Obamacare Costs Skyrocket

Policymakers are still recovering from yesterday’s shocking admission by the Administration that it can’t implement Obamacare’s employer mandate without destroying jobs.

The announced one-year delay in enforcement brings with it an immediate revenue loss. But by further encouraging firms to drop coverage now—allowing businesses to privatize gains and socialize losses—the change could cause federal spending on Obamacare exchange subsidies to soar.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in May that the employer mandate would raise $10 billion in revenue in its first year. (Because the employer mandate is a tax penalty, firms will pay the penalties the following year—penalties for 2014 will be paid in 2015; penalties for 2015 will be paid in 2016, etc.) That $10 billion in employer mandate revenue projected for fiscal year 2015 will almost certainly disappear.

Then there’s the separate question of whether, when, and how employers will drop their health insurance plans and dump their workers on the exchanges. Here’s what we know on that front:

Continue Reading

I Read the Bill…Well, Not Quite

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

I had a goal this past weekend. It was rather ambitious but one I thought I could tackle. It was to read the Immigration Bill, but after finding a copy online, I quickly discovered if I wanted to not have my eyes bleed or head explode I’d better develop a new tact.

I also concluded that due to the bills length, 1274 pages, there isn’t a government official, elected or otherwise that know what is in this monstrosity.

As a matter of fact, a member of Congress, representative John Carter (R-TX) admitted just that last Friday. He said: “there are things in the bill that I don’t know what they mean because I’m not an immigration lawyer.”

As a matter of principle, all these politicians should be thrown out on their derrières for not reading these bills or understanding them, yet still voting for them. The sad truth is that most of them simply don’t care.

Back to it. So back online I went and found a summary of the bill. The summary was 72 pages, 4803 sections!

I knew early on I would not get through the whole document. Frankly I wanted to prove to others and myself wrong; that the bill wasn’t as bad as I had heard.

I was wrong. It’s worse and I only made it to section 2551 out of 4803.

Here are some of the gems I found. Some you may have already heard, some not. Due to the language, I will paraphrase. My comments will be italicized.

Section 3: No one will be granted RPI (Registered Provisional Immigrant) status until Big Sis (Sec. Napolitano) submits a border security plan to Congress.

So nothing actually has to be done – just a plan submitted. Rubio already admitted that.

Section 4: If after five years high risk border sectors haven’t been controlled, a “Southern Border Security Commission” will be established.

After five years? Oh, and the commissioners are appointed by Obama (or the next president), Reid and Boehner. Terrific! I feel safer.

Section 1105:… The secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture must conduct an environmental impact study of security activities.

That way they can provide cover for Big Sis to shut down border security due to environmental concerns.

Section 1107: DHS will provide sat phones (satellite phones) to those in high-risk rural areas without cell service.

For what? Who will they call? Some law enforcement entity that couldn’t get to them in time to do anything? And if they tried to defend themselves they would probably be charged with a hate crime.

Section 2101: an alien granted RPI status may be issued a Social Security card.

Is it just me, but aren’t Social Security cards reserved for American citizens only? This section states that they receive the card so that they may enlist in the armed services. It does not specify any other purpose. Use your imagination; they will.

Observation: while reading this summary, I noticed throughout the bill, the “Secretary” has a lot of discretion to do things or not, to change things or not and to waive requirements as she sees fit. I thought it interesting.

Section 2104: if an aliens RPI application is denied (not that it ever would be) they can appeal the decision in US District Court or an appellate court.

That won’t clog up and already overburdened court system much.

Section 2106 you have probably heard. DHS doles out millions of dollars to liberal nonprofits like La Raza to teach aliens English, the Constitution and American history (and register them as Democrats). What you may not have heard is the same program is repeated in section 2535 under a different program name.

The newly named “Office of Citizenship and New Americans” heads it up.

Section 2232 allows the feds to tell the agricultural industry how much they must pay their workers and the USDA Secretary is charged with forcing annual pay raises between 1.5 and 2.5% per year – regardless of the economy.

