Before I get to the new article from the New York Times, I’d like to point out a few other things from the past.
In front of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Obama administration argued that Obamacare’s employer mandate is a tax.
This particular Obamacare tax only applies to “full time” jobs, which Obamacare defines as 30 or more hours per week.
So, Obamacare is a tax on full time employment.
Everyone knows that whatever you tax, you get less of. For example, after Obama increased the cigarette tax by 61 cents per pack in 2009, John Seffrin, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society, said:
“Raising the price of tobacco products is one of the most effective approaches to encouraging people to quit and preventing kids from picking up the deadly habit in the first place.”
In July 2013, leaders of the Teamsters, UFCW, and UNITE-HERE, all of whom endorsed Obama in both elections, sent a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi which said that Obamacare will
“destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class… the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation.”
Now, The New York Times, which also endorsed Obama in both elections, is reporting:
Public Sector Cuts Part-Time Shifts to Bypass Insurance Law
Cities, counties, public schools and community colleges around the country have limited or reduced the work hours of part-time employees to avoid having to provide them with health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, state and local officials say.
Among those whose hours have been restricted in recent months are police dispatchers, prison guards, substitute teachers, bus drivers, athletic coaches, school custodians, cafeteria workers and part-time professors.
In Medina, Ohio, about 30 miles south of Cleveland, Mayor Dennis Hanwell said the city had lowered the limit for part-time employees to 29 hours a week, from 35. Workers’ wages were reduced accordingly, he said.
Lawrence County, in western Pennsylvania, reduced the limit for part-time employees to 28 hours a week, from 32. Dan Vogler, the Republican chairman of the county Board of Commissioners, said the cuts affected prison guards and emergency service personnel at the county’s 911 call center.
In Virginia, part-time state employees are generally not allowed to work more than 29 hours a week on average over a 12-month period. Thousands of part-time state employees had been working more than that
To hold down the work hours of school bus drivers, Vigo County has reduced field trips for children and cut back transportation to athletic events. School employees who had two part-time jobs totaling more than 30 hours a week — for example, bus driver and basketball coach — were required to give up one of the jobs.
The Obama administration says “there is absolutely no evidence” of any job loss related to the Affordable Care Act.
The American Federation of Teachers lists on its website three dozen public colleges and universities in 15 states that it says have restricted the work assignments of adjunct or part-time faculty members to avoid the cost of providing health insurance.
The University of Akron, in Ohio, has cut back the hours of 400 part-time faculty members who were teaching more than 29 hours a week, said Eileen Korey, a spokeswoman for the school.
Obama administration falsely says “there is absolutely no evidence” of any job loss related to Obamacare
The New York Times recently reported:
The Obama administration says “there is absolutely no evidence” of any job loss related to the Affordable Care Act.
Obama is lying.
In November 2012, in response to the Obamacare’s medical device tax, some medical device manufacturers announced plans to layoff employees, including Welch Allyn (275 planned layoffs), Stryker (1,170 planned layoffs), and Medtronic (1,000 planned layoffs).
In December 2012, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, John Kerry, and 15 other Democratic hypocrites who supported the passage of Obamacare wrote a letter to Harry Reid, asking him to delay the tax on medical devices, claiming that the tax would hurt job creation in their districts.
But now Obama is claiming that those layoffs never happened.
Note that Franken, Warren, Kerry, and those other hypocrite Democrats aren’t worried about job losses for the country in general. Instead, their only concern is the job losses in their own districts. Meanwhile, conservatives and libertarians are worried about Obamacare causing job losses in the entire country. This is why conservatives and libertarians want Obamacare to be repealed, whereas those Democrats support Obamacare, but want waivers for their own special interests. What hypocrites.
Among those who signed that letter, Elizabeth Warren especially deserves to be called out, because liberals have been saying that she is different than other politicians, that she doesn’t cater to corporations – and yet here she is, trying to get a special exemption for those very same corporations. In reality, it seems that Warren is just as much of a corporate stooge as any other politician.
Obama knows what whatever you tax, you get less of, which is precisely why he raised the cigarette tax in 2009. So surely, he knew that creating a medical device tax would destroy jobs in the medical device industry. And yet he falsely claims that no jobs were lost.
I’m not surprised that Obama made this false claim about there being no job losses due to Obamacare – the list of Obama’s lies keeps getting bigger and bigger.
