Tag Archives: ObamaCare

Four more Years of Obama Will be Every Bit as Bad as Feared

Barack Obama was sworn in for a second term as the leader of the United States today, giving us a first glimpse as to what four more years under Obama might look like.

Brad Dayspring, a senior advisor to YG Action Fund, a conservative super PAC, tweeted, “Let me translate: the era of Big Government is back.”

In other words, our worst fears are  being realized.

For months leading up to the election, conservative pundits and talk show hosts attempted to relay to the public the dire need to get out from underneath the onerous burdens of a liberal agenda.

Already, Obama and his liberal cohorts have raised taxes on anyone with a job, thousands of dollars for working class families.

Additional tax revenues will only be in the $60 billion range and 75% of new taxes will go to new spending projects.

Deficits solved right?

President Obama touched on global climate change, gay rights, entitlements and gun control, the liberal boondoggle quadrangle.

Barack Obama, unfettered by the need to tack to the center for political point-scoring in an attempt to get re-elected, is showing his true colors. All of those Democrats who defended Obama as a moderate – as opposed to the socialist most of us know him to be – will have be in a precarious position once the POTUS starts pushing his agenda further and further to the left.

And let’s be very serious about this: he absolutely will.

Obama has every intention of pushing forward with the continued spend and borrow habits that lead to the U.S. credit downgrade and trillions in deficits. He will continue to fund programs at taxpayer expense that have no net benefit to the American people, or are heinously disorganized and inefficient.

He believes in big government for the sake of big government and big government is what we’ll get unless the Republicans can wrestle the majority in the Senate away from the left.

Even so, the Democrats will have two years of leverage to push through whatever agenda they deem fit. It’s how we got ObamaCare, the only piece of major reform in the last century passed without a single bi-partisan vote.

Inflation remains a concern, unemployment has government costs soaring as people collect their food stamps, unemployment insurance and Medicaid supplies, all while investors remain wary of tax increases as Obama has made it quite clear he plans to take out businesses at the knees.

Taxes will go up again and businesses will respond by cutting jobs. The implementation of ObamaCare will cost millions more their jobs as companies fight off rising costs. Rising debts will stunt the strength of the U.S. dollar and our economy in markets around the world.

Obama’s support for unified labor will continue to bleed taxpayers despite the fact that schools aren’t getting any better and our students aren’t getting any better prepared for college.

As a first-term president, Obama was petulant, stubborn and uncompromising. How do you expect him to act when he’s not facing re-election and is concerned only with his own legacy? No president, perhaps in history, is a more self-absorbed and self-promoting leader than Barack Obama.

Furthermore, he’s shown he just doesn’t get it. In his speech, Obama took a shot at Paul Ryan in saying, ” The commitments we make to each other — Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security — these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.”

It’s utterly incoherent. How do welfare programs free us to take risks when the people paying to take risks are also the ones paying for the social programs? The only people social programs “free” are the people who don’t have to work or take risks. What Obama lays out is all well and good except for it being completely false.

What can we expect from Obama’s second term? More of the same. And that’s exactly what we spent the last four years worried about.

Tagged , , ,

Heartened by an election victory, left leaves reality

How quickly the left forgets that just a few years ago they were the extremists, the outliers in American political culture.

Suddenly, it’s as if they believe the world has validated their ideologies and the brazen arrogance and resentment they have for anyone unlike them has reared its ugly head.

They speak as if you’re just supposed to agree with them and any argument to the contrary would be reason for commitment to a mental institution.

It used to just slip out occasionally, but given the rise of Mother Jones, Daily Kos and other liberal outlets, coupled with the rise to power of the most liberal man ever elected to major office, the arrogance of liberalism has reached a new height.

“America’s meanest business owner will make his employees regret health care coverage,” is the headline.

The Gawker article is a hatchet job of a restaurant owner who says he’s raising prices and encouraging patrons to tip less because ObamaCare has raised his costs and he knows it will add strain to the people around him.

To the author of this article, and the left – both of whom apparently live outside reality – this guy is an asshole. He’s sticking it to the left and Obama. There couldn’t possibly be another explanation, like say, the truth right?

Liberals have become so insulated, so arrogant and overconfident in their ideologies, that they fail to recognize the effects their policies have in the real world.

I wouldn’t expect a liberal to understand supply and demand because, frankly, the average liberal doesn’t even understand simple cause and effect in policy-making.

