With the advent of the one-two punch of the crippling costs of Obamacare couple with his open immigration policy, one should take heed of the ill effects of said policies in Europe.
True scale of European immigration The Telegraph, October 11, 2013 (thanks to Lou)
An EU study has found 600,000 unemployed migrants are living in Britain - a 42 per cent rise
More than 600,000 unemployed European Union migrants are living in Britain at a cost of £1.5 billion to the NHS alone, according to an EU report.
The authoritative study, obtained by The Sunday Telegraph, shows the number of jobless European migrants coming to Britain has risen dramatically in the past five years, intensifying demands for the Government to renegotiate EU membership.
Opponents of the EU seized on the figures to suggest Britain could not afford to allow European migrants to come here at will while continuing to provide a universal benefits system.
The 291-page report, to be published this week by the European commissioner in charge of employment and welfare, discloses:
All is not lost, friends. AP: Obama’s Approval Falls to Record Low 37 Percent
Students at the University of Colorado - Boulder (CU), a dependably liberal college town, blamed President Obama and Democrats on Tuesday for the ongoing government shutdown, which is now in its second week.
“He’s [Obama] just being really stubborn, not willing to negotiate at all, not taking any ideas from anyone else, it’s either his way or the highway and apparently we got to shutdown the government because of that,” one student told Campus Reform. Watch: Students at the liberal U of Colorado blame Obama, Dems, for shutdown fight
.... while getting a free pass from his most powerful political organization -- the media. Whatever your politics, this is dictatorial.
"Feds Try to Close the OCEAN Because of Shutdown" Mike Flynn, October 5, 2013 Breibart
Just before the weekend, the National Park Service informed charter boat captains in Florida that the Florida Bay was "closed" due to the shutdown. Until government funding is restored, the fishing boats are prohibited from taking anglers into 1,100 square-miles of open ocean. Fishing is also prohibited at Biscayne National Park during the shutdown.The Park Service will also have rangers on duty to police the ban. Of access to an ocean. The government will probably use more personnel and spend more resources to attempt to close the ocean, than it would in its normal course of business.This is governing by temper-tantrum. It is on par with the government's ham-fisted attempts to close the DC WWII Memorial, an open-air public monument that is normally accessible 24 hours a day. By accessible I mean, you walk up to it. When you have finished reflecting, you then walk away from it.At least that Memorial is an actual structure, with some kind of perimeter that can be fenced off. Florida Bay is the ocean. How, pray tell, do you "close" 1,100 square miles of ocean? Why would one even need to do so?Apparently, according to an anonymous Park Service ranger, “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting.”Centuries ago, King Canute famously failed to command the ocean tide to stop. His display was actually a means to educate his subjects on the limits of royal power. Today, however, our President actually believes he has the power to control the oceans.
.....to describe the Republicans' principled stand for the American people. You can't make this stuff up. I have never heard a Democrat use the word jihad. Until now.
Rep. Miller (D-CA) on the House Floor: "The chairman of the committee says that we should think of the impact before we act. That we should think of the impact on the parks before we vote against this bill. Did you think about the parks when you voted to shutdown the government? Did you think about the impacts? The gentleman from Montana yesterday came to the floor and said its hurting the local economy, the gentleman from California came and said the towns around Yosemite, was he thinking about that when he voted originally to shut down the government? He was prepared to sacrifice the local economy; he was prepared to sacrifice the towns around Yosemite, when he was on a Jihad against American citizens getting access to healthcare. He was fully prepared to sacrifice the parks and the economy and fire recovery. But you know what you found out in the last 24 hours? That millions of Americans went to find healthcare, to sign up for healthcare, to get access to healthcare. And millions of Americans have decided that you are doing the wrong thing in shutting down their government. So when you were on the jihad against America’s access to healthcare, shutting down the parks wasn’t a problem."
Why should the American people be the only victims of Obamacare? Why shouldn't the Congress and FOO (Friends of Obama) who were given exemptions to this disaster have to suffer the consequences of socialized medicine?