At this point I started running out of gas, but I couldn’t resist this one last gem.

Section 2551: waiver of English requirement for senior “new Americans”. If you’re over 60 and have lived in the US for 10 years or more – you don’t have to learn English.

10 years and they can’t speak our language? That’s an immigrant that will really help our economy. I also noticed about halfway in, the word “alien” disappeared and was replaced with “new Americans”.

Well that’s about as much as I could stand. Just know that these examples were just a fraction of what is wrong with this bill. This Bill from front to back is a disaster, chock-full of benefits and no enforcement. Don’t be fooled by any of the rhetoric!

Palin and Levin to Form New Party?

Might the GOP go the way of the Whig Party?

As she rejoins Fox News Channel, Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin may soon part ways with another organization that helped pave the way for her celebrity success.

The former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican nominee for vice president responded to a Fox viewer’s Twitter question Saturday about the possibility of her and conservative commenter Mark Levin leaving the Republican Party and creating a new political group called the ‘Freedom Party.’

Palin hinted that she is open to the thought of going independent and said that if the GOP continues to stray from its conservative roots, others in the party would do the same.

‘I love the name of that party — the “Freedom Party,”‘ Palin replied. ‘And if the GOP continues to back away from the planks in our platform, from the principles that built this party of Lincoln and Reagan, then yeah, more and more of us are going to start saying, “You know, what’s wrong with being independent,” kind of with that libertarian streak that much of us have.

‘In other words, we want government to back off and not infringe upon our rights. I think there will be a lot of us who start saying “GOP, if you abandon us, we have nowhere else to go except to become more independent and not enlisted in a one or the other private majority parties that rule in our nation, either a Democrat or a Republican.”

Continue Reading

No Guns In the Forest

Could this be the next play of the Feds to limit our ability to bear arms? No guns on frederal land?

 

PLACERVILLE (CBS13) — The fight that has the El Dorado County sheriff planning to revoke a federal agency’s enforcement power in his county is apparently over residents’ rights to carry guns.

Cory Ward is an avid outdoorsman who frequents the El Dorado National forest. But he’s concerned this paradise could turn into a police state.

“I have felt intimidated,” he said.

He’s got a long list of complaints against federal officers who patrol the forest.

“They want to know what you’re doing here, where you’re going, do you have any firearms on board.”

It appears this exploding confrontation between Sheriff John D’Agostini and the U.S. Forest service may come down to guns, and the right to carry them, and whether U.S. citizens are allowed to bring them onto federal land.

Continue Reading

United Community of America

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

It’s funny that the left can consistently find things that are clearly not in the Constitution and discount or completely ignore those that clearly are in the document.

Decade after decade we’ve heard the constant drumbeat of the left exclaiming the separation of church and state. That it’s the law and we must take care not to co-mingle religion and the state.

I’ve read the Constitution many times and can state unequivocally that the separation of church and state is not written nor even implied in the Constitution.

What is clear, to anyone who cares to take a peek, is the separation of powers. That is as plain as the nose on my brother’s face.

Yet there doesn’t seem to be a separation any longer. There appear to be no branches of government that are separate but equal. Somewhere along the American timeline our constitutional republic has been replaced with some kind of three-class system.

But what about “we the people”? There is no “we the people”. We are merely indentured servants of the state, lower than the low.

Our federal legislative branch, the House and Senate, have become the lower or serf class. They have to answer to the parliamentarian class, the executive branch, who in turn must ultimately bow to the will of the rulers, the judicial branch.

How did we morph into such a society? Easy; from a single Supreme Court decision. It’s called judicial review and was set up long ago.

The 1803 decision of the Marshall Court in Marbury v Madison  set this country on a path to judicial tyranny.

The eventuality of that one Supreme Court decision has effectively nullified the 10th amendment , states rights and rendered individual state constitutions virtually meaningless.

Yet in the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, a review of Article III, section 2  nowhere states or implies judicial review of the Constitution.

