Bend Over And Take It: How Government Regulations Destroy Jobs And Kill The Economy
_If the Crooks and Theives in government enjoy regulating your
personal behavior, they are absolutely giddy when it comes to regulating
business. When I was living in NJ a few years back, I knew a woman
who worked in a beauty salon as a shampoo girl. She explained to me
that her job was in jeopardy because the state passed a new law
requiring her to have a license. To shampoo hair? That's ridiculous, I
thought. What do you need to do in order get such a permit, I asked.
She told me that she had to go to hundreds of hours of classes, pass a
test and pay a huge fee. To shampoo hair? Really? I can
understand the need for people who do perms and coloring and to pass an
exam before they can use dangerous chemicals on someone else's head,
but I've never heard of someone being hurt having their hair shampooed
and conditioned. The whole thing seemed stupid to me, but then this was
government we were talking about, so I shouldn't have been too
surprised. Stupid is as stupid does.
Unfortunately, my friend isn't alone in her situation. It turns out that today, seemingly everything must be licensed:
Unfortunately, my friend isn't alone in her situation. It turns out that today, seemingly everything must be licensed:
Is it really possible that it has been deemed necessary by the busybodies in government that we go from one in twenty occupations where a license was required to one in three? How crazy is that? Is it possible that hair braiders and shampoo girls are such a threat to the public safety that they need to be licensed? Give me a break~ Well, if you thought those stories were crazy examples of government control taken to the point of absurdity, check this out:
2=====================================================================================================
I’ll share another personal example of the insanity that is our modern government. When we lived in NJ the department of the Treasury said that when my wife created a mural she was producing an actual object of art and therefore it was subject to sales tax. However, the department of Labor said that, no, she was merely a house painter because she was basically just applying paint to walls (which is not subject to sales tax) and therefore she needed a license from the state to be a contractor. I was on the phone with both departments for two years and I could not get them to agree. So, I got screwed both ways. I had to charge the sales tax (which meant I got less money and my customers paid more) and I had to pay New Jersey their exorbitant fees every year to maintain her contractor’s license. After a while, I stopped doing business in the state entirely and they got zip from us for the license and for taxes. Eventually, I just fled the state and its regulatory insanity entirely.
If you ask most people, they are totally ok with all of these regulations because they figure that it keeps them safer and it doesn't affect them in an adverse way. What they don't realize is that every regulation on business causes that organization to spend money to comply with it and that money is passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Also, all of these mandates must be enforced and monitored and that requires the hiring of local, state and federal employees which also costs lots of money in the form of salaries and benefits. All of those costs add up to a hidden tax increase on everyone rich and poor regardless of ability to pay. It is the most regressive tax imaginable.
Unfortunately, despite the cost to businesses and consumers, the Crooks and Thieves love to keep perpetuating this little regulatory game because it is the ultimate vehicle for getting special interest campaign cash. Propose a rule that prohibits someone from arranging flowers without a license and you'll get tons of money from established floral companies looking to cut off their competition. The politicians make out great, the entrenched businesses corner the market and the consumer gets screwed in the form of higher prices and lower quality and selection. The more regulations the Crooks and Thieves come up with, the more campaign cash they can extract to either promote or oppose the law. Not only that, if you are a Democrat, the more things you regulate the more government employees have to be hired to enforce the laws which means the more people who are dependent on government for their livelihoods and the more mandatory dues that their unions funnel into the politicians' campaign piggy banks. Take a look at this chart:
I’ll share another personal example of the insanity that is our modern government. When we lived in NJ the department of the Treasury said that when my wife created a mural she was producing an actual object of art and therefore it was subject to sales tax. However, the department of Labor said that, no, she was merely a house painter because she was basically just applying paint to walls (which is not subject to sales tax) and therefore she needed a license from the state to be a contractor. I was on the phone with both departments for two years and I could not get them to agree. So, I got screwed both ways. I had to charge the sales tax (which meant I got less money and my customers paid more) and I had to pay New Jersey their exorbitant fees every year to maintain her contractor’s license. After a while, I stopped doing business in the state entirely and they got zip from us for the license and for taxes. Eventually, I just fled the state and its regulatory insanity entirely.
If you ask most people, they are totally ok with all of these regulations because they figure that it keeps them safer and it doesn't affect them in an adverse way. What they don't realize is that every regulation on business causes that organization to spend money to comply with it and that money is passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Also, all of these mandates must be enforced and monitored and that requires the hiring of local, state and federal employees which also costs lots of money in the form of salaries and benefits. All of those costs add up to a hidden tax increase on everyone rich and poor regardless of ability to pay. It is the most regressive tax imaginable.
Unfortunately, despite the cost to businesses and consumers, the Crooks and Thieves love to keep perpetuating this little regulatory game because it is the ultimate vehicle for getting special interest campaign cash. Propose a rule that prohibits someone from arranging flowers without a license and you'll get tons of money from established floral companies looking to cut off their competition. The politicians make out great, the entrenched businesses corner the market and the consumer gets screwed in the form of higher prices and lower quality and selection. The more regulations the Crooks and Thieves come up with, the more campaign cash they can extract to either promote or oppose the law. Not only that, if you are a Democrat, the more things you regulate the more government employees have to be hired to enforce the laws which means the more people who are dependent on government for their livelihoods and the more mandatory dues that their unions funnel into the politicians' campaign piggy banks. Take a look at this chart:
That's a lot of jobs. A lot of union jobs! And that means tons of dues money for Democrats. In fact, the EPA is talking about hiring 132,000 dues paying union members just to enforce their scheme to cap carbon. In the short time Obama has been President, they have passed massive regulations like Obamacare, Dodd Frank and they have just started getting the party going. Each one of these new regulations will result in special interest campaign donations to acquire waivers, fend off enforcement or prevent even further regulations down the road. I mean, once you have proven you can pass such massive increases in federal power, who knows what might be next? Big Oil anyone? Maybe even Big Coffee! There's LOTS of money in that. Add that to the additional loot in the form of union dues from the government workers that these regulations employ and you get yet another racket that even the most ambitious mafia guys never dreamed of.
3=====================================================================================================
In New Jersey, for example, the state legislature literally wined and dined for decades off of contributions from the liquor lobby who wanted to keep beer and wine out of supermarkets and convenience stores. Then they turned around and were wined and dined by those in the retail industry who were dying for a piece of the action by making that "soft" alcohol more available (and cheaper) to the public. Every year or so the law comes up for renewal and each time the Crooks and Thieves in Trenton extort their pound of flesh. In this way, the ability to regulate more and more aspects of our lives becomes the ultimate cash cow of Crooks and Thieves and therefore it gets worse and worse:
3=====================================================================================================
In New Jersey, for example, the state legislature literally wined and dined for decades off of contributions from the liquor lobby who wanted to keep beer and wine out of supermarkets and convenience stores. Then they turned around and were wined and dined by those in the retail industry who were dying for a piece of the action by making that "soft" alcohol more available (and cheaper) to the public. Every year or so the law comes up for renewal and each time the Crooks and Thieves in Trenton extort their pound of flesh. In this way, the ability to regulate more and more aspects of our lives becomes the ultimate cash cow of Crooks and Thieves and therefore it gets worse and worse:
And that's the rub. Whether it is about regulating the behavior of citizens in their daily lives or regulating businesses engaging in commerce, those who run our government rarely ever do a cost/benefit, much less a common sense analysis of the pros and cons and possible unintended consequences that has anything to do with reality. For the Crooks and Thieves in government, whether or not or how much to regulate is usually either about rigid ideology or who comes up with the most cash for their campaigns.
4====================================================================================================
Today regulations of one kind or another cost the economy 1.75 Trillion dollars a year in compliance. That's the equivalent of two stimulus packages every year and it is greater even than the currently massive federal budget deficit. To get an idea of the truly epic scale of government regulations, check out these numbers:
• The Federal Register stands at an all-time record-high 81,405 pages.