But ObamaCare does have negative effects. You can like the policy, appreciate what it does for people who can’t get insurance, and still understand that there are going to be people who don’t benefit. For example, the businesses who have to pay penalties for failing to have certain coverage.

The people who have to pay penalties for not having insurance they already can’t afford.

There are the millions of workers who will lose their health care coverage all together because their companies couldn’t afford to pay for it – that’s assuming they keep their jobs at all.

Now, you have Hostess – an American institution in the food world – basically being driven out of business by the same people who have driven states into insolvency: the unions.

You know what happens to unions who overplay their hand? They lose their jobs because companies go out of business. Do you want to take a little less money or do you want to lose your job altogether? Unions would rather play hardball as we’ve seen in school districts across the country.

Unions would rather have a philosophic point and let hundreds of teachers get laid off, than bargain slightly smaller step increases or less expensive health insurance.

Ignoring the real world consequences, when businesses have already begun laying off workers in anticipation of the rising costs (insurance costs have already gone up most places) and thousands of businesses affecting millions of workers have already said they will have to the same, is something liberals do at their own peril.

The restaurateur is an asshole because he dares live in reality, where policy has real consequences. Encouraging patrons to tip less is a stupid thing to do, but raising his prices and reducing his staff isn’t something a business does just for fun.

I had people in my Twitter account insisting that businesses were laying people off just to rub it in Obama’s face. Those people clearly have never run a business. The average business can’t afford to lay people off just to stick it to a politician. You hurt efficiency, morale and your bottom line.

Businesses are laying people off because the pernicious effects of President Obama’s policies, in cahoots with the statists in Congress, are real.

To ignore that and instead live in a land of liberal euphoria and hallucination is the decision modern American liberals have made.

Who’s the asshole again?

Tagged , , , , ,

Obama’s layoff bomb explodes just hours after he wins re-election

The day after Barack Obama was re-elected, millions celebrated a historic victory. Others, who had to go to work, felt a sense of disappointment, not so much in the loss, but in their fellow citizens. Those choosing Mitt Romney or even Gary Johnson knew that an Obama win was nothing to celebrate.

The working class, especially those in the finance world, weren’t just nervous about the dire consequences of four more years of Obamanomics, they were downright terrified.

Wednesday, as one Twitter follower put it, Wall Street had its own election and Obama was whooped soundly. Every major index was in a freefall, but this was only the beginning.

Just this week, thousands of new layoffs have been announced – although the Bureau of Labor Statistics will find a way to airbrush the numbers. Various reports have explained that hundreds of companies, big and small, had been waiting on the outcome of the election to determine whether they could continue at their current growth rate or not.

For more companies, an Obama victory meant the harsh penalties of ObamaCare, where in a state like Wisconsin, an Obama adviser admitted individual premiums will rise some 30% as a result of the law.

Individual premiums are just the tip of the iceberg. Before the election, Michelle Malkin warned of a Obama layoff bomb and unfortunately, Malkin was right.

Freedomworks.com started a list, but it’s by no means exhaustive. Pepsi will cut 4,000 jobs.  Boeing will reduce its budget by 1.6 billion, which means thousands of jobs thanks to Obama’s promised defense cuts. Energizer plans to lay off 10% of their workforce.

Bristol-Myers, U.S. Cellular, ING, St. Jude, Boston Scientific, Caterpillar and dozens of others are among businesses who understand what a second Obama term will mean for their businesses and are also preemptively cutting staff.

It was so bad in the first 48 hours, President Obama had to call a press conference to try and stop the proverbial bleeding, but the damage has already been done. The wounds were inflicted Tuesday and there’s no bandage for it.

Obama was the problem, the instrument of destruction. His re-election was another stab, another shot across the bow of the U.S. economy. It was the government the people demanded.

The unfortunate part is that the left will see this as a chance for government to again save the day. Hand out more food stamps, put more people on Medicare. Look, they’ll say, all of these laid off people will still have insurance even though they don’t have jobs thanks to ObamaCare.

In reality, millions will be forced to buy health insurance thanks to jobs they’ve lost, and even if they can’t afford to or don’t want to buy insurance, they have to. That’s the law.

