Wednesday, September 4, 2013

EDITORIAL: The Obamanomics decline

Falling income and employment is becoming the new normal

Fewer Americans will be returning to the work force after the traditional Labor Day holiday. Labor force participation is at the lowest point since the malaise of the Carter presidency. President Obama’s economic policies have guaranteed a lower standard of living for Americans.

A recent report by Gordon Green and John Coder of Sentier Research paints the disturbing picture. On the whole, we’re less well off than we were 13 years ago. Our median income, currently $52,000, is 7 percent lower than it was in 2000, using constant dollars. It’s an especially tough punch in the gut to our youth, who’ve seen nearly 10 percent of their income evaporate. Nearly every other demographic category — married or single, man or woman — has been hit.
The consequences have been most dire for those who’ve lost their job in this stagnant economy. If they’re lucky enough to land another gig, it can take several years to make up for lost earnings for even a short spell without a paycheck. The unlucky join the ranks of the long-term unemployed, currently 4 million and growing. Prospects are grim for their return to gainful employment because the economy refuses to grow under Obamanomics.

In a healthy economy, when someone leaves his job, it opens up a space for someone else. Nowadays, full-time replacements aren’t being hired — more than two out of every three jobs created this year have been part-time. That’s reflected in the dismal labor-force participation rate that’s 3 points lower than it was a decade ago. That may not sound like much, but it means we have 7.3 million people who’ve gone from being productive members of society to being idle.

A good deal of the blame for that development can be pinned on the increased costs of hiring full-time employees under Obamacare. As small businesses scramble to stay alive in the face of increased tax and regulatory burdens, they need to do what it takes to keep payrolls lean, which is why households wind up earning less.

Via: Washington TImes

NY CASE PUTS N-WORD USE AMONG BLACKS ON TRIAL

NEW YORK (AP) -- In a case that gave a legal airing to the debate over use of the N-word among blacks, a federal jury has rejected a black manager's argument that it was a term of love and endearment when he aimed it at black employee.

Jurors awarded $30,000 in punitive damages Tuesday after finding last week that the manager's four-minute rant was hostile and discriminatory, and awarding $250,000 in compensatory damages.

The case against Rob Carmona and the employment agency he founded, STRIVE East Harlem, hinged on the what some see as a complex double standard surrounding the word: It's a degrading slur when uttered by whites but can be used at times with impunity among blacks.

But 38-year-old Brandi Johnson told jurors that being black didn't make it any less hurtful when Carmona repeatedly targeted her with the slur during a March 2012 tirade about inappropriate workplace attire and unprofessional behavior.

Via: AP

Continue Reading....

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

New Labor Management Standards? Union Bosses Get Another Radical Ally Into A Position of Power

UNION Word CloudUnion bosses got another ally into a position of power last month with the appointment of union lawyer and labor professor Michael Hayes to become the director a little-known, but powerful Department of Labor sub-agency called the Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS).
As the new director of the OLMS, Michael Hayes is not just a union attorney and law professor, he is an advocate with extremely pro-union views.
In addition to authoring a number of pro-union articles and essays, Hayes has written what is considered “the bible” for union organizing in the construction industry, The Campaign Guide: Organizing the Construction Industry.
The guide offers a comprehensive and strategic approach to organizing that engages members, unrepresented workers, contractors, and secondaries withescalating actions on multiple fronts. It covers every legal aspect and offers practical tips and information for communicating with workers, staging actions, increasing turnout for events, conducting strategic research, selecting targets and much, much more. [Emphasis added.]
Hayes’ advocacy for unions doesn’t just end with writing a guide for union organizers. In one paper, he actually argued for permitting [construction] unions, during organizing campaigns, to give workers “union benefits” before they vote.
Notwithstanding the fact that workers’ voting for union representation–even in the construction trades–does not bind an employer into paying for union benefits, the permitting of unions (or employers) to bribe workers into voting for (or against) union representation is considered interfering with workers’ ability to make a free and un-coerced decision on union representation.

John Kerry Battles 2004 Version of Himself Over Why Obama is Ignoring Ineffectual U.N.