The media can paint this as the GOP's fault. What else is new? It's what they do. But if the Democrats would agree to Congress participating in this fiasco along with the rest of us, the shutdown would be over. Everyone goes down with this ship. But Obama said today on NPR that he absolutely does not have to negotiate anything. How Presidential! How representative of all the people! If a Republican president ever behaved in such an autocratic manner, he would fed to the sharks.
As for the shutdown -- does this mean the government isn't spending even more of our hard-earned money? Good.
As for Obama's fearmongering, I think he summed up the problem nicely when he said, “the Federal government is America’s largest employer.” That, sir, is the problem.
It's a different dustbowl, but this time the media is telling everyone how great it all is.
Obama is downsizing America in every way imaginable. Downsizing the motor of the world (while incurring incalculable debt coupled with socialized medicine, Obamacare).
Last week I discussed Obama's dismantling American hegemony on the world stage. Now more bad news on the home front.
I regularly receive letters like the one I was cc'ed on below to Senator Ted Cruz.
Dear Senator Cruz,
I am a new Obama Peasant (one suffering under the weight of government's deleterious economic/liberty crushing policies). Your efforts to Preserve Our Liberty are intellectually and emotionally uplifting because of the possibilities they reveal. I want to Thank You.
For background, I'm a 50 year old man who -up until 2010- never knew poverty, hunger, fear of the future. I have owned my homes since I was 21. I lost my two full time jobs in May-2009 and since then, I have been pulverized by the weak/sick economy. If I can't short-sell, I will be losing my home of 26.11 years . I can't fix my 1987 Ford Escort wagon; I am riding a bike....Unbelievable. I cannot take care of my 74 year old Mother with early Alzhiemers. I have officially been in Poverty-to-Extreme Poverty since 2011.
I have 2 part-time jobs that don't add up to a fraction of one of my previous jobs. I am trying to build a micro-business but it is difficult. I am pushing forward but I am at my weakest point in Life.
I have lost hope of being able to help save our country from the pernicious effects of the the Mystical Statist Wizards on the Potomac. They've been sinisterly successful in their duplicitous plot to wear people down to dependency on Them.
I wish I could go to Washington or join a group but I am to focused on basic survival. The only thing I have to offer to the winning the DEBATE for getting America on track toward its founding goals is an edited (toned) part of an old 1985 college economics paper for Professor Jay Forrester-M.I.T. that described a hypothetical future America that had reached the economic/financial/social/political limits of decades of expansion and debt financing.
Here's a list of over 300 employers who have allegedly cut their employees’ hours because of Obamacare. (thanks to Suzanne)
These 300 employers have allegedly cut their employees’ hours to avoid a tax associated with President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law was published this week by a prominent investors website.
I never thought I would run that headline, so much am I a champion of individual rights and capitalism. But this is socialism on the march.
Congress is exempt from Obamacare, but I have to have that crap?
Anyone who works for the state gets special treatment. The great unwashed? The hoi polloi? The bourgeoisie? Not so much.
The average staffer makes $75K - $150K salary (Rush, yesterday) and they complain that they can't afford healthcare. (thanks to Van)
* Congress, staff, to keep federal health premium payments Reuters, August 7, 2013 , By David Lawder
* Congress, staff, to keep federal health premium payments
* Ruling aimed at avoiding "brain drain" on Capitol Hill (Adds comments from Republicans, Pelosi, edits)
WASHINGTON, Aug 7 (Reuters) - Congress has won some partial relief for lawmakers and their staffs from the "Obamacare" health reforms that it passed and subjected itself to three years ago.
In a ruling issued on Wednesday, U.S. lawmakers and their staffs will continue to receive a federal contribution toward the health insurance that they must purchase through soon-to-open exchanges created by President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law.
The decision by the Office of Personnel Management, with Obama's blessing, will prevent the largely unintended loss of healthcare benefits for 535 members of the Senate and House of Representatives and thousands of Capitol Hill staff.