• In 2010, federal agencies issued 3,573 final rules.
• While agencies issued 3,573 final rules, Congress passed and the president signed into law a comparatively “few” 217 bills. Considerable lawmaking power is delegated to unelected bureaucrats at agencies, an abuse addressed recently in proposals such as the REINS Act.
• Alarmingly, proposed rules in the Federal Register have surged from 2,044 in 2009 to 2,439 in 2010, a jump of 19.3 percent.
• Of the 4,225 rules now in the regulatory pipeline, 224 are “economically significant” meaning they wield at least $100 million in economic impact—this is an increase of 22 percent over 2009’s 184 rules.
• Given 2010’s government spending (outlays) of $3.456 trillion, the regulatory “hidden tax” of $1.75 trillion stands at an unprecedented 50.7 percent of the level of federal spending itself.
• Regulatory costs exceed all 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.463 trillion.
• Regulatory costs dwarf corporate income taxes of $157 billion.
• Regulatory costs tower over the estimated 2010 individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87 percent—nearly double the level.
• Regulatory costs of $1.75 trillion absorb 11.9 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), estimated at $14.649 trillion in 2010.
• Combining regulatory costs with federal FY 2010 outlays of $3.456 trillion reveals a federal government whose share of the entire economy now reaches 35.5 percent.
As Ayn Rand warned in Atlas Shrugged, when added to massive government spending, this level of regulation is entirely unsustainable. If you consider that Obamacare was 2000 pages long and Financial Reform was another 2000 pages, an already weak economy is going to be crushed under the weight of pages and pages of rules and regulations from busybodies, do-gooders and Crooks and Thieves looking to fill their personal and campaign piggybanks with loot. Trillions of dollars and millions of man hours are going to be wasted to comply with them. Do you really have confidence that enormous bills like these, most of which haven't even been read before they were voted on, are well thought through? That there will be no unintended consequences?
4====================================================================================================
Today regulations of one kind or another cost the economy 1.75 Trillion dollars a year in compliance. That's the equivalent of two stimulus packages every year and it is greater even than the currently massive federal budget deficit. To get an idea of the truly epic scale of government regulations, check out these numbers:
• The Federal Register stands at an all-time record-high 81,405 pages.
• In 2010, federal agencies issued 3,573 final rules.
• While agencies issued 3,573 final rules, Congress passed and the president signed into law a comparatively “few” 217 bills. Considerable lawmaking power is delegated to unelected bureaucrats at agencies, an abuse addressed recently in proposals such as the REINS Act.
• Alarmingly, proposed rules in the Federal Register have surged from 2,044 in 2009 to 2,439 in 2010, a jump of 19.3 percent.
• Of the 4,225 rules now in the regulatory pipeline, 224 are “economically significant” meaning they wield at least $100 million in economic impact—this is an increase of 22 percent over 2009’s 184 rules.
• Given 2010’s government spending (outlays) of $3.456 trillion, the regulatory “hidden tax” of $1.75 trillion stands at an unprecedented 50.7 percent of the level of federal spending itself.
• Regulatory costs exceed all 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.463 trillion.
• Regulatory costs dwarf corporate income taxes of $157 billion.
• Regulatory costs tower over the estimated 2010 individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87 percent—nearly double the level.
• Regulatory costs of $1.75 trillion absorb 11.9 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), estimated at $14.649 trillion in 2010.
• Combining regulatory costs with federal FY 2010 outlays of $3.456 trillion reveals a federal government whose share of the entire economy now reaches 35.5 percent.
As Ayn Rand warned in Atlas Shrugged, when added to massive government spending, this level of regulation is entirely unsustainable. If you consider that Obamacare was 2000 pages long and Financial Reform was another 2000 pages, an already weak economy is going to be crushed under the weight of pages and pages of rules and regulations from busybodies, do-gooders and Crooks and Thieves looking to fill their personal and campaign piggybanks with loot. Trillions of dollars and millions of man hours are going to be wasted to comply with them. Do you really have confidence that enormous bills like these, most of which haven't even been read before they were voted on, are well thought through? That there will be no unintended consequences?
5=====================================================================================================
Speaking of unintended consequences, it has been well chronicled in this book how irresponsible Obama and the Democrats were when writing and passing their health care bill. If ever there was legislation that will result in unforeseen difficulties, this is it. Even before most provisions have even been enacted, it is clear to see that the American people were sold a bill of goods from the start. Promises were made that can't be kept. What else is new, eh? They included whoppers like you can keep your health insurance if you like it, the bill will reduce the deficit and the hundreds of thousands of new jobs that would be created right away and the millions of jobs later on. Just about every claim that Democrats made to the American people were lies and deliberate falsehoods with no relation to reality.
Worse, the Crooks and Thieves in the leadership of the Democrat party knew it when they voted on it. That's why Senators needed to be bought off with the Cornhusker Kickback, The Lousiana Purchase and Gatorade. Senators Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieux and Bill Nelson all knew how damaging the bill would be for the nation at large, so they made sure they got special waivers for their states to ameliorate the damage to their own constituents. The heck with the rest of the country. It was every Democrat for themselves. Because of Obamacare's massive unpopularity, Nancy Pelosi and the leadership of the House of Representatives were forced to threaten and squeeze their members to pass what even they knew was a stinker of a bill:
Speaking of unintended consequences, it has been well chronicled in this book how irresponsible Obama and the Democrats were when writing and passing their health care bill. If ever there was legislation that will result in unforeseen difficulties, this is it. Even before most provisions have even been enacted, it is clear to see that the American people were sold a bill of goods from the start. Promises were made that can't be kept. What else is new, eh? They included whoppers like you can keep your health insurance if you like it, the bill will reduce the deficit and the hundreds of thousands of new jobs that would be created right away and the millions of jobs later on. Just about every claim that Democrats made to the American people were lies and deliberate falsehoods with no relation to reality.
Worse, the Crooks and Thieves in the leadership of the Democrat party knew it when they voted on it. That's why Senators needed to be bought off with the Cornhusker Kickback, The Lousiana Purchase and Gatorade. Senators Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieux and Bill Nelson all knew how damaging the bill would be for the nation at large, so they made sure they got special waivers for their states to ameliorate the damage to their own constituents. The heck with the rest of the country. It was every Democrat for themselves. Because of Obamacare's massive unpopularity, Nancy Pelosi and the leadership of the House of Representatives were forced to threaten and squeeze their members to pass what even they knew was a stinker of a bill:
How bad did the Democrats know their bill was? Well, one of the biggest promises that Obama made during the election was about transparency. No longer, the One said, would big bills get written with industry lobbyists in secret behind closed doors. That was so Cheney, so corrupt, so Republican. Democrats were better, moral, people who would conduct the people's business out in the open and televise the proceedings on C-span and then allow the public five days to look at the bill before the President signed it:
6=====================================================================================================
But of course, that isn't what happened is it? Of course not! To get what they wanted and get it passed, the bill making process became like a sausage factory. The Democrats were hoping you'd like the way the end product tasted, but they sure didn't want you to see how it was made or what was in it. The first thing Obama and the Democrats did was bring in all of the companies they had publicly excoriated for years as evil. Once they had cajoled and threatened Big Pharma and the big Health Insurers into the room, they closed the doors and made secret deals with them in exchange for their support:
But of course, that isn't what happened is it? Of course not! To get what they wanted and get it passed, the bill making process became like a sausage factory. The Democrats were hoping you'd like the way the end product tasted, but they sure didn't want you to see how it was made or what was in it. The first thing Obama and the Democrats did was bring in all of the companies they had publicly excoriated for years as evil. Once they had cajoled and threatened Big Pharma and the big Health Insurers into the room, they closed the doors and made secret deals with them in exchange for their support:
For a party that screamed long and loud about Dick Cheney meeting in secret with Big Oil to craft energy legislation, this kind of behavior is hardly what the President and his party promised us. In fact, all of the negotiations and the drafting of the bill were so secret and the process so undemocratic that Nancy Pelosi ended up being forced to utter that ridiculous line that we needed to pass the bill immediately and unseen in order to find out what was in it.