“You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain,” as it was put so eloquently in The Dark Knight. For Democrats who opposed the Iraq War after it became clear that the war was going to exceed its original timetable and was growing increasingly unpopular with the public, “long enough” has been just over a decade. On Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry became the bad guy. 
During Tuesday’s marathon Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings, Kerry became involved in a heated exchange with a fellow Democrat over the decision of President Barack Obama’s administration to ignore the United Nations in its run-up to war with Syria over that government’s use of chemical weapons on civilians.
“Doesn’t this make the United States the policeman of the world?” Kerry asked Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) rhetorically, anticipating the road-warn perennial gripe shared by all anti-interventionist Democrats that the United Nations has been sidelined in the run-up to this or the other war. “No. It makes the United States a multilateral partner in an effort that the world has accepted the responsibility for.”
Udall interrupted him: “We should be standing up and making sure that they are condemned — those countries that are not allowing us to move forward to move — to find a solution where the solution should reside,” he insisted.
Showing off his diplomatic skills, Kerry appeared to regard this incoherent expression of emotion as an inquiry meriting an honest response. He artfully shut down Udall’s aspirational sentiment by explaining in perfectly rational terms the reality of dealing with the United Nations.
Just a few weeks ago at the U.N., we saw a condemnation of a chemical attack — without blame, , without citing [Bashar al-Assad, without saying who was responsible — simply a condemnation of a chemical attack and the Russians blocked it.
He continued:
I would urge you, you said how do we know it won’t result in X or Y or Z happening if we don’t do it? let me ask you: it is not a question of what will happen if we don’t do it. It is a certainty. Are you going to be comfortable if Assad, as a result of the United States not doing anything, then gases his people yet again and the world says, ‘why didn’t the United States act?’
“History is full of opportunity of moments where someone didn’t stand up and act when it made a difference,” Kerry concluded.

Colorado Republican Rips Holder on Marijuana

Energy 002 060612 330x223 Colorado Republican Rips Holder on MarijuanaAttorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s decision not to challenge marijuana legalization laws in Colorado and Washington has one Centennial State Republican fuming.
On Tuesday, Rep. Cory Gardner of Colorado penned a pointed letter to Holder torching the DOJ’s decision, given that federal law makes possession of the drug a criminal offense.
“Do you believe the DOJ has the authority to override federal law?” Gardner asked in his correspondence with Holder. “Do you believe you have the authority to change the law without the approval of Congress?”
Gardner, as you might expect, opposed the Colorado ballot initiative last November legalizing marijuana in the state.
In the letter, he goes on to question “whether this action sets precedent to allow states to opt out of other federal laws,” and, as William Shakespeare might say, therein lies the rub: In what other case might a state want to opt out of a federal law? Obamacare, anyone?
He writes:
“The new DOJ policies seem to imply that federal authorities will not preempt state laws. Does this set precedent of other areas? For example, several states have passed laws to opt out of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, yet the federal government has consistently said it will take over health insurance industries regardless of states that contest the law. If you do not agree that there is a precedent set, would you explain the inconsistencies of why in certain areas federal law may be deemed irrelevant, but not in others?”
Via: Roll Call

Continue Reading... 

MSNBC's Sharpton Mocks O'Reilly Retraction and Questions 'Accuracy'

On Friday's PoliticsNation, MSNBC's Al Sharpton used Bill O'Reilly's recent retraction and apology to mock the FNC host by suggesting that The O'Reilly Factor generally lacks accuracy.

After a clip of O'Reilly asserting that "I know you guys watch the Factor for accuracy," Sharpton cracked:
Really? People watch The Factor for accuracy? Hmm. Sounds like another false statement that needs to be corrected.
Introducing the segment about O'Reilly correcting himself for claiming that Republicans were not invited to take part in the Martin Luther King, Jr., 50th anniversary commemoration, the MSNBC host began:
We're back with more fallout from the incredible Republican snub of the march on Washington. Today everyone is talking about a big unexpected apology.
Then came a clip of the FNC host:
Last night, during my discussion with James Carville about the Martin Luther King commemoration, I said there were no Republican speakers invited. Wrong. I was wrong. Some Republicans were asked to speak. They declined, and that was a mistake. They should have spoken. Now, the mistake entirely on me. I simply assumed that since all the speakers were liberal Democrats, Republicans were excluded.
O'Reilly added:
So here is the tip of the day. Always check out the facts before you make a definitive statement. And when you make a mistake, admit it.  By the way, I'm sorry I made that mistake. It's very annoying because I know you guys watch The Factor for accuracy.
Below is a complete transcript of the segment from the Friday, August 30, PoliticsNation on MSNBC:
AL SHARPTON: We're back with more fallout from the incredible Republican snub of the march on Washington. Today everyone is talking about a big unexpected apology.