When Congress passed the health reform law known as Obamacare in 2010, an amendment required that lawmakers and their staff members purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created. They would lose generous coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
The amendment's author, Republican Senator Charles Grassley, argued that if Obamacare plans were good enough for the American public, they were good enough for Congress. Democrats, eager to pass the reforms, went along with it.
It took a federal judge to give this child a chance at life. Obama wouldn't do it -- imagine: he changes the rules daily for his own sick agenda, but for a sick kid? Nah.
Birth control rule change? Check!
Contraception rule change? Check!
Immigration rule change? Check!
Rules of engagement rule change? Check!
Hot meals for troops rule change? Check!
Visa rule change? Check!
Must I go on? Obama's U.S. health secretary has turned down appeals to overrule a federal regulation that could save the life of a 10-year girl who desperately needs a lung transplant or faces dying in the next three to five weeks.
Politico: A federal judge has ordered Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to allow Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old in Pennsylvania dying of cystic fibrosis, to be moved to the adult lung transplant list. Normally the federal policy prevents children under age 12 from receiving donated adult lungs, but Sebelius has been under pressure to make an exception.
The parents of the girl asked the judge on Wednesday to order Sebelius to change organ donation rules so that the dying child has a better chance of receiving new lungs. They say she is running out of time.
"They say." Only in left-wing media publications would they say that. She is running out of time. Doctors say Sarah Murnaghan, 10, will die in three to five weeks unless she gets a lung transplant.
Daily Mail has this: Sarah has been hospitalized at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia for three months with end-stage cystic fibrosis and is on a ventilator. Her family wants all children younger than 12 to be eligible for adult lungs because so few pediatric lungs are available. Under current policy, only patients 12 and over can join the list. But Sarah's transplant doctors say she is medically eligible for an adult lung
Obama 's war on the church continues ...... I am glad that the church is fighting back and filing this historic lawsuit. Perhaps if these cardinals converted to islam, they would get the respect and deference they so richly deserve from Hussein.
(CNSNews.com) - The Archdiocese of New York, headed by Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., headed by Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the University of Notre Dame, and 40 other Catholic dioceses and organizations around the country announced on Monday that they are suing the Obama administration for violating their freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The dioceses and organizations, in different combinations, are filing 12 different lawsuits filed in federal courts around the country.
The Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. has established a special website--preservereligiousfreedom.org--to explain its lawsuit and present news and developments concerning it.
"This lawsuit is about an unprecedented attack by the federal government on one of America’s most cherished freedoms: the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference," the archdiocese says on the website. "It is not about whether people have access to certain services; it is about whether the government may force religious institutions and individuals to facilitate and fund services which violate their religious beliefs."
The suits filed by the Catholic organizations focus on the regulation that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced last August and finalized in January that requires virtually all health-care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives, including those that can cause abortions.
Not that you would want to be treated by such compassionate practitioners of medicine. How would the Obama administration, the same regime that would jail Americans for not buying health insurance, handle this?
More than three-quarters of Muslim med students feel right to refuse treatmentJuly 23, 2011 by creeping
The next generation of doctors believe they should have the right to refuse to treat certain patients based on personal, moral and religious beliefs.
An anonymous survey of more than 700 British medical students found nearly half felt they should be entitled to make conscientious objections to carrying out procedures, including abortions and treating drunk patients.
Most of their objections were linked to non-religious reasons, but about one-fifth of students cited religion as the key factor.
Out of the 10 different religious groups the students belonged to, Muslims were the most likely to believe they had a right to conscientiously object.
“[The survey] is a litmus test for the future in that they didn’t survey doctors; they surveyed students,” Australian Medical Association president Steve Hambleton said.
“It may be that we need to focus some of those ethical issues in medical courses, given the increase in the number of female students and there being more of a mix of race and religion [among medical students].”