Folks (I sound like Bill O’Reilly), the Constitution is quite simple to understand. It’s made to appear complex so that the common man feels reliant upon “scholars” to explain to us idiots what the founders “really” meant.

In fact, it was written and enacted for and by the states thus granting states most of the power. It would not have been ratified otherwise.

That is why, unlike today’s legislation, it is not at all a lengthy document. It didn’t have to be. Any power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the federal government reverts back to the states and thus the people. It’s really that simple.

Yet we have allowed the Supreme Court to usurp their mandated authority.

Thomas Jefferson wrote of the danger of the court in 1823: “At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for the removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the Constitution, and working its change by construction, before anyone has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employing in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.”

There’s that word, precedent. Makes my skin crawl.

Ditto Abraham Lincoln: “We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts – not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”

But with the recent Supreme Court decision nullifying a legally binding California state constitutional amendment on marriage, I’ve concluded that ship has sailed. 

The fix is now in and that decision marks the end of states rights and the 10th amendment. We will soon be known as the “United Community of America”, a centuries-old progressive dream come true.

Left Wing Writer Opposes Immigration Bill

While the U.S. Senate easily passed the immigration bill Thursday, the measure is expected to encounter resistance from GOP House members before it ever lands on President Obama’s desk in the Oval Office.

The battle shaping up looks to be fierce. But in the midst of this political fight is one voice you just don’t hear that much about:

A liberal encouraging other liberals to oppose the immigration bill.

He’s not an elected official, but a writer for the left-leaning New Republic magazine.

And T.A. Frank knows his article, Why Liberals Should Oppose the Immigration Bill: It’s about low-wage American workers, won’t garner him kudos from his political tribe:

The consensus among decent people in favor of the immigration bill making its way through Congress is so firm that expressing dissent feels a bit like taking the floor to suggest we chop down the Redwood National Park. People don’t want to hear it, and they also think you’re a nut. That makes this article one of the hardest I’ve ever had to write. It’s not that I’m afraid people will get angry; it’s that I can’t imagine anyone on my side (liberal) is open to persuasion.

Frank’s objection to the immigration bill has its roots in future concerns:

Continue Reading

DDT Ban Kills

from: Ed Hiserodt and Rebecca Terrell

 

Worldwide, more than 2,700 people will die today because of a bureaucratic regulation instituted during the Nixon administration in 1972. The same number died yesterday and will again tomorrow, in an ever-growing tally of victims of that catastrophic policy. The regulation imposed by Nixon’s newly formed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned DDT, an insecticide that had until then saved the lives of countless U.S. citizens. Leaders in Europe and the United Nations followed suit in a frenzy of misguided environmental zeal and bloodthirsty population control fervor.

“European nations and the United States used insecticides to rid themselves of disease and then pulled up the ladder, denying Africans, Asians and Latin Americans the benefits of those same insecticides,” explain Dr. Donald Roberts and Richard Tren in their 2010 exposé, The Excellent Powder: DDT’s Political and Scientific History. Wealthy nations merit this accusation because before the advent of DDT, parasitic diseases like malaria, typhus, and yellow fever had plagued their own shores for centuries. These infections are known as vector-borne diseases because insects (i.e., vectors) carry disease-causing parasites from person to person.

When DDT first came into use as a pesticide, many called it miraculous, which was hardly an exaggeration considered in perspective. Until then, yellow fever claimed so many lives it was known in the United States as the “Scourge of the South.” The French abandoned efforts in the 1880s to construct the Panama Canal because malaria killed so many workers. Typhus, the disease that took the life of diarist Anne Frank, was once feared as deadlier than any weapon of war in Europe. Yet in a period of three weeks in 1943, DDT wiped out one of history’s deadliest typhus outbreaks in Naples, Italy. In fact DDT’s effectiveness has made all these disease names as antiquated to our ears as scurvy and the plague.