BILL O'REILLY, FNC: Last night, during my discussion with James Carville about the Martin Luther King commemoration, I said there were no Republican speakers invited. Wrong. I was wrong. Some Republicans were asked to speak. They declined, and that was a mistake. They should have spoken.
Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading...

Unions to Get Yet Another Obamacare Break?

The White House is about to give its union masters another special dispensation from the law.
One of the most predictable features of American politics is the biannual blackmail to which the Democrats are subjected by their union bosses. Knowing that “the Party of Jefferson and Jackson” cannot survive without their support, union goons like Richard Trumka usually start the process by complaining about some law that allegedly hurts workers. Then, after a month or two of bombast and bluster, we find that their definition of “worker” is actually “union member” and that they want the Democrats to grant them a special dispensation from the offending law. This is how the infamous Obamacare waiver program was hatched.
Thus, when news reports began appearing a few months ago about union dissatisfaction with Obamacare, it was hardly necessary to consult the Delphic Oracle to know that Trumka, et al., would soon demand a new concession relating to the health care law in return for union support in the 2014 midterms. And, sure enough, the bosses eventually made it known that they want the Obama administration to give their unions special subsidies to which they are not entitled under the “Affordable Care Act.” This concession, which the President has no authority to grant, would provide union members with a double subsidy.
Union members already receive one subsidy, the tax break they get with their employer-based coverage. The new union demand involves multi-employer plans, agreements that unions have negotiated with entire industries rather than specific employers. According to this memorandum from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), such plans can’t be made available through Obamacare’s insurance exchanges. Consequently, union members enrolled in multi-employer plans are not eligible for subsidies offered by those exchanges. The union bosses want this changed so their members can receive a second subsidy.

Congressional Republicans: Hail Ceaser!

UscapitolindaylightOne of American conservatism's leading thinkers, James Ceaser of the University of Virginia, weighs inon "To authorize or not to authorize:" 
Republicans should support some version of the authorization of force resolution. They should do so even if they think that the President’s policy will prove ineffective, do no good, waste money, or entail unforeseen risks; they should do so even if they think he has gotten the nation into this situation by blunders, fecklessness, arrogance, or naiveté; and they should so even if, and especially, if they have no confidence in his judgment. The simple fact is that the nation and our allies will be at further risk if the world sees a presidency that is weakened and that has no credibility to act. Partisans may be tempted to see such a result as condign punishment for the President’s misjudgments; they may feel that he deserves to pay the price for his hypocrisy and cheap and demagogic attacks on his predecessor. But at the end of the day, Republicans need to rise above such temptations; the stakes are too high. The weaker the president’s credibility on the world scene, the more the need to swallow and do what will not weaken it further. President Obama is the only president we have. That remains the overriding fact.
And there is the important matter of the future–a future that may one day have a Republican in the presidency. The precedent of setting too low a threshold for blocking presidential initiative in foreign affairs is unwise. Of course Congress has the right, even the obligation, to stop action that member of the legislature believe would be disastrous. But short of that, it is wiser to maintain a good deal of discretion in the presidency. In the case at hand, all of the hyperbole about war aside, the real objection is that the President’s policy will prove to be ineffective or humiliating, not disastrous. That is not sufficient reason to weaken the discretion of the president or open the door next time to more gratuitous partisanship by the Democrats....
Republican who vote for an authorization of force resolution do not have to endorse the wisdom of the President’s policy. They can make clear their doubts and state their objections. They can make known that they are supporting the presidency and presidential credibility, not necessarily the wisdom of the policy. They can say that they are acting in a constitutional spirit, exercising the kind of judgment that is appropriate to the legislature in foreign policy, and no more. They can sign on to the president’s discretion to act without signing on to his actions. 

Via: The Weekly Standard

Continue Reading...