7=====================================================================================================
It can be a hard sell when you are asking for the votes of Congressional members who have no idea what's in the bill or had any input into creating it. The Democrat leadership was forced to make all kinds of promises and give innumerable blanket assurances and the more they did that the more the whole thing began t o stink to high heaven. Especially, when promises were made that were transparently phony. Remember those last days of negotiations when Bart Stupak and his little group of pro-life Democrats were withholding their votes unless an amendment was put into Obamacare that would prevent public dollars from going to subsidize abortion? Remember, how Barry called Bart up and said there was no need to fix it in the language of the bill. Oh no, that would be permanent and anger the pro-choicers who dominate the party. Don't worry Bart, Obama said, I will just sign an executive order and all would be hunky dory in pro-life land. Well, like all other promises made on this bill, that was just another empty pledge to add onto the ever growing pile. According to William McGurn of the Wall Street Jounal:
the great untold story remains the intolerance so beloved of self-styled progressives. In this Mrs. Sebelius has proved herself one of the administration's most faithful practitioners: here watering down conscience protections for nurses and doctors who don't want to participate in abortions; there yanking funding for a top-rated program for victims of sexual trafficking run by the Catholic bishops, because they will not sign on to the NARAL agenda; soon to impose a new HHS mandate that will require health-insurance plans to cover contraception, sterilization and drugs known to induce abortion.
To add insult to injury, when discussing Sebelius' decision on whether Catholics doctors and nurses have a right to stay true to their religious beliefs and not participate in abortions, Nancy Pelosi said “but the truth is what I said. I’m a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it . . . but they have this conscience thing’’. No, we can't allow people to have this conscience "thing", can we Nancy? It's bad enough that Obamacare is breaking new ground in destroying our freedoms by forcing us to buy a product from a private business as a condition of our citizenship, but now they are going after people's religious freedoms too? Bart Stupak, you and your little cabal were the ultimate patsies in Obama's unscrupulous power grab. Funding for abortions will be paid for by taxpayers and there is nothing you can do about it now except stand around like Neville Chamberlain and hold up your useless scrap of Presidential paper:
7=====================================================================================================
It can be a hard sell when you are asking for the votes of Congressional members who have no idea what's in the bill or had any input into creating it. The Democrat leadership was forced to make all kinds of promises and give innumerable blanket assurances and the more they did that the more the whole thing began t o stink to high heaven. Especially, when promises were made that were transparently phony. Remember those last days of negotiations when Bart Stupak and his little group of pro-life Democrats were withholding their votes unless an amendment was put into Obamacare that would prevent public dollars from going to subsidize abortion? Remember, how Barry called Bart up and said there was no need to fix it in the language of the bill. Oh no, that would be permanent and anger the pro-choicers who dominate the party. Don't worry Bart, Obama said, I will just sign an executive order and all would be hunky dory in pro-life land. Well, like all other promises made on this bill, that was just another empty pledge to add onto the ever growing pile. According to William McGurn of the Wall Street Jounal:
the great untold story remains the intolerance so beloved of self-styled progressives. In this Mrs. Sebelius has proved herself one of the administration's most faithful practitioners: here watering down conscience protections for nurses and doctors who don't want to participate in abortions; there yanking funding for a top-rated program for victims of sexual trafficking run by the Catholic bishops, because they will not sign on to the NARAL agenda; soon to impose a new HHS mandate that will require health-insurance plans to cover contraception, sterilization and drugs known to induce abortion.
To add insult to injury, when discussing Sebelius' decision on whether Catholics doctors and nurses have a right to stay true to their religious beliefs and not participate in abortions, Nancy Pelosi said “but the truth is what I said. I’m a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it . . . but they have this conscience thing’’. No, we can't allow people to have this conscience "thing", can we Nancy? It's bad enough that Obamacare is breaking new ground in destroying our freedoms by forcing us to buy a product from a private business as a condition of our citizenship, but now they are going after people's religious freedoms too? Bart Stupak, you and your little cabal were the ultimate patsies in Obama's unscrupulous power grab. Funding for abortions will be paid for by taxpayers and there is nothing you can do about it now except stand around like Neville Chamberlain and hold up your useless scrap of Presidential paper:
I hope you're happy now that you've effectively sold out your pro-life constituents. Oh, that's right. You don't care because you decided to retire rather than face the wrath of the voters. How convenient!
8=====================================================================================================
It's bad enough that Obamacare threatens our Constitutional rights and that it was sold to the American people and the Congress with outright lies and empty promises. What's worse, Obama/Pelosi/Reid used accounting gimmicks and out and out falsehoods in order to make the numbers politically palatable to enough Crooks and Thieves in order for it to pass:
8=====================================================================================================
It's bad enough that Obamacare threatens our Constitutional rights and that it was sold to the American people and the Congress with outright lies and empty promises. What's worse, Obama/Pelosi/Reid used accounting gimmicks and out and out falsehoods in order to make the numbers politically palatable to enough Crooks and Thieves in order for it to pass:
_ We
were told that the bill would cost less than a trillion dollars. A
lie:.
_We were told that the plan was deficit neutral. Another lie.
And how did they get the CBO to initially say that the plan would cut the deficit? Why, by cooking the books of course:
9====================================================================================================
_In a time of massive deficits and a looming debt crisis, we were also told that if we passed Obamacare it would bend the cost curve of future entitlements that were destined to bankrupt the country. Another huge lie:
_In a time of massive deficits and a looming debt crisis, we were also told that if we passed Obamacare it would bend the cost curve of future entitlements that were destined to bankrupt the country. Another huge lie:
We were also told that the cost of health care would go down for the average American family:
Another massive fiction. In fact, after years of the levels of increase in health costs going down, the passage of Obamacare sent the price of premiums skyrocketing:
10====================================================================================================
As a famous Messiah once said way back in 2008, everything that should be up is down and everything that should be down is up:
As a famous Messiah once said way back in 2008, everything that should be up is down and everything that should be down is up:
Once upon a time candidate Obama told us that there should never be an individual mandate. He believed that right up to the point where he told us that the individual mandate was the best thing since sliced bread:
With all these lies and empty promises, it is evident that Barack Obama and the Democratic party sold the country a load of crap:
11====================================================================================================
I guess we shouldn't really be surprised should we? After all, we are talking about Crooks and Thieves. Lying is just what they do. It's second nature to them. And don't give me any nonsense about how these weren't lies but misstatements of facts, or well intentioned mistakes in mathematics or any other ridiculous excuse for their duplicity. These Democrats were willing to tell the American people whatever they thought was necessary to get this bill passed. The ultimate example of this in action is when Obama is interviewed by George "Stephie" Stephanopoulis about whether the individual mandate is a tax:
I guess we shouldn't really be surprised should we? After all, we are talking about Crooks and Thieves. Lying is just what they do. It's second nature to them. And don't give me any nonsense about how these weren't lies but misstatements of facts, or well intentioned mistakes in mathematics or any other ridiculous excuse for their duplicity. These Democrats were willing to tell the American people whatever they thought was necessary to get this bill passed. The ultimate example of this in action is when Obama is interviewed by George "Stephie" Stephanopoulis about whether the individual mandate is a tax:
Do you notice how calm, arrogant and dismissive the President is in rejecting the idea that his individual mandate could possibly be a tax which would break his pledge of no new taxes for the middle class? It's a pretty good performance, eh? He looks right at Stephie and even get's all indignant on him. The amazing thing is that his words are a total disconnect form the truth and yet he is able to obfuscate that so well and so convincingly. Did you notice that when it became clear that he couldn't counter the truth, he resorts to ridiculing Stephie for using a dictionary and confronting him with boring definitions? I mean, really, if a dictionary is no longer proof about what a word means, what is? Barry's opinion?
