Saturday, February 22, 2014

Michigan Democrat Rep. Gary Peters threatens TV station licenses over Obamacare ad

While Julie Boonstra of Dexter, Mich., struggles to survive leukemia, she now also has to cope with being called a liar by the Democrat who wants to be her next senator.
And the campaign of Rep. Gary Peters is also going after television stations airing ads in which her story is featured, threatening their licenses.
The ad by Americans for Prosperity features Boonstra talking about how her insurance was canceled under Obamacare and saying that Peters' decision to vote for the law "jeopardized my health." The ads are airing in Michigan as Peters seeks the Democratic nomination to replace Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who is not seeking re-election.
Media organizations investigating the ad's claims note that Boonstra was able to find comparable new insurance under the law; the Washington Post's "Fact Checker" blog gave the ad "two Pinocchios" (as compared to four for President Obama's claim that people could keep their insurance under the law).
But Boonstra, in response, told the local Dexter Leader newspaper that though she has no idea whether she will break even with her new plan, as the fact-checkers claim, the uncertainty of having to restructure her health care while coping with a deadly disease is damage enough.
"People are asking me for the numbers and I don't know those answers -- that's the heartbreak of all of this. It's the uncertainty of not having those numbers that I have an issue with, because I always knew what I was paying and now I don't, and I haven't gone through the tests or seen my specialist yet," she said.
"People don't have that certainty -- they don't have the stability of knowing every month what they're going to be paying now and it's the ability to actually have that sum of money to pay. People don't have these out-of -pocket expense moneys."

With voters still skeptical, dozens of Democrats inch away from Obamacare

 —
Mark Kentley is the kind of voter who will help decide the short-term political verdict on the new health care law known as Obamacare.
A 27-year-old who studies business administration while working at the College of the Desert, he’s swung back and forth between the Democrats and the Republicans in the last two presidential elections. Now, he sits right in the middle of one of the most contested seats for the House of Representatives, and his dislike of the law will be a major factor in deciding who gets his vote this fall.
He resents that the government is forcing him to buy health insurance he doesn’t want. “They’re trying to reinvent the wheel,” he complained during a break at the student union.
What he and others like him decide will determine whether the Democrats ride out the storm of mistakes and protests over the new Affordable Care Act or whether the Republicans ride that to another wave of gains in the House, as they did in 2010 when they seized control.
The House district around Palm Springs is one of three in California that the Democrats could lose this fall. And the trend reaches to all corners of the country. For Democrats running for Congress in dozens of districts, the Affordable Care Act they once boasted about is one of the largest obstacles to their re-election bids in November.
In 2010, Democrats ignored the slew of attacks on the health care law only to lose more than 60 seats – and their majority – in the House and six seats in the Senate. Now they’re switching strategies, casting themselves as crusaders out to repair a broken law.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/02/20/218707/with-voters-still-skeptical-dozens.html#storylink=cpy

[VIDEO] "Named one of the Top Scams of 2013" Who Loves Obamacare? Con Artists

Obamacare has been named one of the top scams of 2013.
Scammers are using “uncertainty” over Obamacare to trick Americans into giving them personal information, according to the Better Business Bureau.
Scammers call Americans and pretend to be government workers. The scammers then lie to the victims, telling them that they need a new Medicare or health insurance card. The Do Not Call list, Facebook, foreign currency, medical alerts, and online auctions are all ways that scammers are tricking Americans.

FCC backs off newsroom study

The Federal Communications Commission will amend a proposed study of newsrooms in South Carolina after outcry over what some called "invasive questions," the commission's chairman said Friday.
The survey was meant to study how and if the media is meeting the public's “critical information needs” on subjects like public health, politics, transportation and the environment. Now, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said questions about news philosophy and editorial judgment will be removed from the survey and media owners and reporters will no longer be questioned.
The uproar caught on fire after one of the Republican commissioners, Ajit Pai, penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last week blasting the survey and saying the government had no place in newsrooms. The FCC is required by law to conduct media studies.
"Any suggestion the Commission intends to regulate the speech of news media is false," FCC spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said Friday in a statement, adding that a revised study will be released within the next few weeks. Additionally, she said media owners and journalists will no longer be asked to participate in the pilot study.
"Any subsequent market studies conducted by the FCC, if determined necessary, will not seek participation from or include questions for media owners, news directors or reporters," she said. 

