The Obama administration has issued more waivers to Obamacare
Repeal it! The Obama administration has issued more waivers to Obamacare.
Repeal it! The Obama administration has issued more waivers to Obamacare.
Repeal it! The Obama administration has issued more waivers to Obamacare.
Barack and Michelle Obama took separate government planes to their vacation on Martha’s Vineyard,
This is just one clear example of why I have no faith in Obama’s sincerity when he claims he wants to rein in spending. To him, tax dollars and the government they fund are his little playthings, to do with as he likes.
A reporter finds out the naive uselessness of Obama’s advice to “contact the USDA” for help and advice about its new agricultural regulations.
In less than 24 hours, the reporter talked to about a dozen different offices, all of which passed the buck. And here is the final answer the reporter got, from media relations:
Secretary Vilsack continues to work closely with members of the Cabinet to help them engage with the agricultural community to ensure that we are separating fact from fiction on regulations because the administration is committed to providing greater certainty for farmers and ranchers. Because the question that was posed did not fall within USDA jurisdiction, it does not provide a fair representation of USDA’s robust efforts to get the right information to our producers throughout the country.
In other words, PR mumbo-jumbo that says nothing. Read the whole thing, as it is hilarious, tragic, and very very familiar, as we have all had this kind of experience trying to get answers from the government.
The chart of the day, from John Merlune at Investor’s Business Daily:
Merlune’s article outlines in frightening detail how there has been a job boom in only one place during the Obama administration, the government regulatory industry.
Regulatory agencies have seen their combined budgets grow a healthy 16% since 2008, topping $54 billion, according to the annual “Regulator’s Budget,” compiled by George Washington University and Washington University in St. Louis. That’s at a time when the overall economy grew a paltry 5%.
Meanwhile, employment at these agencies has climbed 13% since Obama took office to more than 281,000, while private-sector jobs shrank by 5.6%.
Revenge and the abuse of power: The Obama Justice Department has begun an investigation of Standard & Poor.
About Obama’s clash with a Tea party activist during his bus tour this week: How long do you think it will take for the press to go after that activist to try to destroy him for daring to challenge this Democratic President?
I give it one week.
The appeals court for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta today ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional.
It turns out that Joe Wilson was right when he accused Obama of lying about Obamacare.
From a Tea party activist: “The left is going to have to compromise and cut some domestic welfare spending, and the right is going to have to compromise and cut some military spending.”
So you think Obamacare isn’t about power and control? 83% of Obamacare grants were awarded to states that supported Obama in 2008.
Kansas becomes the second state to return a large federal grant awarded to them by Obamacare.
‘Every state should be preparing for fewer federal resources, not more,’ Governor Brownback said in a statement. ‘To deal with that reality, Kansas needs to maintain maximum flexibility. That requires freeing Kansas from the strings attached to the Early Innovator Grant.’
Repeal it: Chain restaurants struggle with Obamacare regulations requiring all menus to include calorie information.
Under the new rules, if [a chain] wanted to introduce a new item, such as a crab cake pizza, [they’d] have to replace the signs in all of [their] stores, sucking time and money that could otherwise be used to build [the] business.
And:
“So what it comes down to is this: The federal government has passed a law requiring us to build new signs, or buy new menu boards, and to put on those signs and menu boards information which we already provide, even though it is unlikely to change eating habits, at a cost of over a million dollars we will divert from and be unable to spend on jobs,” cautioned Puzder.
Finding out what’s in it: Federal payments required by Obamacare actually understate the cost by as much as $50 billion, according to a new study.
In May a congressional committee set the accounting rules that determine who will qualify for federal health care subsidies under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. When the committee handed down the rules to the Congressional Budget Office, its formula excluded the health care costs of millions of workers’ spouses and children. The result was a final estimate for 2010 that hides those costs.
Get ready for another battle in Congress: The U.S. Treasury added another $20 billion in debt last night, putting it just $160 billion below the newly passed debt ceiling.
The total US treasury balance (subject to the ceiling) is $14.54 trillion (and $14.58 trillion for total), an increase of $20 billion overnight, the Treasury will hit its latest ceiling no later than the end of September. . . . The debt ceiling now is $14.694 trillion: a number which Tim Geithner will hit in about a month.
According to the bill that raised the debt ceiling, the ceiling is only raised in stages. The next stage of $500 billion requires Obama to request it and Congress to okay it.
The law is such an inconvenient thing: Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has announced that he will unilaterally override a centerpiece requirement of the No Child Left Behind school accountability law.
Repeal it: Five insurers have announced they are canceling their healthcare coverage in Indiana due to Obamacare regulations. The reason?
Aetna was leaving the Indiana individual market over a rule in the federal health care overhaul that insurers essentially must dedicate 80 percent of the premiums they collect to medical care. Anything less than 80 percent would be paid as rebates to policyholders the following year.
In other words, Obamacare tries to legislate the percentage of overhead a company spends, something that in the real world is simply impractical. Under this kind of regulation, every private company will eventually go out of business, leaving us stuck with a nationalized healthcare system run by our government.