Los Angeles: 'Fracking' moratorium proposed by two L.A. City Council members

Anti-fracking activists rally in Washington. Two L.A. councilmen are proposing a moratorium on fracking.Los Angeles City Council members Paul Koretz and Mike Bonin are calling for a moratorium on the practice of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” which is used by energy companies to extract hard-to-reach oil.
In a prepared statement Tuesday, the councilmen called fracking and its related processes a “major threat” to the city’s local water supply, air quality and private property. During fracking, oil companies add a chemical mix to pressurized water to improve oil and gas production in wells.
A similar process, called acidization, uses hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids to break down shale formations covering potential oil reserves. Koretz and Bonin have called a Wednesday press conference to announce their support for a moratorium.
They will be joined by representatives of consumer and environmental groups, including the Los Angeles chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility and Citizens Coalition for a Safe Community.
Critics say the drilling techniques carry risks because chemicals could leach from wells into nearby water supplies. Oil companies say the processes have been used for decades without problems and are safe. Any action to ban the extraction methods would have to go through committee reviews, public hearings and a vote by the full council.
The council Tuesday voted unanimously to back a state legislative proposal, authored by Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), that would for the first time impose a regulatory framework on so-called well-stimulation processes.  
Pavley’s bill has been controversial because it would require oil companies to disclose the precise mix of chemicals used in fracking and acidization, something the industry has resisted. Four previous attempts to ban or impose a moratorium on fracking at the state level have failed.
Councilman Bernard C. Parks introduced a separate motion Tuesday that would direct the Planning Department and other City Hall officials to establish land use regulations and zoning laws that would “ensure public health and safety is protected from the negative impacts of fracking activities.” His motion will go to committee for review.

Big Mac Under Attack

The Left’s hatred of McDonald’s knows no bounds. 

How do some on the left hate McDonald’s? Let us count the ways.
In 2004 a little-known filmmaker named Morgan Spurlock decided to stuff his face with McDonald’s food all day, every day, for 30 days, and capture it all on film. What happened? Surprise of surprises, Spurlock gained weight — 24 pounds, to be precise. His cholesterol level shot up to 230, and he experienced severe mood swings. He also confessed that he experienced sexual dysfunction.

Did he think eating Big Macs all day would spice up his sex life and lubricate his libido?

Why did Spurlock choose McDonald’s to make his tedious point that eating fast food for a month — while choosing not to exercise during that same period — would be bad for his health? Why didn’t he choose to eat Denny’s Grand Slam Breakfasts all day? Or Jimmy John’s subs? Or Sabrett’s hot dogs from New York City street vendors?

Because that would have made Spurlock weird, as opposed to just plain opportunistic.
And why did Spurlock choose to eat all the really fattening stuff on the McDonald’s menu, and not the good stuff? He could have eaten salads and only salads, with Diet Cokes and water if he’d cared to. And dropped weight, and his cholesterol too, if he walked a mile or two every day.

But Spurlock wasn’t interested in promoting good dieting or health. He was too busy promoting himself.



Which Media Figures Do Members of Congress Follow on Twitter?

When you examine the “two-way street” of Twitter, as New York Magazine’Dan Amira has done with an in-depth feature for the Daily Intelligencer blog, you can discover some interesting things about who has the most influence over the U.S. Congress. With 97% of Congress officially on Twitter, Amira and his team looked at who members of congress are most likely to follow.
The most intriguing results for our purposes come in the section titled “Most Following Journalists/Politicians.” The full results of that survey are below, via NYMag:

Via: Mediaite.com

Continue Reading....

Classroom chaos? Critics blast new Common Core education standards

high school classroom istock.jpgA full year before students around the nation submit to the new Common Core standardized tests, the federally-backed program is already causing chaos and confusion at local school board meetings, in the classroom and at the dinner table.

As critics fear Washington is poised to take control of what and how local districts teach kids, school administrators are adopting new curriculum in an effort to ensure their students outperform their peers and parents worry that their children are being used as academic guinea pigs. As the program gets closer to full implementation, a full-blown backlash is developing despite assurances from supporters that it is merely a test aimed at establishing a national standard.
“Common Core is forcing districts to re-think math curriculum. And in cases like ours, they are making poor decisions.”
- Kelly Crisp, parent from Fairfield, Conn.

“It’s just now reaching their school districts and their children’s schools and they want to know, ‘What is this, and why is it being forced on us?’” said the Cato Institute’s Neil McCluskey.