When conservatives in the media played ‘the sky is falling’ game in past elections, talking about this being “the most important election in your lifetime”, they were being hyperbolic. Unfortunately, and perhaps to their own detriment, their ‘crying wolf’ may have fallen on deaf ears in 2012, an election that truly was a landmark election for this once great nation.

But the blood is already on Obama’s hands and there’s no former presidents for him to blame this time. It’s his own policies that he must face.

Unfortunately for Americans, we must face them as well.

Tagged , , , , ,

Barack Obama wins historic election, leaves everyone wondering what happens next

Now what?

It’s the question everyone will ask at some point today whether you’re a Republican, Democrat, or otherwise.

For the Democrats the question pertains to dealing with a House of Representatives strengthened by Republican gains. How do they pass legislation? Bi-partisan compromise hasn’t exactly been the hallmark of the Obama administration and there’s no reason to believe he’ll be any more open to GOP ideas in a second term with no accountability.

Average citizens, regardless of their partisan shades, have to be wondering what the plan is. President Obama never really outlined one in his campaign (either of them), so it’s a valid question to wonder what kind of actual policy agenda this administration will pursue with four more years.

One Forbes columnist suggested that this was the best Obama’s policies could make the economy and that our sluggish economic growth could actually get worse, not better, over the next four years. There’s strong evidence to support the idea that so-called “Obamanomics” are not the answer, and I wonder if the American people are prepared to see how ravaged the American marketplace becomes when taxes are raised on the middle and top earners, as well as businesses, not to mention the shackles of ObamaCare and lack of a deficit reduction plan as it affects both domestic and global markets.

In other words, if you thought it was bad now, wait until Obama doubles down on his failed policies of trickle up poverty and trickle down government.

Perhaps the most interesting post-mortem to consider today is the Republican party. The New York Times actually had a thoughtful piece on where the party goes from here. In it, they point out a few obvious truths: the Grand Old Party will not be grand for long if it cannot attract more women, Latinos and other minority voters in the coming elections.

But just like there can be no mandate for the President with such a narrow popular vote victory (he beat John McCain by 10 million votes…he had a mandate in 2008), what indication do Republicans have to move toward the middle? They expanded in the House, expanded their number of GOP governors and if not for a handful of ill-timed rape comments (remember Akin was dominating his race in Missouri), they would have at least held in the Senate.

Republican’s response to the left’s progression further from center was to react in kind. The Tea Party offers a glimpse of that. But if you look at some of the figures closely from the election, particularly in the swing states Romney lost, libertarian candidate Gary Johnson was getting 2-4% of the vote.

Those are mostly young, fiscally conservative, limited government social moderates. That’s what libertarianism is, but those voters want to vote for a candidate who actually has a chance to win. They want to see someone who has principles that reflect what they believe. The Republican party used to have that, used to have a chance to win states like Washington and Oregon and California, not have the election be a foregone conclusion by 11 p.m. EST.

Mitt Romney won over plenty of independents, but not nearly enough moderates. Ronald Reagan won a landslide re-election by winning fiscally conservative Democrats. To this day, many of those people refer to themselves as Reagan Democrats.

When it comes to economics, I truly believe this country is still a center right country. There are far more fiscal conservatives than progressive liberals. But on social issues like gay marriage, the Tea Party and the evangelical right is behind the times.

Women care about social issues more than men, and minority voters don’t want to have a party that caters to rich people.

Now, the left and the media have helped paint the GOP, in many cases unfairly, as a party strictly of the rich white man. They project this aura of intolerance, as if Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were going to start arresting women for trying to get birth control pills and executing those who dared get an abortion.

That’s not what the GOP looks like, but honestly, there’s a reason their party identification seems to have stopped growing: as one analyst put it last night “They’re the Mad Men party in a Modern Family world.”

This was always going to be a beauty contest and Obama’s ideas were shinier and sparklier. As one conservative blogger put it the GOP, “fought an ideological battle when they were fighting an American Idol contest.”

I can’t blame Mitt Romney for his campaign because I thought he ran a good campaign, much better than McCain in 2008. If Mitt had the kind of working class cred that his running mate Paul Ryan had, I think this would have been a different election in a lot of ways.

But the Republican party can’t be the party of intransigence and out-dated worldviews. It was Lincoln who freed the slaves and Eisenhower who demanded that schools integrate. The Republican party is, historically, the party of tolerance and social change.

It was, for the last century, the party of the the intelligentsia, not Sarah Palin.