More than three-quarters of Muslim students and more than half of Jewish and Protestant students felt doctors had a right to make a conscientious objection.
Will training overcome religious ideologies? Sharia? Hospitals in the U.S. are becoming more sharia compliant.
Florida Judge Vinson: "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void"
We have a couple of Americans left in the judiciary, thank Gd.
US Judge in the state of Florida ruled that the Congress exceeded its authority. The judge in Florida issued the latest ruling on the constitutionality of President Obama’s signature health overhaul.
Utah and 25 other states sued to challenge the “individual mandate,” which requires that nearly all Americans carry health insurance or face a financial penalty. The states argued that mandate oversteps constitutional limits on federal authority.
Judge Vinson declared the law unconstitutional. His is the second such ruling. In two other cases, judges determined that the individual mandate was legal, setting up a showdown to be decided months, or years, from now by the U.S. Supreme Court.
But the Florida case marks the largest attack on the sweeping Affordable Care Act meant to extend health coverage to America’s uninsured.
“This litigation is important, and not just because it deals with health care,” said Swallow. “In essence, what we’re saying is Congress broke the rules by forcing Americans to buy a product they don’t want to buy.” (here)
It was bad enough when he took on the Ground Zero mosque -- yeesh. Yes, Bill, let's hear what the Hamas group CAIR has to say about the mosque again.
Now Bull O'Reilly is admonishing the Republicans for their initiative to repeal Obamacare, saying it is fruitless. That it cannot be done. Uh, what? What was all that tea party activity about? What were all those rallies about? Why did millions take to the streets? Why did hundreds of thousands march on their congressman's offices during the summer? Why did Republicans snag 600 legislative seats?
O'Reilly is out of touch. Out of tune. If the Republicans did not work on repealing Obamacare, you'd be looking at villagers with torches.
It's a good day, folks. You gotta love this from the Constitutional Law Professor part time instructor in the White House. Bwahahahahahahaha
Take the gloves off, the fight has begun.
A Virginia judge on Monday determined that the law’s requirement that most Americans have health insurance (or pay to opt-out) is unconstitutional.
RICHMOND – A federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that a key provision of the nation’s sweeping health-care overhaul is unconstitutional, the most significant legal setback so far for President Obama’s signature domestic initiative.
U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson found that Congress could not order individuals to buy health insurance.
In a 42-page opinion, Hudson said the provision of the law that requires most individuals to get insurance or pay a fine by 2014 is an unprecedented expansion of federal power that cannot be supported by Congress’s power to regulate interstate trade.
“Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market,” he wrote. “In doing so, enactment of the [individual mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I [of the Constitution.]
read the rest: Key provision of health-care overhaul ruled unconstitutional.
UPDATE: Mark Levin had this in his Facebook post:
From Landmark Legal Foundation on ObamaCare
Today Federal District Judge Henry Hudson ruled against the Obama Administration on three essential points involving Obamacare:
1. Individuals who do not actively participate in commerce -- that is, who do not voluntarily purchase health insurance -- cannot be said to be participating in commerce under the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause, and there is no Supreme Court precedent providing otherwise;
2. The Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution cannot be used as a backdoor means to enforce a statute that is not otherwise constitutional under Congress's enumerated powers;
and 3. There is a difference between a tax and a penalty, there is much Supreme Court precedent in this regard, and the penalty provision in Obamacare is not a tax but a penalty and, therefore, is unconstitutional for it is applied to individuals who choose not to purchase health care.
Judge Hudson's ruling against the Obama Administration and for the Commonwealth of Virginia gives hope that the rule of law and the Constitution itself still having meaning. Landmark Legal Foundation has filed several amicus briefs in this case, at the request of the Commonwealth, and will continue to provide support in the likely event the Commonwealth is required to defend this decision in the Fourth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court. Landmark would also like to congratulate Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and the excellent lawyers in his office for their superb legal skills.