Obama plans to illegally put government bureaucrats inside TV stations and newspaper offices to monitor their activities
Ajit Pai, a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, recently wrote the following in the Wall St. Journal:
Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run.
… the FCC’s queries may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore. They would be out of business without an FCC license…
… why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?
The Washington Examiner recently wrote:
The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” But under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission is planning to send government contractors into the nation’s newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public’s “critical information needs.” Those “needs” will be defined by the administration, and news outlets that do not comply with the government’s standards could face an uncertain future. It’s hard to imagine a project more at odds with the First Amendment.
If the FCC goes forward, it’s not clear what will happen to news organizations that fall short of the new government standards. Perhaps they will be disciplined. Or perhaps the very threat of investigating their methods will nudge them into compliance with the administration’s journalistic agenda. What is sure is that it will be a gross violation of constitutional rights.
These are my favorite movies of all time. This list is arranged in order of preference, starting with my #1 favorite:
In the past 20 years, the state of California has seized $978.5 million worth of assets from the estates of medicaid recipients.
Obamacare requires everyone in the U.S. whose income is less than 138% of the poverty level to enroll in medicaid.
Based on those two pieces of information, it seems likely that Obamacare will result in the homes of quite a few poor people being seized by the government.
The Los Angeles Times reports:
One thing the ACA didn’t change was Medicaid’s estate recovery rule. Under a law enacted in 1993, states are required to seek recovery from the estates of deceased enrollees for the costs of long-term care, such as nursing-home care. The recovery rule applied to those who received that care when they were 55 and older, or who were permanently institutionalized at any age.
Medicaid eligibility for the expanded programs is based on income alone, which means there might be some new members with low incomes but sizable illiquid estates, such as homes worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The prospect of asset seizures raises people’s hackles, especially since under the Affordable Care Act, those earning less than 138% of the poverty level may be offered no choice for subsidized health insurance except Medicaid.
On the whole, the estate recovery program hasn’t been a big moneymaker for government at any level. Since 1993, California has collected $978.5 million
MSNBC just published this article titled “Obama keeps promise to young men of color.”
The article states:
President Obama is expected to launch his most focused efforts to address the dire prospects of young men of color this week, a demographic far too often swept into cycles of poverty and the school-to-prison pipeline.
Obama will unveil details of a new initiative called “My Brother’s Keeper” on Thursday, which will draw on partnerships with foundations and businesses to target young men of color across the country with a range of opportunities and strategies to help bolster their lives.
The article includes the following poll:
The poll asks the following question, and includes the following three options as an answer:
What are your expectations for Obama’s “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative?
It will make a difference.
Its success will depend on young men’s initiative.
All of those options are either positive or neutral.
There is no option for people who think that Obama’s proposal won’t do any good, or who think that it will cause more harm than good.
CBS News recently reported that Obamacare has caused sick children in Seattle, Washington, to lose access to doctors.
In the report, Dr. Sandy Melzer said:
“The exclusion of a major provider like Seattle Children’s from a major insurance network in this market is unprecedented… We’re seeing denials in care, disruptions in care. We’re seeing a great deal of confusion, and at times, anger and frustration on the part of these families who bought insurance, thinking that their children were going to be covered, and they’ve in fact found that it’s a false promise.”
Like many of his other changes to Obamacare, Obama made this change without it being being approved by Congress, which is illegal.
The New York Times reports:
The “employer mandate,” which was originally supposed to take effect last month, had already been delayed to Jan. 1, 2015, and now the administration says that employers with 50 to 99 employees will not have to comply until 2016 — allowing Democrats to placate business concerns and pushing the issue well beyond this year’s midterm elections.
In addition, the administration said the requirement would be put into effect gradually for employers with 100 or more employees. Employers in this category will need to offer coverage to 70 percent of full-time employees in 2015 and 95 percent in 2016 and later years, or they will be subject to tax penalties.
Obama is a graduate of Harvard law school. In addition, he taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Clearly, he must know that this change to Obamacare, as well as the others that he made without approval from Congress, are a violation of the Presidential oath that he took. And yet he made these changes anyway. His actions are grounds for impeachment.
If the next Republican president decided, without approval from Congress, to give everyone a permanent waiver from Obamacare, how could Democrats seriously argue against it, when they never criticized Obama for repeatedly changing Obamacare without approval from Congress?