Low taxes is still a winning idea with the American people, so is limited government. That’s why you saw Mitt Romney time and again win on issues like the economy, deficit reduction, and the debt.

People trust Republicans when it comes to money, but when it comes to social change, that’s just not who the party is anymore, and if they have any hope of winning elections in the next decade, that needs to change.

I don’t mean just gay marriage. Entitlement reform, real reform that includes means testing and responsible spending. Education reform where every student, even those most impoverished, have a voice. Barack Obama and the Democratic party never speak of the poor or to the poor, only at them. The Republicans have an opportunity to be a voice of change in their lives, to lift up their spirits through the insistance that by making schools better and cracking down on criminals to make neighborhoods safer, they can have a better life.

Immigration reform has to be at the top of the list for Republicans, particularly a party with strong Latino leaders like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. The Hispanic vote is on a tee for the GOP because of their strong allegiance to their Catholic heritage and a commitment to hard work leading to personal prosperity.

It’s unthinkable to me that a party based on limited government, low taxes, and personal freedoms wouldn’t appeal to a culture of people who came to America hoping to work their way to a better life. They should want to keep what they worked so hard to create and not want the government taking from them.

To me, that is the silver lining of this election. Mitt Romney even with Paul Ryan was never my choice to lead a cultural revolution in America. But the GOP does have leaders whom I would gladly support, including Paul Ryan, but extending to men like the aforementioned Rubio, Cruz and a host of reformers like Scott Walker, Nikki Haley and Susana Martinez.

There are bright stars in the Republican party capable of tackling the challenges this country faces. The only question now is, how poorly equipped will America be to tackle those challenges after four more years of Obamanomics, ObamaCare, and Obama failures?

Luckily, we only have to wait two years to vote again and you can be sure the faces in the GOP will be different by then.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why ObamaCare doesn’t solve the problems liberals think it does

ObamaCare was supposed to be the crown jewel for Barack Obama’s first term as president. Instead, for the most part, our soon-to-be-former President has hid from his behemoth of non-partisan insurance take over.

But just because Obama himself hasn’t really taken up for his own legislation – in part because polls right now show people think Romney is better suited to tackle the issue of health care – the bleeding hearts over at the New York Times will do it for him.

Nicolas Kristof penned this heart-breaking, fallacy-filled piece about how ObamaCare would have saved his friend’s life. The problem is almost none of the assumptions Kristof makes about how the law would affect the average person is even close to correct.

John Goodman explains Kristof’s folly in a piece for Forbes and it serves as an archetype argument against ObamaCare in general.

The long and short of Kristof’s piece is that a friend of his chose not to buy insurance because of the costs. He eventually developed cancer and passed away.

It’s a sad story, but the substance contained therein is lacking…so you know a liberal wrote it.

Goodman explains that the basic fallacy in this idea of ObamaCare is that somehow mandating insurance would have saved this man’s life. We all have to make choices about our health, whether to buy insurance, whether to take all of the medicine we’re prescribed, whether to go to the emergency room or see our general practice doctor.

Just having insurance doesn’t solve the true effects felt from humans interacting with the system.

Furthermore, plenty of people like Kristof’s friend could still choose not to have insurance. The penalties for a young, healthy person like me are relatively low, although so are the costs of individual plans.

By way of example, at my current job at a small company, the cost of my individual insurance plan is prohibitively high. There are several young people and several much older people at the firm. We buoy their coverage because we’re cheaper to insure. It’s actually more expensive, not less, for me to enter into a group employer-paid plan because the older employees pull my costs up.

As Goodman explains, insurance is not something we get in addition to wages, but rather a substitute for them. There are subsidies for employers who provide insurance, but none for people who buy their own.

Kristof’s friend, like all of us have to, made a choice. ObamaCare doesn’t fix that. I can still be uninsured because the penalties aren’t that excessive, nor does the IRS have a firm grip on how to actually enforce the penalties.

More to the point, having insurance doesn’t ensure you stay healthy. You are your own best friend and worst enemy when it comes to your health. Mandating health insurance doesn’t solve the problem of rising costs because people are still making poor health decisions. They always will.

Unless you want government to decide which screenings and treatments you have to take, that won’t change. Some progressives will probably think that’s a great idea.

But putting sicker people on the insurance doles, doesn’t make my costs go down. The people you’re adding to insurance are the people with pre-existing conditions and the currently uninsured, most of whom work jobs where they aren’t provided insurance, which are, by and large, a lower income cohort.