Landmark President Mark R. Levin declared: "It is a great day for the rule of law and the citizenry. Judge Hudson's ruling is ironclad, and General Cuccinelli deserves an enormous amount of credit for taking on this mater. We look forward to continuing to work with him."
It's painful to watch the destruction of the world's best health care system, the rout of the private health care sector, and the impossible burden foisted on the individual American wallet for this so-called privilege of serving "the common good."
Ayn Rand on the "Common Good":
The tribal notion of “the common good” has served as the moral justification of most social systems—and of all tyrannies—in history. The degree of a society’s enslavement or freedom corresponded to the degree to which that tribal slogan was invoked or ignored.
“The common good” (or “the public interest”) is an undefined and undefinable concept: there is no such entity as “the tribe” or “the public”; the tribe (or the public or society) is only a number of individual men. Nothing can be good for the tribe as such; “good” and “value” pertain only to a living organism—to an individual living organism—not to a disembodied aggregate of relationships.
“The common good” is a meaningless concept, unless taken literally, in which case its only possible meaning is: the sum of the good of all the individual men involved. But in that case, the concept is meaningless as a moral criterion: it leaves open the question of what is the good of individual men and how does one determine it?
It is not, however, in its literal meaning that that concept is generally used. It is accepted precisely for its elastic, undefinable, mystical character which serves, not as a moral guide, but as an escape from morality. Since the good is not applicable to the disembodied, it becomes a moral blank check for those who attempt to embody it.
When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. It is tacitly assumed, in such cases, that “the common good” means “the good of the majority” as against the minority or the individual. Observe the significant fact that that assumption is tacit: even the most collectivized mentalities seem to sense the impossibility of justifying it morally. But “the good of the majority,” too, is only a pretense and a delusion: since, in fact, the violation of an individual’s rights means the abrogation of all rights, it delivers the helpless majority into the power of any gang that proclaims itself to be “the voice of society” and proceeds to rule by means of physical force, until deposed by another gang employing the same means.
Below is must-read commentary from Robert Tracinski, The Intellectual Activist (it's paid only, so subscribe):
I would be tempted to say that I told you so—again and again—except that there's no point in such a complaint, because the American public was listening when we warned them that ObamaCare would destroy private health insurance. The only people who weren't listening were the Democrats in Congress—who also knew that it was true, but who wanted that disastrous outcome.
And now the outcome is here—but faster and worse than we expected.
A group of health insurance companies just announced that the provisions of ObamaCare are already causing them to increase their insurance premiums.In addition to pledging that the law would restrain increases in Americans' insurance premiums, Democrats front-loaded the legislation with early provisions they hoped would boost public support. Those include letting children stay on their parents' insurance policies until age 26, eliminating co-payments for preventive care, and barring insurers from denying policies to children with pre-existing conditions, plus the elimination of the coverage caps.
Weeks before the election, insurance companies began telling state regulators it is those very provisions that are forcing them to increase their rates.
Of course, all of this was predictable and was predicted by opponents of the legislation. But that's not the important part of the story.
The real news is the Obama administration's reaction, which has been to demand that insurers be denied permission to increase their premiums—and that they be punished even for communicating to the public about the cause of the rate increases. As Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius declared, "There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."
An outraged Michael Barone—and Barone is a sober establishment type who doesn't often get angry—describes this as another instance of "gangster government."
[Sebelius] promises to issue regulations to require "state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases" (which would presumably mean all rate increases).
And there's a threat. "We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014."
That's a significant date, the first year in which state insurance exchanges are slated to get a monopoly on the issuance of individual health insurance policies. Sebelius is threatening to put health insurers out of business in a substantial portion of the market if they state that Obamacare is boosting their costs.
"Congress shall make no law," reads the First Amendment, "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
Sebelius' approach is different: "zero tolerance" for dissent.
But Barone doesn't address the other part of this story. Jack Wakeland sent me a note reminding me of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick's similar efforts under the reign of RomneyCare.