Of course, this is absolutely textbook Alinskyism. When confronted with the facts, ridicule the attacker. But, maybe Obama has a point. Maybe, Stephie is being too literal. After all, it's just an intellectual difference of opinion, right? Well, generally I'd be willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt on this. Except that when the legality of Obamacare before the Supreme Court, his administration lawyers made the claim that the individual mandate is Constitutional under the government's authority to tax people and the Justices agreed:
Of course, this is absolutely textbook Alinskyism. When confronted with the facts, ridicule the attacker. But, maybe Obama has a point. Maybe, Stephie is being too literal. After all, it's just an intellectual difference of opinion, right? Well, generally I'd be willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt on this. Except that when the legality of Obamacare before the Supreme Court, his administration lawyers made the claim that the individual mandate is Constitutional under the government's authority to tax people and the Justices agreed:
Megyn Kelly is absolutely right. There is no way that Obamacare would have passed if it had been represented as a tax. So, this monstrous piece of legislation was enacted as a result of fraud. Wonderful, eh? The Bamster's lawyers were happy to argue that the Obamacare individual mandate is indeed a tax and the President was happy when the Supreme court agreed. So, who is being ridiculous now Barry? You or Stephanopoulis? If this isn't one of the clearest examples of a lying, cheating no good Crook and Thief trying to get one over on the American people, then there is no such thing.
All of these outright and blatant lies have not endeared Obama's signature legislative achievement to the public. All of the fictions and the phony and empty promises were so transparent. Each one adds up as it is thrown on the pile and the stench it creates in the public's mind is overwhelmingly foul that the public still rejects it by large numbers. In other words, this was one stinker of a bill.
As far as the public is concerned, the need to do special deals to buy the votes of corrupt Senators made it apparent to anyone who was paying attention that this was a bill so flawed it could not stand up on its own merit. Only a fool or a committed progressive would have believed otherwise. Seriously, the idea that you add forty million people to the rolls, subsidize a huge percentage of them, and that would lower costs, but not lower the quality of care for everyone? I mean what idiot would buy that snake oil? Oh, man. I guess we just did, huh?
All of these outright and blatant lies have not endeared Obama's signature legislative achievement to the public. All of the fictions and the phony and empty promises were so transparent. Each one adds up as it is thrown on the pile and the stench it creates in the public's mind is overwhelmingly foul that the public still rejects it by large numbers. In other words, this was one stinker of a bill.
As far as the public is concerned, the need to do special deals to buy the votes of corrupt Senators made it apparent to anyone who was paying attention that this was a bill so flawed it could not stand up on its own merit. Only a fool or a committed progressive would have believed otherwise. Seriously, the idea that you add forty million people to the rolls, subsidize a huge percentage of them, and that would lower costs, but not lower the quality of care for everyone? I mean what idiot would buy that snake oil? Oh, man. I guess we just did, huh?
12====================================================================================================
The real question is why, in the face of huge public opposition and just after the voters of Massachusetts (MASSACHUSETTS!) elected Scott Brown to be the 41st vote opposing health care, did the Democrats ram this bill down our throats? I mean, there may be fools and ideologues in the Democrat party, but surely they are not so stupid as to not know that there was a huge risk that they'd all get defeated in the next election (which they resoundingly were). So, why take such a huge risk? On it's face it would seem a totally illogical and foolish move by the Obama/Reid/Pelosi cabal to risk all their political capital on an issue in which it was clear the voting public hated. Never before in the history of our republic had an entitlement ever been enacted that was both politically unpopular and rammed down the nation's throat on a contentious party line vote.
So, why do it? Was it the Democrats deep "concern" for the forty million uninsured? Well, actually no. Nacny Pelosi herself said that health care had to pass even if everyone was already insured:
The real question is why, in the face of huge public opposition and just after the voters of Massachusetts (MASSACHUSETTS!) elected Scott Brown to be the 41st vote opposing health care, did the Democrats ram this bill down our throats? I mean, there may be fools and ideologues in the Democrat party, but surely they are not so stupid as to not know that there was a huge risk that they'd all get defeated in the next election (which they resoundingly were). So, why take such a huge risk? On it's face it would seem a totally illogical and foolish move by the Obama/Reid/Pelosi cabal to risk all their political capital on an issue in which it was clear the voting public hated. Never before in the history of our republic had an entitlement ever been enacted that was both politically unpopular and rammed down the nation's throat on a contentious party line vote.
So, why do it? Was it the Democrats deep "concern" for the forty million uninsured? Well, actually no. Nacny Pelosi herself said that health care had to pass even if everyone was already insured:
_So, it would have been necessary anyway, you see? Because the "system" was broken. It wasn't about the uninsured. It was about the system!
Of course, as we have seen, nothing they have done has made the system any more sustainable. In fact Obamacare makes it less so. However, it is true that for many of the rank and file in the Democratic party, the plight of the uninsured was a critical issue. Had the leadership of the party been focused on addressing those concerns, they could have just expanded Medicaid, or given tax credits, or done some pro-market reforms such as allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines and to allow more people to be able to pool into cooperatives to buy insurance. Democrats probably could have even "paid" for it by removing the employers tax deduction on private "gold plated" employee health plans. Of course that would have really upset their union buddies who have been enjoying their taxpayer subsidized Cadillac plans for years. While an expansion of Medicaid might make economic and "social justice" sense to some Democrats and solved the problem of the uninsured, that would not have had the kind of political payoff the party wanted. After all, they were already buying the votes of the poor and working class with other programs like welfare and food stamps. No, they were after much larger game. Therefore, the idea was scrapped. I must say, as an aside, that I do find it fascinating that all these unions who were huge supporters of Obamacare were the first ones lining up to get waivers. It's great for thee, but not for me it would seem.
13====================================================================================================
In any case, had the motivations of caring Democrats really been about providing coverage for the uninsured, there were far easier ways to accomplish this then the massive 2000+ page stinker that they crafted. And what about those who had pre-existing conditions? Surely, this whole package was necessary to make sure that no one would be denied health care in their time of need by the evil insurance companies, right? Well, there is some credence to the argument that to subsidize those with pre-existing conditions and not cause everyone else's health care costs to skyrocket, there would need to be more healthy people added to the general pool. At least, that is what the big health insurers and the single payer people have been arguing for years. And that might be true if they were correct about the numbers of those who needed this kind of coverage. During the Obamacare debate, the Democrats and Obama claimed upwards of 400,000 people would be helped by adding high risk pools for people with pre-exsiting conditions. However, even if one were to have accepted those numbers as accurate, to accommodate them did not require such a massive and all encompassing bill. And like most government estimates trotted out to support political ends, they were massively inflated. Guess how many people with pre-existing conditions have signed up to take advantage of this great act of national benevolence so far?
Of course, as we have seen, nothing they have done has made the system any more sustainable. In fact Obamacare makes it less so. However, it is true that for many of the rank and file in the Democratic party, the plight of the uninsured was a critical issue. Had the leadership of the party been focused on addressing those concerns, they could have just expanded Medicaid, or given tax credits, or done some pro-market reforms such as allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines and to allow more people to be able to pool into cooperatives to buy insurance. Democrats probably could have even "paid" for it by removing the employers tax deduction on private "gold plated" employee health plans. Of course that would have really upset their union buddies who have been enjoying their taxpayer subsidized Cadillac plans for years. While an expansion of Medicaid might make economic and "social justice" sense to some Democrats and solved the problem of the uninsured, that would not have had the kind of political payoff the party wanted. After all, they were already buying the votes of the poor and working class with other programs like welfare and food stamps. No, they were after much larger game. Therefore, the idea was scrapped. I must say, as an aside, that I do find it fascinating that all these unions who were huge supporters of Obamacare were the first ones lining up to get waivers. It's great for thee, but not for me it would seem.