When 90 percent of states signed on to subject K-12 students to the Common Core math and English standards being pushed by the federal government, the program looked like an unqualified success. Kids around the nation would be tested once a year in grades 3-8 in math and English language arts, and once in high school, either in the 10th or 11th grades. Finally, students throughout the country could be measured by the same yardstick, long before taking college entrance exams. Local districts that excelled at educating children could be singled out, and ones who lagged could also be identified in order to address problems.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

SENATE REWRITE spells out limits for Syria attack -- LITTLE MARGIN for Dem. defections -- SUCCESSFUL FIGHT could bolster Obama power, popularity -- ADAM ERELI to Mercury -- BRIAN STELTER b'day

COUNTING THE VOTES – “New Senate Syria plan limits President Obama,” by John Bresnahan, with Jonathan Allen and Reid J. Epstein: “Senate leaders are working on a revised resolution authorizing U.S. strikes in Syria that puts President Obama on a short leash … But whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can find the 60 votes he will need to overcome an expected filibuster of the new Syria proposal is still far from clear. Aides to Reid and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) have set aside a proposed Syria resolution submitted by the White House on Saturday night. That draft resolution — developed without congressional input — is seen as far too broad … Some of the options being considered … include a 60-day period for Obama to launch ‘narrow, limited’ strikes against Assad’s regime with the potential for a 30-day extension … Language barring the insertion of U.S. ground troops — but crafted to allow special forces operations or the rescue of a downed American flier, for instance — is also being considered … And Obama would be prohibited from making the toppling of Assad’s government the goal of any U.S. military effort in Syria …
“The revisions are designed to win broad bipartisan backing from senators who are on the fence over whether to back a Syria campaign … While the revised resolution has not been shared with them yet, White House aides say they are willing to work with Congress and believe it is likely that the edits … are the kind of changes that the president will be able to live with. … Since Obama is going to Congress with a resolution authorizing the use of military force in Syria rather than ordering military strikes first and then informing Congress, as required under the War Powers Act, the use-of-force proposal will be fully debatable and amendable. Under the War Powers Act, a use-of-force resolution would face only limited debate and require a simple majority vote. The revised proposal can be filibustered by those opposed to any U.S. involvement in Syria’s two-year-old civil war, meaning Reid will need 60 votes to overcome opposition to the measure.

Baltimore Ravens to aid Obamacare enrollment effort in Maryland

President Obama is pictured with Super Bowl champions, the Baltimore Ravens at the White House. | AP PhotoThe NFL may have spiked the White House’s request for Obamacare PR help — but the Super Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens just called an audible.

The team has signed onto efforts to market the health law to Marylanders, according to an announcement from Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown and officials running the state’s Obamacare insurance exchange, known as Maryland Health Connection.

“Research shows that 71 percent of the uninsured population in Maryland have watched, attended or listened to a Ravens game in the past 12 months,” the announcement said. “The partnership will provide Maryland Health Connection with the opportunity to reach and engage fans while making them aware of the new opportunity they have for health coverage beginning this fall through the health insurance marketplace.”


A Ravens spokesman said the team would reveal more details on Wednesday, after a conference call to discuss its role. According to the Maryland Health Connection, the team is expected to assist during a six-month enrollment period that begins on Oct. 1, a few weeks into the start of the NFL season. The partnership is intended “to connect with Maryland residents about the importance of developing a health coverage game plan.

In Maryland, the partnership with the Ravens is one facet of a broader enrollment effort, which also includes a social media campaign and partnerships with CVS and Giant Food. The stores will provide shoppers with information about coverage.

The White House’s overtures to professional sports leagues have largely gone unheeded, leaving it to individual teams and players to decide whether to partner with their states’ exchanges. The NFL was among the sports leagues that Republican lawmakers warned against participating in Obamacare outreach efforts, and the league responded by insisting it had no plans to do so.

Via: Politico


Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Wasserman Schultz Pushes For Attack On Syria: "As A Jew...The Concept Of Never Again Has To Mean Something"

Rep. Debbie Wasserman SchultzAppearing on CNN Monday night, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz justified an attack on Syria as moral, because “as a Jew … the concept of never again has to mean something.”

Wolf Blitzer asked the Florida Democrat what President Obama’s next move would be if Congress were to reject a strike on President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.


“Well, I feel confident that our colleagues, my colleagues both on the Republican side of the aisle as well as the Democratic side of the aisle are not going to jeopardize the credibility of the United States,” Mrs. Wasserman Schultz said.

“For me as a mother, to see that searing image of babies lined up, murdered by their own government, innocent children,” she continued. “I mean, as a Jew, Wolf, I have to tell you, as a member of Congress who represents one of the largest Holocaust survivor populations in the country, to me, the concept of never again, has to mean something. And the United States, morally, cannot turn the other cheek. Too many leaders of ours have regretted that decision.”
House leaders from both side of the aisle said Tuesday they’ll back President Obama’s plan for military strikes against Assad.
Via: Washington Times

Continue Reading....

Popular Posts