"Deval Patrick's arbitrary cap on rates for small group insurance plans was the starting point for a cascade of events that is rapidly destroying the private health insurance market in Massachusetts—beginning with small group health insurance plans used by independent contractors, self-employed businessmen, family-owned and operated businesses, and other small businesses.
"Last Thursday, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius began taking the nation down the road that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has been traveling: towards the end of private health insurance."
We had assumed that ObamaCare would not destroy private health insurance until it is fully implemented in 2014, giving us time to defund it, to slow it down, and then to repeal it. But Sebelius is putting us on notice that the Obama administration intends to use the vast and arbitrary regulatory powers granted in the law to shut down private insurance now.
That's why we're going to need a new crop of radicals in Congress. They won't just need to engage in parliamentary stalling tactics to gum up the legislative works. They will need to launch an all-out battle to restrain an administration that is fully committed to using its unchecked, tyrannical regulatory power to override the will of the people and destroy what is left of American liberty.
So we need a new group of legislators who will show zero tolerance.—RWT
To the buzz, I love you right back.
In case you missed my column today at Big Government:
Notice how Obama bad news always drops on Friday nights. But the Democrats will not forever be able to keep quiet the reality and the consequences of Obama rule.
Meanwhile, as the health care putsch continues, the world goes to hell in handbasket. The sinking of the South Korean warship near the North Korean border Friday was almost certainly an act of war, even as South Korean officials played down that possibility. Nonetheless, it reeks of the North Koreans. North Korea never would have pulled something like this under Bush. Never. But they know Obama will do nothing and that South Korea is on her own. Barack Hussein Obama ain’t Harry S Truman.
With Obama at the helm, expect hell to break loose. Iranian nukes? Yawn. Pakistan jihadis with nukes? Crickets chirping. Abandonment of Israel? Check! Socializing healthcare? Job 1!
And as they take over seventeen percent of the American economy, how cocky the Democrats are — full of contempt for the hard-working American. In order to fund Obama’s counter-insurgency in America, the enemy must be cut off of supplies, succor and support. And who is the enemy? He is us. The U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has ordered the closing of numerous fast-food outlets on bases. Command Sgt. Maj. Michael T. Hall explained that “some of the morale, welfare and recreation facilities throughout Afghanistan” for troops would be cut: “In the coming weeks and months, concessions such as Orange Julius, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Dairy Queen and Military Car Sales will close their doors.”
Trillions on the backs of our kids, but no cheezboigers for the troops. But there is plenty of money for Kobe steaks for King O. Date nights in Manhattan with Michelle for a million. $600 sneakers for her as well. And remember that taxpayers footed the $101,000 bill for in-flight parties on Air Force jets arranged by Nancy Pelosi: according to journalist Bob Unruh at WorldNetDaily, “it reads like a dream order for some wild frat party: Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey … and Corona beer.”
You think Obama has been a nightmare? You ain't seen nothing yet. That was just the previews.
Have you seen the commercials yet for people who have maxed out their credit cards, have loans over ten thousand that they can't pay back, urging them to apply for stimulus dollars? It's enough to make you puke. For those who played by the rules, worked hard, did the right thing -- you're screwed, the man has you and your wallet and your kids' wallet by the throat. Welcome to the era of the degenerate -- they will be sucking your blood and your children's blood and your children's children's blood for decades to come, or however long America lasts.
American business, the motor of the global economy, was dealt a deathblow by the marxist putsch delivered by the Demo-rat party. The numbers are staggering. AT&T, the largest telephone company in the country, will take a one billion dollar hit in the current quarter as a result of this economic attack on America.
Verizon Communications, the second biggest U.S. phone company, told employees that tax burdens under the new law would likely filter down to employees.
Other companies that announced health care reform related charges include Deere, a maker of farm equipment, which sees a US$150-million charge for its current quarter, and Caterpillar, which warned of a US $100-million charge.
