speech At The Defending The Dream Summit

Greg Gutfeld spoke yesterday at the Right Online and Defending the Dream Summit

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Lee, Cruz cheer ‘defund Obamacare’ petition benchmark

Over a million people have signed onto a petition calling on Congress not to fund Obamacare, the Senate Conservatives Fund announced Tuesday.

The petition, which has been pushed by two of the loudest voices in the “defund Obamacare” movement, Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee and Texas Republican Ted Cruz, hit the one million signatures mark Monday morning.

The number of signatures now stands at over 1,018,340 as of publication.

According to Lee and Cruz, the signatures reveal a growing grassroots momentum against funding Obamacare.

“The American people are standing up, speaking out and demonstrating their absolute disdain for the unaffordable and unfair train wreck that is Obamacare,” Lee said in a statement.

“With over 1,000,000 signatures petitioning Congress to defund Obamacare the momentum is mounting and members of both parties, in both houses, would be wise to take heed and side with the American people,” he added.

Cruz echoed Lee’s sentiment, arguing “it is a testament to the grassroots tsunami” that the petition —- which launched on July 27 — was able to amass over million signatures in 37 days.

“Defunding Obamacare by Oct. 1 is the best chance we have to stop this ‘huge train wreck,’ and we need to build on this August surge to get it accomplished,” Cruz added.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Public Opinion Runs Against Syrian Airstrikes

OVERVIEW

President Obama faces an uphill battle in making the case for U.S. military action in Syria. By a 48% to 29% margin, more Americans oppose than support conducting military airstrikes against Syria in response to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.

The new national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Aug. 29-Sept. 1 among 1,000 adults, finds that Obama has significant ground to make up in his own party. Just 29% of Democrats favor conducting airstrikes against Syria while 48% are opposed. Opinion among independents is similar (29% favor, 50% oppose). Republicans are more divided, with 35% favoring airstrikes and 40% opposed.

The public has long been skeptical of U.S. involvement in Syria, but an April surveyfound more support than opposition to the idea of a U.S.-led military response if the use of chemical weapons was confirmed. The new survey finds both broad concern over the possible consequences of military action in Syria and little optimism it will be effective.

Three-quarters (74%) believe that U.S. airstrikes in Syria are likely to create a backlash against the United States and its allies in the region and 61% think it would be likely to lead to a long-term U.S. military commitment there. Meanwhile, just 33% believe airstrikes are likely to be effective in discouraging the use of chemical weapons; roughly half (51%) think they are not likely to achieve this goal.

Via: Pew Research

Continue Reading....

Obama Reduces 2014 Pay Hike for U.S. Troops, Still Fighting in Afghanistan

(CNSNews.com) - As promised in his Fiscal Year 2014 budget, President Obama has just informed Congress that he will cap next year's pay raise for U.S. military personnel at 1 percent, instead of the 1.8 percent raise set by the formula Congress established.

The announcement came on Friday afternoon, at the start of the long Labor Day weekend, in a letter to Congress.

"I am strongly committed to supporting our uniformed service members, who have made such great contributions to our Nation over the past decade of war," President Obama wrote to congressional leaders. "As our country continues to recover from serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare, however, we must maintain efforts to keep our Nation on a sustainable fiscal course. This effort requires tough choices, especially in light of budget constraints faced by Federal agencies."

Obama said he has decided to "exercise my authority under section 1009(e) of title 37, United States Code, to set the 2014 monthly basic pay increase at 1.0 percent" for members of the military.

"This decision is consistent with my fiscal year 2014 Budget and will not materially affect the Federal Government's ability to attract and retain well-qualified members for the uniformed services," Obama wrote. 

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

ROSS PEROT FOUNDATION DONATES $1 MILLION TO SCANDAL-HIT PLANNED PARENTHOOD

The Ross Perot Foundation has provided a $1 million gift to Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Texas following the abortion giant’s payment of $4.3 million for a settlement in a Medicaid fraud case.

According to Steven Ertelt at LifeNews, the foundation associated with billionaire businessman Perot announced the $1 million donation last week.

In a statement through Planned Parenthood, Margot Perot said:

For nearly 100 years Planned Parenthood has helped to educate men and women regarding family planning and general family health. Our family has supported this nonprofit for many years because we are impressed with the work they do — providing birth control, scientifically-based education, breast health exams, and basic life-saving healthcare for women who cannot afford services otherwise.

On July 24th, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced that his office had obtained a $1.4 million settlement against Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast (PPGC) for Medicaid fraud. The total settlement, according to the Houston Chronicle, was $4.3 million. The settlement was to be split among the state of Texas, the federal government, and the whistleblower who uncovered the fraud.

The Perot Foundation has given more than $200 million to various charities. According to a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood, the donation is undesignated, meaning that the funds can be used for the organization’s general mission.

Last year, Karen Reynolds, a former PPGC employee, filed a whistleblower’s complaint with the Attorney General of Texas and the U.S. Department of Justice, alleging that the abortion business engaged in an intricate Medicaid fraud scheme.

According to LifeNews, the former “health care assistant” submitted company memos and emails to support her charge that PPGC had engaged in a system-wide plot to swindle Medicaid, Title XX, and the Women’s Health Program out of tens of millions of dollars over the last decade.

Reynolds alleged that her bosses trained PPGC staff to bill government agencies for medical and family planning services that were never rendered, for services that would not generally be provided by medical personnel, and for abortion-related services that were covered up to appear as non-abortion-related.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....