Not so for unfortunates in developing countries. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), globally malaria kills approximately one million people every year, more than any other parasitic infection. Most victims are young children in sub-Saharan Africa. Names like typhus, yellow fever, leishmaniasis, dengue fever, and bancroftian filariasis are likewise too familiar to hundreds of thousands of those affected in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East.

DDT’s life-saving properties are lost to them because the EPA’s 1972 ban sparked a global censure of the pesticide. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) now classifies it as one of 12 “Persistent Organic Pollutants” (POPs), otherwise known as “The Dirty Dozen.” UNEP claims DDT is a danger to humans and the environment. Yet a closer look at the case reveals a terrifying reality: saving lives isn’t what policymakers are after.

Cruz Missle

from: David Martosko of the UK Daily Mail

Senator Ted Cruz is mad as hell about the U.S. State Department, and he’s not going to take it anymore. The Texas Republican said Wednesday that because President Obama has never appointed an Inspector General to investigate the agency’s problems, he will block every other State Department nominee until that’s corrected.

‘The President’s failure to nominate a State Department Inspector General since taking office in 2009 is unacceptable,’ Cruz said. ‘The position has been vacant for almost 2,000 days.’

‘During the last five years, there have been deadly attacks on U.S. diplomatic personnel in Libya, mismanagement of security contractors at our embassy in Afghanistan, and hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars wasted for police training in Iraq,’ he complained.

 
Cruz said he's fed up with the administration's failure to appoint watchdogs inside cabinet-level agencies. Any single senator can place a 'hold' on a presidential nominee
 

 

 
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Barack Obama spoke during a Transfer of Remains Ceremony following the Benghazi attack
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Barack Obama spoke during a Transfer of Remains Ceremony following the Benghazi attack. Without a functioning Inspector General, Cruz contends, it’s unlikely the truth about the State Department’s failures in Libya will ever be known

‘These issues highlight the State Department’s need for an Inspector General as soon as possible. Until the President acts, I have notified Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell that I will place a hold on all State Department nominations.’

On June 14 the president nominated six new ambassadors to serve in Brazil, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Ethiopia and the Vatican. 

Four days earlier he announced his picks to represent the U.S. at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and on the UN Human Rights Council.

On May 23 the administration nominated ambassadors to Nigeria and NATO, and named former State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to be Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.

 
Secretary of State John Kerry, like Hillary Clinton before him, has been silent on his agency's lack of a chief internal investigator
Secretary of State John Kerry, like Hillary Clinton before him, has been silent on his agency’s lack of a chief internal investigator

 

 
U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans died during the 2012 terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya
U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans died during the 2012 terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The State Department’s own internal probe into that event has inspired little confidence among congressional Republicans

While Cruz’s one-man wrecking crew will place all those appointments in jeopardy, it’s Nuland’s nomination that could prove most embarrassing for the White House.

Nuland is the staffer who is most closely identified with the administration’s rewriting of the CIA’s candid assessment of what happened on Sept. 12, 2012 when terrorists attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The result was a doctored set of talking points that conservatives say gave UN Ambassador Susan Rice a clear field to lie on five Sunday political talk shows.

 
Ted Cruz has emerged as the tea party's most visible champion, advocating a hard line against the Obama administration and the abolition of the IRS. He addressed a tea party rally on Capitol Hill on June 19
Ted Cruz has emerged as the tea party’s most visible champion, advocating a hard line against the Obama administration and the abolition of the IRS. He addressed a tea party rally on Capitol Hill on June 19

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland's emails show that the agency, then headed by Hillary Clinton, had a direct hand in altering the official story on the Benghazi terror attack

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland’s emails show that the agency, then headed by Hillary Clinton, had a direct hand in altering the official story on the Benghazi terror attack

 

Without an inspector general, that episode won’t likely be investigated internally.

Cruz cited information from the Project on Government Oversight, which said three other high level agencies — the Interior and Labor Departments, and the Agency for International Development — also lack Inspectors General.

The State Department did not respond to a request for comment.