Who do you think will pay for this? We will pay. Business is not something in the abstract, or the evil force the leftists and the communists deceptively smear it to be -- business is work, business is people, it is jobs, it is production. When business pays, we pay. Jobs pay. Consumers pay.
Notice how Obama bad news always drops on Friday nights. You won't be able to keep the reality and the consequences of Obama rule.
Why wasn't this made public before the vote?
AT&T Inc. will take a $1 billion non-cash accounting charge in the first quarter because of the health care overhaul and may cut benefits it offers to current and retired workers.
The charge is the largest disclosed so far. Earlier this week, AK Steel Corp., Caterpillar Inc., Deere & Co. and Valero Energy announced similar accounting charges, saying the health care law that President Barack Obama signed Tuesday will raise their expenses. On Friday, 3M Co. said it will also take a charge of $85 million to $90 million.
All five are smaller than AT&T, and their combined charges are less than half of the $1 billion that AT&T is planning. The $1 billion is a third of AT&T's most recent quarterly earnings. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the company earned $3 billion on revenue of $30.9 billion.
AT&T said Friday that the charge reflects changes to how Medicare subsidies are taxed. Companies say the health care overhaul will require them to start paying taxes next year on a subsidy they receive for retiree drug coverage.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday that the tax law closed a loophole.
Under the 2003 Medicare prescription drug program, companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees have been able to receive subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs. But they could deduct the entire amount they spent on these drug benefits - including the subsidies - from their taxable income.
The new law allows companies to only deduct the 72 percent they spent.
AT&T also said Friday that it is looking into changing the health care benefits it offers because of the new law. Analysts say retirees could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers as a result of the overhaul.
UPDATE: More on O's rout:
(CNSNews.com) – As a candidate for president, Barack Obama decried the financial toll that the Iraq war was taking on the economy, but Obama’s proposed spending on welfare through 2010 will eclipse Bush’s war spending by more than $260 billion.“Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned,” then-Sen. Barack Obama told a Charleston, W.V., crowd in March 2008. “This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it.”
During the entire administration of George W. Bush, the Iraq war cost a total of $622 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.
President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year--2010--more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.
Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. This will lead to a spending total of $10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs. These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans and those at 200 percent of the poverty level, or $44,000 for a family of four. Among that total, $7.5 trillion will be federal money and $2.8 trillion will be federally mandated state expenditures.
In that same West Virginia speech last year, Obama said, “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.”
The Heritage study says, “Applying that same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.”
The welfare reform package of 1996 only targeted one program, which was Aid for Families with Dependent Children, pushing work requirements for recipients to encourage them to get off the rolls. There are still 70 different welfare programs spread across 14 different federal agencies, said Robert Rector, senior research fellow in domestic policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, who co-wrote the study.
“The average person says I thought we ended welfare. Well, it’s a good thing we ended it, otherwise we’d be spending some real money,” Rector joked while speaking about the report on Tuesday. “Reform was grossly oversold by Clinton and the Republicans. It reformed one program out of 70. Medicaid, public housing, the Earned Income Tax Credit were not reformed.”
According to his White House budget proposal, President Barack Obama will increase annual federal welfare spending by one-third, from $522.4 billion to $697 billion in his first fiscal year. Adjusted for inflation, the combined two-year increase of $263 billion is greater than any increase in welfare spending in history.
By 2014, annual spending on welfare programs will reach $1 trillion for the fiscal year.
“One in seven in total federal and state dollars now goes to welfare. But this is a completely unknown story,” Rector said. “This is not being reported. No one knows Obama is spending $10 trillion on welfare.”
Welfare spending has taken its toll on the federal debt. Since the beginning of the “war on poverty,” $15.9 trillion has been spent on welfare programs. The total cost of every war in American history, starting with the American Revolution, is $6.4 trillion when adjusted for inflation.
Welfare has been the fastest growing part of the federal government’s spending, increasing by 292 percent from 1989 to 2008. That’s compared to Social Security and Medicare, which grew 213 percent, the study says.