Christine O’Donnell: I was a victim of the IRS

Whether Democrat or Republican, do you really want your private tax information leaked with impunity?
On March 9, 2010, around 10 a.m., I announced my plans to run for senate representing Delaware.
Later that same day, my office received a call from a reporter asking about my taxes.
It’s since come out, after a halting and unenthusiastic investigation, that a Delaware Department of Revenue employee named David Smith accessed my records that day at approximately 2 p.m. — out of curiosity, he says.
That these records ended up in the hands of the press is just a coincidence, the IRS claims.
To add insult to injury, the tax records given to the reporters weren’t even accurate. I had never fallen behind on my taxes, and a supposed tax lien was on a house I no longer owned.
The lien was highly publicized and used as political ammunition by my political opponents. The IRS later withdrew the lien and blamed it on a computer glitch but, at that point, the damage — and the invasion of my privacy — was done.
I wasn’t the only one preyed upon by the IRS, of course. The agency admits to targeting conservative nonprofits, asking them for membership lists and other data not required while delaying their tax-exempt status. And opponents of President Obama have been subjected to audits soon after criticizing the administration.

Jerry Brown’s fake surplus

Liberal award-winning economist Paul Krugman and the front pages of the New York Times just crow about the “California miracle” and “California renaissance” that Governor Jerry Brown and the liberal Democrats in control in Sacramento have ushered into the state, by raising taxes to sky high levels, the highest state sales, income, and gas taxes at the pump, to achieve a modest “surplus” of a few billion dollars in the state budget.
Liberals in the national media love this narrative of California getting to a “surplus” because they are so desperate to find success in their job and wealth killing high tax policies.  They seem to ignore that under the same policies, the state maintains the third highest unemployment rate in the nation, and now for the second year in a row according to the Census Bureau, California is the poorest state in the nation.
But setting California’s high poverty and unemployment rates aside, the reality is there is no surplus in the California state budget.  Rather, California is playing a deceptive game with how it presents its finances to the public, because the accounting does not include disclosure of the massive debt obligations to the state’s two public employee pension funds: CalPERS, which is the retirement fund for state employees; and Cal STRS, which is the pension plan for teachers in the state.  As a result of unreasonably generous defined benefits plans, bad investments, and unsound investment revenue forecasts, these pension funds are underfunded by over $100 billion each, and California’s so-called “surplus” of less than $5 billion hardly cracks these looming, monster debt obligations of the state.
If just the CalSTRS obligations were properly included in the state’s annual financial accounting, California would not have a budget surplus, rather, the budget disclosures would reveal a state deeply in debt.  This is because California is legally obligated to fund the pension plan.  For every dollar of pay, the state must contribute 5% of teacher salary to the CalSTRS pension fund, even though the teachers do not work for the state.  Local school districts contribute 8 1/4% of pay, and the teacher employee contributes 8% of pay to the pension fund.  But even with those three sources of funds coming into the pension fund, CalSTRS staff reported last week that the agency’s “net pension liability” is now a whopping $166.9 billion.  This net pension liability greatly exceeds generally accepted levels of pension liabilities for financial health of the fund, because of the generous defined benefit payments the plan will be required to make in future.  As a result of the new calculations, school districts, and the state, will likely be asked to increase their contributions to the plan to reduce the liability to lower levels.  In doing so, local agencies will be forced to cut programs and seek more taxpayer revenue, as well as the state.  Taxpayers will be tapped yet again to pay for bad public employee pension decisions made by liberal Democrats.
It is true that some part of the $166.9 billion “net pension liability” of CalSTRS, if not all of it, should be attributed to California’s books of account.  If California has a legal obligation to fund the CalSTRS pension system, shouldn’t any debt obligations to the system show up on California’s annual financial statements?  Of course they should, and right-thinking members of the Legislature ought to push for more transparency and disclosure of such obligations.  Doing so would of course erase the so-called state “surplus” but it would also offer a more accurate picture of California’s finances, which is not happening under the current rules.
And it is equally clear that public employee defined benefits packages are no longer tolerable financially in California, as liberal Democrats have pushed the benefits so far beyond the reasonable that public institutions, including local governments, are facing drastic reductions in local services and even bankruptcy to keep pace with their expensive pension debt obligations.  Yes, our public employee system needs reform across the board.  But one important reform that needs more discussion, is California stopping the charade of having a “surplus,” and rightfully placing all its own obligations on its public books of account, including public employee pension debt.
James V. Lacy is publisher of California Political Review and author of “Taxifornia: Liberals Laboratory to Bankrupt America,” a Politico.com top seller available at Amazon.com.

Popular Posts