13====================================================================================================
In any case, had the motivations of caring Democrats really been about providing coverage for the uninsured, there were far easier ways to accomplish this then the massive 2000+ page stinker that they crafted. And what about those who had pre-existing conditions? Surely, this whole package was necessary to make sure that no one would be denied health care in their time of need by the evil insurance companies, right? Well, there is some credence to the argument that to subsidize those with pre-existing conditions and not cause everyone else's health care costs to skyrocket, there would need to be more healthy people added to the general pool. At least, that is what the big health insurers and the single payer people have been arguing for years. And that might be true if they were correct about the numbers of those who needed this kind of coverage. During the Obamacare debate, the Democrats and Obama claimed upwards of 400,000 people would be helped by adding high risk pools for people with pre-exsiting conditions. However, even if one were to have accepted those numbers as accurate, to accommodate them did not require such a massive and all encompassing bill. And like most government estimates trotted out to support political ends, they were massively inflated. Guess how many people with pre-existing conditions have signed up to take advantage of this great act of national benevolence so far?
_Eighteen thousand people! I mean you want to talk about a colossal misjudgment of a problem or more cynically, a massive lie spun to create sympathy for a disastrous law, you'll never have a better example then this. So, if it wasn't just for the forty million with no insurance or the eighteen thousand with pre-exisitng conditions, why did the Democrat party stick it's neck out so far in order
to make Obamacare a reality? Simple. They engineered a law that would enable them to regulate 1/6th of the
American economy and to be able to determine the exact plan that every
single American must have. In other words, it was about control. Complete and total government hegemony over something that affects the lives of every single American. It was every elitist, progressive, nanny stater and safety nazi's ultimate jackpot!
14====================================================================================================
If you've been paying attention to everything that we've covered in this book you will understand why this is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for the Democrat party. Just picture thirty to fifty million Americans being subsidized fully or partially for their health care costs. All of these people would become dependent on Government for what they would then consider a "right" that they were entitled to as Americans:
14====================================================================================================
If you've been paying attention to everything that we've covered in this book you will understand why this is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for the Democrat party. Just picture thirty to fifty million Americans being subsidized fully or partially for their health care costs. All of these people would become dependent on Government for what they would then consider a "right" that they were entitled to as Americans:
_Can you believe the incredible ignorance the Senator displays of how our Constitutional system works? As we discussed in Exceptionalism and as any person who has any understanding of Constitutional law knows, Congress alone cannot "vote" a right into being. That requires a Constitutional amendment. Of course, Democrats don't really care about all that First Principles claptrap or concern themselves with trivialities like whether their power grabs are consistent with their Constitutional prerogatives. For them, the Constitution is a "living document" that means whatever they say it means on any given day. If you don't believe me, go back and read the chapter on Exceptionalism for the evidence of this.
Most importantly, this clip reveals the Democrat grand strategy with health care reform. First make an additional forty million or so people dependent on the benevolence of the party of big government. That's a great vote buying strategy right there. Then remind them over and over again that this is a new "right". Once these people feel "entitled" to their free or subsidized health care, any threat to those benefits will draw their votes into the waiting arms of the Democrats. However, it isn't enough just to add these people to the entitlement rolls. Oh no. The entire country must come under the control and "benevolence" of the state so that any change or cuts in the program affects everyone.
This is a strategy that the Democrats have perfected over the years. The reason that Social Security is not a program more properly aimed at helping the indigent elderly, that Medicare is not a program focused on providing only those who need financial help with their medical bills with assistance and why Obamacare doesn't just cover the uninsured is because if it only affects a small percentage of people it doesn't provide the full political benefit to the Democrat party. However, if it applies to everyone in the country, any change in the program affects everyone. That's a much more powerful vote generating prospect wouldn't you say?
Think about what that means for a second. Since the Democrats have never and will never be in favor of fiscal prudence when it comes to "their" sacrosanct programs, that always makes the Republicans the bad guys when fiscal reality forces changes to be made to these programs. Because every elderly person recieves Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, any fiscally necessary reforms and alterations to these programs can be demagogued for mass political and vote generating effect. It is the constant refrain of Democrats every election cycle. Despite the fact that these entitlements are all going bankrupt, every single attempt at reform is met with Democrat fear mongering to the elderly. You've heard them all I am sure. The evil Republicans want to throw Granny off a cliff. They want her to freeze to death and forced to choose between life saving drugs and eating dog food. Heck, the President even accused the Republicans of wanting to kick Granny to the side of the road with her autistic grandkids. Year after year , election after election, the Democrat playbook remains the same. Which is kinda why we are in the fiscal mess we are in, isn't it?
15===================================================================================================
And now they've passed Obamacare...
This is a law that doesn't just affect the elderly percentage of the population. It affects everyone. Now Democrats have an issue that will really stack the political deck in favor of the party of "benevolence". Believe me when I tell you, if this law remains on the books, the Democrats will demagogue any and every change to the people's "benefits". With something as pervasive and broad as the subject of health care, the opportunities for political advantage and partisan attacks will be boundless.
But, the numerous opportunities to gain partisan advantage is just the icing on the cake. The best part for Democrats is that Obamacare allows them to add new ingredients to the cake all the time. After all, as Senator Harkin told us, Obamacare is just the "starter house". Democrats fully intend upon using it as the foundation to build a mansion. That's not just my opinion, that's what the Senator has openly and proudly admitted.
Therefore, the plan is that every year the Democrats will vote to add a new "room" to the house. Isn't that wonderful? The party of benvolence can now bestow a new present on everyone in the land. For instance, this year insurers are being forced to cover contraceptives for women because supposedly they are hard to find and are unaffordable. Therefore, everyone in America must fully subsidize each woman's sex life. Ridiculous, I know, but half of the voters out there are women, eh? And look at this nice law school student, she actually knows people that can't have sex because they can't afford it. Really, she does:
Most importantly, this clip reveals the Democrat grand strategy with health care reform. First make an additional forty million or so people dependent on the benevolence of the party of big government. That's a great vote buying strategy right there. Then remind them over and over again that this is a new "right". Once these people feel "entitled" to their free or subsidized health care, any threat to those benefits will draw their votes into the waiting arms of the Democrats. However, it isn't enough just to add these people to the entitlement rolls. Oh no. The entire country must come under the control and "benevolence" of the state so that any change or cuts in the program affects everyone.
This is a strategy that the Democrats have perfected over the years. The reason that Social Security is not a program more properly aimed at helping the indigent elderly, that Medicare is not a program focused on providing only those who need financial help with their medical bills with assistance and why Obamacare doesn't just cover the uninsured is because if it only affects a small percentage of people it doesn't provide the full political benefit to the Democrat party. However, if it applies to everyone in the country, any change in the program affects everyone. That's a much more powerful vote generating prospect wouldn't you say?
Think about what that means for a second. Since the Democrats have never and will never be in favor of fiscal prudence when it comes to "their" sacrosanct programs, that always makes the Republicans the bad guys when fiscal reality forces changes to be made to these programs. Because every elderly person recieves Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, any fiscally necessary reforms and alterations to these programs can be demagogued for mass political and vote generating effect. It is the constant refrain of Democrats every election cycle. Despite the fact that these entitlements are all going bankrupt, every single attempt at reform is met with Democrat fear mongering to the elderly. You've heard them all I am sure. The evil Republicans want to throw Granny off a cliff. They want her to freeze to death and forced to choose between life saving drugs and eating dog food. Heck, the President even accused the Republicans of wanting to kick Granny to the side of the road with her autistic grandkids. Year after year , election after election, the Democrat playbook remains the same. Which is kinda why we are in the fiscal mess we are in, isn't it?