And we all can see how efficiently the government runs things, right? Imagine a visit to the doctors’ office being like going to the motor vehicle administration.
Gun groups to sue over new Obama gun regulations in the southwest border states.
Leftwing civility: Joe Biden accused the tea party Republicans today of “acting like terrorists” in the negotiations over the debt limit.
And why? Because they simply refused to back down to those who want to spend us into oblivion.
Then there’s this quote from Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania): “We have negotiated with terrorists. This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”
Impossible to spend any money? What kind of fantasy world does this idiot live in? The federal budget has doubled in the past ten years. Meanwhile, this debt ceiling bill does nothing to reduce the size of government. On the contrary, the so-called reductions in the deficit merely slow the growth of government. Under the agreed plan, in each of the next ten years the federal government’s budget will still grow, and it will do so at a rate far exceeding inflation in an dying economy choked by regulation and government interference.
How is it even possible to deal with this problem if you have to deal with people like this, who are so divorced from reality and consider anyone who disagrees with them the worst sort of monster? Sadly, it is impossible. Until we see a wholesale change in government, with most of these idiots thrown from office, we will see no change in how our government is operated.
Guess what happened to that Obama recovery?
There never was one. And this graph from the article says it all. The Obama recession stands out as the worst by far.
Reactions to the debt deal: almost all unhappy.
Why Obama should be re-elected.
The guy has done absolutely everything he’s promised… that’s mattered. Like remember how he said he was going to pass a big stimulus and keep unemployment from being 8%? Well, he passed his stimulus, and now unemployment… is not 8%. It’s an entirely different number than that. If you really didn’t want 8% unemployment, well guess what: You’re not dealing with that level of unemployment. Promise kept. And look at all the work he did for it: He spent $666 billion to bypass 8% unemployment. Could you spend that much money? No way. If I sat you down in front of a computer, logged you in to Amazon, and said, “Spend $666 billion,” it would be futile. You’d be clicking “Buy Now” until your mouse broke. But Obama did it; the man’s got hustle.
Read the whole thing. It will surely change your mind about Obama.
How the end of NASA affects national security.
Though I don’t agree with all of Dinerman’s points, he provides a complete and excellent analysis of the present political state of NASA. To me, the key quote is this:
NASA’s Administrator and his Deputy worked hard, along with the President’s science advisor and the rest of the White House team, to alienate a critical mass of members of Congress by ignoring their concerns, rejecting their advice and blindsiding them with critical space policy decisions. The Obama administration then wrecked the previous program on the grounds that it was underfunded and behind schedule, and replaced it with a new program that looks as if it is now underfund and behind schedule. Congressmen and women being human, and under massive pressure to cut spending, have now cut the guts out of the space agency’s proposed budget.
The outlines of a possible debt ceiling deal have been leaked to the press. No tax increases, and a lot of promised cuts, some real but many that are probably likely not to happen.
If true, this deal will represent a victory for the Republicans, despite what appear to be the weak nature of the cuts. And John Podhoretz explains why in a very cogent column today, using the Cold War as an analogy.
Everyone on the Right agrees that the U.S. is on an unsustainable fiscal path that must be altered. The difference comes down to the acceptance of political realities. Just as the United States could not effect rollback in the late 1940s (or any time thereafter), so too the Right and the Republican Party cannot effect a revolutionary change of course on July 31, 2011 with the Senate and the White House in liberal Democratic hands. The strategy, like containment, must have a longer time horizon, though it has the same goal: Ending the entitlement state before it swallows up the rest of the country.
The votes are not there: Senate Republicans have rejected Reid’s debt limit plan. Also, it looks like the House Republicans are going to reject it also.
Update: the House has rejected Reid’s plan. More here.
That didn’t take long: The Senate has killed the Boehner debt ceiling plan that passed the House.
What the Democrats are missing in all this is that if no debt limit extension is passed, it is their beloved programs that will be hurt the most. The Republicans have more or less always preferred limiting government, so imposing the debt ceiling will only serve their purposes.
Thus, it is the Democrats who need the debt ceiling extended more than anyone. That they seem unwilling to agree to any deal or even propose one of their own seems the height of stupidity. Talk about cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face!
How high would taxes have to be to close the budget gap this year? One blogger took a look:
I decided to look at the IRS data and calculate exactly how high would the tax rates have to be close this year’s budget gap of around $1.6 trillion (it’s $1.65 trillion according to the White House and $1.55 trillion according to the CBO). What I found was certainly not surprising but still quite disturbing.
Take a look yourself. It is very clear that increased taxes cannot solve the debt problem. It can’t even make a dent in it.
In other words, those advocating a “balanced approach” are really only avoiding the problem. In order to get the federal budget under control we have to cut spending. Nor should that be hard, considering that the federal budget has literally doubled since 1999. If we simply went back to 2000 numbers we’d almost certainly have a surplus, and no one would die nor would the world end.