As I’ve explained in this 40,000+ word post, I am no fan of President Obama. So when I recently read this article where Michelle Obama praised the recent movie “The Inevitable Defeat of Mister & Pete,” I was expecting it to be left wing propaganda.
Boy, was I wrong.
Having just watched the movie, I was pleasantly surprised to see that it is heavily critical of heroin use, prostitution, and child molestation, and that it portrays education and work in a positive light. There’s even a scene that praises a big chain, corporate supermarket as being far superior to a mom and pop grocery store.
The two lead characters are boys named Mister and Pete, who are ages 13 and 10, respectively.
Mister’s mother is a heroin addicted prostitute. One day, Mister goes to the store, buys a newspaper, brings it home, circles a bunch of help wanted ads, and shows it to his mother. He tells her that he circled the ones that she’s qualified for, and that they probably wouldn’t care about background checks. She objects, saying that those jobs are beneath her.
The point of this scene is that any legal, legitimate job, even one with low wages, is deserving of respect. Her rejection of such jobs is portrayed in a negative light. The fact that she’d rather work as a prostitute is seen through the eyes of her son as being very sad.
In the real world, the radical left hates big chain supermarkets. For example, in Chicago, radical leftist activists prevented Wal-Mart from opening a new supermarket. So, Wal-Mart opened the new supermarket one block outside the city. 24,500 people applied for the store’s 325 job openings, and 98% of them listed Chicago as their address. Clearly, these radical leftist activists do not care about those people who applied to work at Wal-Mart, or about the people who are now happily choosing to shop there. These radical leftists are acting against the interests of the people who live in Chicago.
By contract, “The Inevitable Defeat of Mister & Pete” portrays a big chain supermarket in a very positive light. In the movie, the local mom and pop grocery store has rotting fruit, and is run a guy who falsely accuses Mister of being a thief. By contrast, the big chain supermarket in the movie is shown to have an abundance of high quality food, and the employee that Mister talks with is quite friendly toward him.
In real life, a movie director named Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. More than 100 people in the film industry, including Woody Allen, Terry Gilliam, John Landis, David Lynch, and Martin Scorsese, signed a petition calling for Polanski to be released from jail. This is sick, filthy, and disgusting.
By contrast, the child molestor in “The Inevitable Defeat of Mister & Pete” is portrayed in a very negative light. The devastating effects that molestation has on its victim, Pete, is revealed several times in the movie when Pete seems to have an obsession with “privacy.”
My point here is that conservatives and libertarians should not dismiss this movie just because it was praised by Michelle Obama. This is an excellent film, and it deserves to be seen.
Uh oh. Too many white students are succeeding. That can’t be tolerated. Better cancel the gifted program, and bring these students down to the lowest common denominator. Who needs doctors, scientists, and engineers anyway?
The Washington Times reports:
NYC school cuts popular gifted program over lack of diversity
A popular gifted-student program at a New York City elementary school is getting the ax after school officials decided it lacked diversity.
PS 139 Principal Mary McDonald told parents in a letter Jan. 24 that Students of Academic Rigor, or SOAR, would no longer accept applications for incoming kindergartners, the New York Daily Newsreported.
“Our Kindergarten classes will be heterogeneously grouped to reflect the diversity of our student body and the community we live in,” Miss McDonald said in the letter posted on Flickr.com.
At least one parent described SOAR as largely white, while others disagreed, the report said.
One mother conceded the program did have a lot of white students, but worried gifted students now won’t be challenged enough.
“Where are they going to put the higher-level students? Sometimes, there are different levels, and teachers can’t handle all the levels in one class,” she told the Daily News.
In a follow-up letter sent to parents Monday, Miss McDonald wrote: “At PS 193, we believe that all children can learn and achieve high standards. We also know that we want all children at PS 193 to have equal access to high quality, challenging curriculum, and to have ample opportunities to master complex material and build academic and personal self-confidence. We also want our classes to reflect the diversity of our community. We believe we can have both: classrooms characterized by rigor and diversity.”
Israel has made the choice to turn its water shortages into surpluses by building lots of desalination plants. Desalination costs less than 40 cents per cubic meter, which is less than 1/6 penny per gallon. It’s so cheap that in addition to using desalinized water for residential uses, Israel also uses it for agriculture.
Meanwhile, California has chosen to have water shortages instead of building enough desalination plants.
Why did California make this choice?