15===================================================================================================
And now they've passed Obamacare...
This is a law that doesn't just affect the elderly percentage of the population. It affects everyone. Now Democrats have an issue that will really stack the political deck in favor of the party of "benevolence". Believe me when I tell you, if this law remains on the books, the Democrats will demagogue any and every change to the people's "benefits". With something as pervasive and broad as the subject of health care, the opportunities for political advantage and partisan attacks will be boundless.
But, the numerous opportunities to gain partisan advantage is just the icing on the cake. The best part for Democrats is that Obamacare allows them to add new ingredients to the cake all the time. After all, as Senator Harkin told us, Obamacare is just the "starter house". Democrats fully intend upon using it as the foundation to build a mansion. That's not just my opinion, that's what the Senator has openly and proudly admitted.
Therefore, the plan is that every year the Democrats will vote to add a new "room" to the house. Isn't that wonderful? The party of benvolence can now bestow a new present on everyone in the land. For instance, this year insurers are being forced to cover contraceptives for women because supposedly they are hard to find and are unaffordable. Therefore, everyone in America must fully subsidize each woman's sex life. Ridiculous, I know, but half of the voters out there are women, eh? And look at this nice law school student, she actually knows people that can't have sex because they can't afford it. Really, she does:
Do you see how this works now? Why, next year Democrats will target the male gender and say that insurance companies should be forced to cover Viagra. Hooray! Free sex! The year after that, the Congress could vote to add therapeutic massages to our minimum benefits doing wonders for the Happy Endings business. Each time they propose more candy for everyone, they can portray anyone opposed to it as mean, evil, penny pinching party poopers who are against sex! Who wins that political debate? Those questioning whether the country could afford such largesse or those who just want everyone to have a happy ending?
But that's only the start. Oh, yes. Because Obamacare is the gift that keeps on giving. Once they have total control over the regulation of 1/6th of the economy and the ability to constantly bestow new gifts and perks for three hundred million people, every lobbyist in America will be beating down their doors to give them campaign contributions and other bonuses. The line of special interests looking to add their snouts to the government teat will be endless! It will be enlarged exponentially by all of those who will court favor in order to make sure they get "special" and favorable treatment from regulators and, thus, are not targeted for punishment because they didn't pay off the right Crooks and Thieves. Think of all the money Democrats are going to get from Big Pharma, the health insurance industry, the medical device industry, the hospitals, the doctors, the lawyers, etc. etc. etc. etc. Like I said, this is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. If you think that the Democrat party was willing to commit mass suicide without knowing they'd score big long term, then there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to show you.
Oh, I almost forgot. There's icing for the icing on the cake too! Yes, indeedly doodly! Why the government is now going to have to hire 4,000 nice new IRS agents at a cost of $300 million to help (enforce) with making sure everyone is in compliance with the law. Isn't that just wonderful? There is nothing people want more than a bunch of extra IRS agents, eh? And guess what? All of them will be dues paying union members who will donate exclusively to the Democrat party! How do you like them apples?
16====================================================================================================
But that's only the start. Oh, yes. Because Obamacare is the gift that keeps on giving. Once they have total control over the regulation of 1/6th of the economy and the ability to constantly bestow new gifts and perks for three hundred million people, every lobbyist in America will be beating down their doors to give them campaign contributions and other bonuses. The line of special interests looking to add their snouts to the government teat will be endless! It will be enlarged exponentially by all of those who will court favor in order to make sure they get "special" and favorable treatment from regulators and, thus, are not targeted for punishment because they didn't pay off the right Crooks and Thieves. Think of all the money Democrats are going to get from Big Pharma, the health insurance industry, the medical device industry, the hospitals, the doctors, the lawyers, etc. etc. etc. etc. Like I said, this is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. If you think that the Democrat party was willing to commit mass suicide without knowing they'd score big long term, then there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to show you.
Oh, I almost forgot. There's icing for the icing on the cake too! Yes, indeedly doodly! Why the government is now going to have to hire 4,000 nice new IRS agents at a cost of $300 million to help (enforce) with making sure everyone is in compliance with the law. Isn't that just wonderful? There is nothing people want more than a bunch of extra IRS agents, eh? And guess what? All of them will be dues paying union members who will donate exclusively to the Democrat party! How do you like them apples?
16====================================================================================================
As you can see, Obamacare is the holy grail for the Democrat party. This is why it has been their number one priority for the past seventy, some would even say one hundred years. Adding forty million dependents and the entire population under their regulatory control plus all those billions in campaign donations as well as the ability of being able to cast the Republicans as mean, evil pennypinchers will give them a huge political advantage over the GOP for years to come. It may be absolutely and totally corrupt, but you have to admit, it is smart politics. That's why Obama/Reid/Pelosi were willing to take such a huge political gamble on this one issue. Crooks and Thieves!
However, the Democrats just might be being too smart by half. You see, in order to pass the legislation and get the numbers to look even halfway acceptable, they had to design the frontloading of new taxes and delayed implementation after the 2012 election. This wouldn't be a problem if the country was grateful for the new "gift" that Democrats had bestowed on them. However, the public was fairly furious that Obamacare was rammed down their throats depsite their objections. This will not bode well for President Obama's chances for another four year in office to implement his scheme.
The backloading of the implementation was not in itself, the biggest flaw in the Democrats plan. As long as Obama gets reelected, everything will be smooth sailing for the Democrats. But, that's the problem isn't it? Getting Obama reelected with unemployment at unacceptable levels and the economy just barely cruising will not be an easy task especially since the public hates Obamacare. Thus, the greatest error the Democrats have made is that Obamacare is a jobs and economy killer.
Fortunately for us, Obama and his cabal never understood this most salient of facts. This is because Democrats are fundamentally mistaken about the impact of government regulations on the private sector. You see, the Democrats, Obama in particular, engage in the magical thinking that says that government mandates and controls don't have a negative impact on the economy. In their fantasy world, new regulations and taxes are just borne by the private sector who have an inexhaustible supply of ill gotten profits from which to pay for their schemes. In their make believe world, the goose will always lay plenty of golden eggs no matter how many demands they place on it. Democrats are so smart and their plans are always so perfect and well thought out that their will be no unintended consequences that might foul the whole thing up. In other words, they are too smart by half.
17====================================================================================================
A classic example of progressives utter disconnect with reality comes from Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota:
However, the Democrats just might be being too smart by half. You see, in order to pass the legislation and get the numbers to look even halfway acceptable, they had to design the frontloading of new taxes and delayed implementation after the 2012 election. This wouldn't be a problem if the country was grateful for the new "gift" that Democrats had bestowed on them. However, the public was fairly furious that Obamacare was rammed down their throats depsite their objections. This will not bode well for President Obama's chances for another four year in office to implement his scheme.
The backloading of the implementation was not in itself, the biggest flaw in the Democrats plan. As long as Obama gets reelected, everything will be smooth sailing for the Democrats. But, that's the problem isn't it? Getting Obama reelected with unemployment at unacceptable levels and the economy just barely cruising will not be an easy task especially since the public hates Obamacare. Thus, the greatest error the Democrats have made is that Obamacare is a jobs and economy killer.
