Obama's regulations are viewed as seriously flawed

In fact, why limit it to Obama? The entire regulatory process is a mess, with no way to root out regs that have outlived their usefulness or become too burdensome. Plus, the process is opaque and vulnerable to industry lobbyists.

The Hill:

Over the years, Congress and presidents have tinkered with the inner-workings of the regulatory apparatus, placing new restrictions on agencies charged with writing rules, and ordering them to root out those that are outdated or overly burdensome.

Despite those tweaks, the current system lacks any institutional mechanism to expunge unneeded federal restrictions. 

There are no strict time limits requiring administrations to either issue or withdraw proposed rules aside from those specifically set by laws or the courts. And both advocates and critics of stronger regulations complain of a lack of transparency to the process.

"It's totally broken," said Peg Seminario, the AFL-CIO's longtime director of Occupational Safety and Health. "The system is basically a poster child for how government doesn't work."

Yet when it comes to potential solutions, there is little consensus.

Republicans and industry groups, who have bemoaned what they view as overly aggressive federal agencies, want more restrictions on the rulemaking process and a greater reliance on economic analysis in decisions regarding new regulations.

Democrats, unions and public interest groups, meanwhile, say agencies are already hamstrung by existing restrictions on their authority, and argue that open-ended White House reviews have led to a pattern of delays in important protections.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

Obama congratulates American Muslims on same day he moves for military action against Syria

Obama-arranged marriage of Marxism and Muslim is leading the world down a deadly path of increasing civilian death

On the same day that President Barack Obama said that the United States should take military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons on civilians and turned to Congress for approval, he released a video message from the White House congratulating American Muslims on the many achievements and contributions they have made to American society from its early history to the present day.

Was it just before the video release that he took the touted 45-minute walk during which he made up his mind to strike Syria?

The congratulating American Muslims video, aired Saturday at the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) annual convention, highlighting “the myriad of ways the American Muslim community, and specifically ISNA leadership, has served as an effective partner in promoting inter-religious initiatives in the U.S. and religious freedom for minorities around the world.” (PRNewswire-USNewswire, Aug. 31, 2013).

That is, of course, unless you happen to be a Christian in Syria, Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, Pakistan, Iraq, Bangladesh, Somalia, Tanzania, Libya, Cameroon, the Netherlands, Kenya, Turkey, Algeria, Norway, Lebanon, Indonesia, the Philippines, Kosovo, South Africa, and even in the U.S., where on March 24, 2013, in Ashtabula, Ohio, a Muslim convert walked into a church service with a Koran and gunned down his Christian father while praising Allah. (TheReligionofPeace)

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

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....