Fortunately for us, Obama and his cabal never understood this most salient of facts. This is because Democrats are fundamentally mistaken about the impact of government regulations on the private sector. You see, the Democrats, Obama in particular, engage in the magical thinking that says that government mandates and controls don't have a negative impact on the economy. In their fantasy world, new regulations and taxes are just borne by the private sector who have an inexhaustible supply of ill gotten profits from which to pay for their schemes. In their make believe world, the goose will always lay plenty of golden eggs no matter how many demands they place on it. Democrats are so smart and their plans are always so perfect and well thought out that their will be no unintended consequences that might foul the whole thing up. In other words, they are too smart by half.
17====================================================================================================
A classic example of progressives utter disconnect with reality comes from Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota:
_And there you have it. The Democrat fantasy out in the open: regulations create jobs. Now perhaps Congressman Ellison is an outlier. Maybe he doesn't speak for most in his party. Oh, but he does! Here's HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, chief implementer of Obamacare on this same subject:
18====================================================================================================
As in most things that Democrats say on health care, some of what the Secretary said is theoretically possible. If, and its a big if, participating in pools actually saved small businesses money on health care premiums, then certainly it would help them. Unfortunately, because the government is mandating a minimum acceptable policy which will be way beyond what most businesses currently spend or can afford, that isn't likely to happen:
As in most things that Democrats say on health care, some of what the Secretary said is theoretically possible. If, and its a big if, participating in pools actually saved small businesses money on health care premiums, then certainly it would help them. Unfortunately, because the government is mandating a minimum acceptable policy which will be way beyond what most businesses currently spend or can afford, that isn't likely to happen:
In fact, that's why many companies like McDonalds were given waivers because the policies they could afford to provide were far below what the government mandates. Also, the sheer stupidity of a law that subsidizes the cost of health care for low and middle class income employees makes it cheaper for businesses to just drop their coverage altogether meaning that the taxpayer is going to have to spring for the tab:
Many recent studies, such as a recent one by the McKinsey grougp have studied this major flaw in the law and have determined:
According to the survey, almost a third of employers say they will “definitely or probably” put a halt to their health coverage by 2014.
Among employers that know the most about Obama’s health law, the number is even higher. More than 60 percent say that they will pursue alternatives to conventional job-based coverage.
McKinsey isn’t the first to sound the death knell of employer-sponsored insurance. The Congressional Budget Office — Congress’s official economic scorekeeper — estimated that four million individuals would lose their employer-provided health insurance over the next decade thanks to ObamaCare. And last year, the Urban Institute, a center-left think tank, released a report saying that “droves of employees — potentially tens of millions — are likely to shift out of employer-provided insurance” because of ObamaCare.
With 156 million Americans currently enrolled in employer-sponsored health insurance, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a mass exodus from employer-coverage would represent a sea change in American health care.
Why are so many employers who currently offer health insurance eyeing the exits?
The law makes coverage prohibitively expensive. Indeed, McKinsey says that dropping coverage “will make sense for many companies.”
McKinsey reports that “at least 30 percent” of employers would actually see economic gains from ceasing coverage — and that’s even if they provided employees with higher salaries or additional benefits to compensate for the loss.
Well, that's certainly not what they told us would happen, is it? If companies take advantage of this loophole in the law they are going to be able to stop providing coverage, give their employees a raise and push the cost of the policy onto the US taxpayer. Boy, that's going to be great for the deficit won't it?
19====================================================================================================
However, the salient point to take away from this video is the HHS Secretary's delusion that the employer mandate will help to create jobs. The exact quote is:
“I think that this will actually be a great incentive–as you know the 50 people also have lots of part time worker exclusions, seasonal worker exclusions–and I don’t hear anything from people who say, ‘Oh, I would never grow my business past this threshold’
What planet is this woman on? Has she ever run a business or talked to a businessperson that wasn't a progressive? The idea that Ms. Sebelius has never heard of a single instance in which a company would choose to stop hiring so that they would have less than fifty employees and thus not to be mandated and fined shows that she is either spends too much time inside the Washington DC bubble or she is just totally oblivious. All she needed to do was to check out her own White House Roundtable on Business in her home state of Kansas where Mike Strong, owner of Mike’s Rent-to-Own in Hutchinson, said the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, popularly known as ObamaCare, and runaway government spending are the biggest problems he sees with small business development. According to Strong:
“I have 48 employees and I’m thinking about opening another store,” Strong said. “If I do that I’m going to have over 50 employees. When I go to conventions almost every businessperson there says, Mike, you might ought to reconsider about going over 50 because that 50 puts you in a different category in the health care law. I hear that a lot.”
Duh! I mean really Secretary Sebelius, you haven't heard that? Like Mr. Strong, I personally hear the same lament every day from business owners all over the country. Even Hillary Clinton understood that government mandates and regulations for health care cost jobs and have an adverse effect on small business hiring. When told that her 1993 Hillarycare plan could bankrupt a lot of small businesses, she famously responded:
'I can't be responsible for every under-capitalized small business in America'
Now that is a classic Marie Antoinette line typical of progressives. But at least Mrs. Clinton appears to have an inkling that government mandates and regulations do have an economic effect on businesses bottom lines and job creation/destruction. Unfortunately, Obama's health care czarina seems to be as clueless about this common sense business reality as the anointed one is. Progressives like these are truly convinced that no matter what they do to regulate and mandate things on business, companies will just bend over and take it and because of their great intentions everything will be lollipops and roses.
20===================================================================================================
To give you an analogy that I think is relevant to this situation, I'd like to relate this to the field of Thoroughbred horse racing. Oftentimes racing secretaries need to find a way to even the playing field in a particular race so that they can attract enough horses and enough betting action by the public. There are many ways to do this including the use of different purse structures and race conditions. Another common practice is that the horses participating in a race may be given certain weight handicaps or advantages. Sometimes the better the horse, the more weight he must carry in order to enter a race. If the trainer is doing his job well, the amount of weight added to the horse will never slow him down enough that he will be made slower than his competitors and lose the race. However, there is always a point at which the added weight does slow down the horse so much that the competition overtakes him.
Now picture the USA as a horse. For years, Congress (the trainer) has been adding more and more weight (regulations) to the horse. The horse still wins, but by less and less as each increment of weight is added. Indeed after each race, it takes longer and longer for the horse to recover and win again. Finally, the extra weight finally takes its toll and the horse gets totally blown away by the competition. He is exhausted and in need of a nice rest and some fresh oats. A smart trainer would then determine that since the extra weight had made the horse inferior to his competition, in his next race he would make sure the horse was carrying less weight so that he is once again competitive . Now picture another trainer (Democrats), overconfident that his horse can withstand anything thrown at it because it always has in the past, enters the next race and asks that even more weight be put the horse. The question is, would you bet on that horse?
That's exactly where we are right now. Up until now, progressives have been aided in their delusions that their policies and regulations don't have unintended consequences by the great historical strength of the American economy. As long as the GDP was increasing swiftly every year, no one noticed the .5% GDP hit of Medicare or the .2% GDP hit of EPA regulations or the even larger GDP hit in the form of the high taxes for progressive desires for the redistributing of wealth and growing the size of the government. Unfortunately, the economy is no longer producing wealth like it once did and finds itself flat on its back and trying to get up. By adding health care mandates to the entire economy, it's like adding a two hundred pound bag of manure onto the economy's chest as it is trying to rise.
21====================================================================================================
As a result, since Obamacare passed the Congress and was signed into law, employment has been stagnant:
According to the survey, almost a third of employers say they will “definitely or probably” put a halt to their health coverage by 2014.
Among employers that know the most about Obama’s health law, the number is even higher. More than 60 percent say that they will pursue alternatives to conventional job-based coverage.
McKinsey isn’t the first to sound the death knell of employer-sponsored insurance. The Congressional Budget Office — Congress’s official economic scorekeeper — estimated that four million individuals would lose their employer-provided health insurance over the next decade thanks to ObamaCare. And last year, the Urban Institute, a center-left think tank, released a report saying that “droves of employees — potentially tens of millions — are likely to shift out of employer-provided insurance” because of ObamaCare.
With 156 million Americans currently enrolled in employer-sponsored health insurance, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a mass exodus from employer-coverage would represent a sea change in American health care.
Why are so many employers who currently offer health insurance eyeing the exits?
The law makes coverage prohibitively expensive. Indeed, McKinsey says that dropping coverage “will make sense for many companies.”
McKinsey reports that “at least 30 percent” of employers would actually see economic gains from ceasing coverage — and that’s even if they provided employees with higher salaries or additional benefits to compensate for the loss.
Well, that's certainly not what they told us would happen, is it? If companies take advantage of this loophole in the law they are going to be able to stop providing coverage, give their employees a raise and push the cost of the policy onto the US taxpayer. Boy, that's going to be great for the deficit won't it?
19====================================================================================================
However, the salient point to take away from this video is the HHS Secretary's delusion that the employer mandate will help to create jobs. The exact quote is:
“I think that this will actually be a great incentive–as you know the 50 people also have lots of part time worker exclusions, seasonal worker exclusions–and I don’t hear anything from people who say, ‘Oh, I would never grow my business past this threshold’
What planet is this woman on? Has she ever run a business or talked to a businessperson that wasn't a progressive? The idea that Ms. Sebelius has never heard of a single instance in which a company would choose to stop hiring so that they would have less than fifty employees and thus not to be mandated and fined shows that she is either spends too much time inside the Washington DC bubble or she is just totally oblivious. All she needed to do was to check out her own White House Roundtable on Business in her home state of Kansas where Mike Strong, owner of Mike’s Rent-to-Own in Hutchinson, said the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, popularly known as ObamaCare, and runaway government spending are the biggest problems he sees with small business development. According to Strong:
“I have 48 employees and I’m thinking about opening another store,” Strong said. “If I do that I’m going to have over 50 employees. When I go to conventions almost every businessperson there says, Mike, you might ought to reconsider about going over 50 because that 50 puts you in a different category in the health care law. I hear that a lot.”
Duh! I mean really Secretary Sebelius, you haven't heard that? Like Mr. Strong, I personally hear the same lament every day from business owners all over the country. Even Hillary Clinton understood that government mandates and regulations for health care cost jobs and have an adverse effect on small business hiring. When told that her 1993 Hillarycare plan could bankrupt a lot of small businesses, she famously responded:
'I can't be responsible for every under-capitalized small business in America'
Now that is a classic Marie Antoinette line typical of progressives. But at least Mrs. Clinton appears to have an inkling that government mandates and regulations do have an economic effect on businesses bottom lines and job creation/destruction. Unfortunately, Obama's health care czarina seems to be as clueless about this common sense business reality as the anointed one is. Progressives like these are truly convinced that no matter what they do to regulate and mandate things on business, companies will just bend over and take it and because of their great intentions everything will be lollipops and roses.
20===================================================================================================
To give you an analogy that I think is relevant to this situation, I'd like to relate this to the field of Thoroughbred horse racing. Oftentimes racing secretaries need to find a way to even the playing field in a particular race so that they can attract enough horses and enough betting action by the public. There are many ways to do this including the use of different purse structures and race conditions. Another common practice is that the horses participating in a race may be given certain weight handicaps or advantages. Sometimes the better the horse, the more weight he must carry in order to enter a race. If the trainer is doing his job well, the amount of weight added to the horse will never slow him down enough that he will be made slower than his competitors and lose the race. However, there is always a point at which the added weight does slow down the horse so much that the competition overtakes him.
Now picture the USA as a horse. For years, Congress (the trainer) has been adding more and more weight (regulations) to the horse. The horse still wins, but by less and less as each increment of weight is added. Indeed after each race, it takes longer and longer for the horse to recover and win again. Finally, the extra weight finally takes its toll and the horse gets totally blown away by the competition. He is exhausted and in need of a nice rest and some fresh oats. A smart trainer would then determine that since the extra weight had made the horse inferior to his competition, in his next race he would make sure the horse was carrying less weight so that he is once again competitive . Now picture another trainer (Democrats), overconfident that his horse can withstand anything thrown at it because it always has in the past, enters the next race and asks that even more weight be put the horse. The question is, would you bet on that horse?
That's exactly where we are right now. Up until now, progressives have been aided in their delusions that their policies and regulations don't have unintended consequences by the great historical strength of the American economy. As long as the GDP was increasing swiftly every year, no one noticed the .5% GDP hit of Medicare or the .2% GDP hit of EPA regulations or the even larger GDP hit in the form of the high taxes for progressive desires for the redistributing of wealth and growing the size of the government. Unfortunately, the economy is no longer producing wealth like it once did and finds itself flat on its back and trying to get up. By adding health care mandates to the entire economy, it's like adding a two hundred pound bag of manure onto the economy's chest as it is trying to rise.
21====================================================================================================
As a result, since Obamacare passed the Congress and was signed into law, employment has been stagnant:
_And so has the overall economy:
Now one could argue that correlation is not necessarily causation and I would absolutely accept that this thesis could be true in this case. Obama, himself argues that the economy has been stagnant because of the Arab spring, the Japanese Tsunami, the European Debt crisis, those wascally Republicans and on and on and on. Everything is to blame for this lackluster economy except for his policies. Okay, fine. The One is infallible and nothing bad that happens on his watch is his fault. According to the Obaamessiah, we have high unemployment not because of massive regulations, taxes and mandates on business, but because those companies won't "step up" and hire more. I kid you not, he really said this. It is as if he thinks that companies have a higher public duty to the nation than they do to their stockholders and their bottom lines. But, that's a progressive for you. They don't have a clue about how the private sector does and should work.
22====================================================================================================
The anointed one has no idea that it is his programs that are destroying the economy. He and his party are completely clueless. Everyone else knows, though, particularly those people who hire workers. Even Obama supporter Jim Cramer knows how much of a job killer Obamacare is:
22====================================================================================================
The anointed one has no idea that it is his programs that are destroying the economy. He and his party are completely clueless. Everyone else knows, though, particularly those people who hire workers. Even Obama supporter Jim Cramer knows how much of a job killer Obamacare is:
But, Barry doesn't talk to people like Jim Cramer. He talks to left wing ideologues like Valerie Jarrett who tell him that business has plenty of money. They can afford to pay. While, it is true that businesses have been very profitable recently and have accumulated over two trillion dollars in profits, they are sitting on that money. So, why aren't they willing to expand and create jobs? Why aren't they willing to "step up" and hire new workers? Might it have something to do with the policies that Barry has put in place? Oh , no. Couldn't be. Well, let's hear about this straight from the horses mouth of one of those evil CEO's who won't step up and do his patriotic duty:
So who do you believe? The co-found of Home Depot who says that regulations, taxes and Obamacare are killing the US economy and that in that current climate there is no way he would have been able start that company... or... Mr. Empty Suit who has never held a real job or managed a payroll in his life? Who do you believe, Secretary Sebelius and Congressman Ellison who say that government mandates create jobs, or the CEO of one of the best run companies in the US? Is there even a question in your mind?
23====================================================================================================
23====================================================================================================
_Barack Obama and the Democrat party have made a huge gamble by putting all of their eggs in the health care basket. They have bet the farm on their belief that
no matter what they do to her, the goose will always lay plenty of
golden eggs for them to redistribute in their aim to assume more and
more power and control over our lives. The hope is that they can spend a
billion dollars in negative ads to make the public hate Mitt Romney more than they hate Obamacare and the stagnant
economy. They believe that America will just bend over and take
it. The question is, will the American people finally wise up and say
enough is enough? The answer to that will determine, not just the
political fortunes of the Democrat and Republican party, but the future
of America itself.