Much like I brought down the group rates for my company’s insurance, if you pool rates by adding only more sick people, rates have to go up to cover the additional costs.

ObamaCare uses government dollars and those fees, which they won’t possibly be able to collect, to offset some of those costs, but the fact is, the vast majority of the country will see increased costs as a result when we already have systems in place for people who can’t afford coverage.

This is to say nothing of the actual cost of ObamaCare, which will be in the trillions of dollars. And if what you really want is people with pre-existing conditions to be covered, then create a subsidy or a program specifically for those people. It doesn’t make sense for the government to affect everyone’s coverage, but rather just those who most need it.

Luckily, we won’t have to discuss ObamaCare once the first week in January roles around.

Tagged , , , , ,

Loss of full-time jobs are part of the hidden costs of ObamaCare

Wal-Mart is famous for saving money by working employees to the brink of full-time status, only to reach the cutoff so the corporate behemoth doesn’t have to pay full-time salary and benefit packages.

Health care and 401K sharing plans are considerable costs to a business’ bottom line.

No matter who you believe on ObamaCare and how many businesses will drop insurance for their employees – many companies have already switched to health savings accounts, which save the company money and make better fiscal sense for particularly young employees – there’s a hidden cost: full-time employment.

How many businesses will take the Wal-Mart tact in trying to keep costs down? Major media companies have already become  dependent on cheap free labor from college students and free-lancers.

Some food chains are shifting employees from full-time to part-time to avoid potential new fees and costs under ObamaCare – not to mention, economic growth remains sluggish.

How many companies will follow suit? It’s impossible to know, but it seems likely that people with borderline full-time jobs or jobs with flexible hours can expect to see these changes sooner rather than later.

Full-time service employees are the most likely to see their jobs cut down. A company can save tens of thousands of dollars in health care costs just from one employee. That means retail, food service, labor and other blue collar jobs that had been full-time can expect to be taken down a peg thanks to ObamaCare and tepid economic growth (thanks in no small part to ObamaCare itself).

Pro-business organizations across the country have expressed deep and unrelenting fear about the potential impacts of ObamaCare on their business, including lefty organizations in left-leaning D.C. in a recent slew of letters.

Of course, progressives don’t care because they are fine with more people being covered under Medicaid or COBRA, but that will skyrocket the costs of ObamaCare and drive up government spending, while also drive up medical costs for the insured, not to mention bring down real income for the average American.

In typical progressivist style, the outcome (ObamaCare) was the only thing the left sees when they support this policy. They don’t see the hidden costs to millions of employees and businesses who have to live under the conditions its creates.

Tagged , , ,

Surprisingly Strong Debate from Romney show signs of Life from the GOP Candidate

You’ve already decided who won last night’s debate and, unless you are completely blinded by your own partisan leanings, saw the riotous beatdown perpetrated by the former Governor of Massachusetts.

It was a side of Mitt Romney we’d not seen in this campaign. He was aggressive, assertive, congenial and every bit the East Coast moderate we thought we he would be coming into the race.

He tacked to the right to win the Republican primary and has tacked to the center to win the presidency. While you may call that flip-flopping, the candidate’s history would suggest this moderate Mitt is more likely the real Mitt.

How did it play nationally? According to CNN, 67% of people thought Romney won the debate (I jokingly tweeted that another 33% must have been too drunk playing ‘debate bingo’ drinking games), and even the ultra-progressive Mother Jones believed Romney won the debate.

A CBS poll showed that 55% of people had a better opinion of Romney following the debate while just 13% felt that way about our soon-to-be-former President.

The Wall Street Journal recently noted that there are about 12% of voters who remain undecided. Given the stark contrast in the candidates, that tells you that those people are likely moderates who haven’t decided which candidate they plan to hold their nose and vote for.

More post-debate polls showed 64% of people say Mitt Romney would be a ‘stronger leader’, while 62% said better command of facts. Fortunately for both candidates, you don’t have to actually have the facts you just need to sound like you do.

Independent and undecided voters are inherently less interested as partisan voters, making them less likely to seek out the fact-checkers to make sure the candidate they like was telling them the truth.

The more important number is 56%. Well over half of respondents said Mitt Romney had a better vision for America.

Up until last night, Mitt Romney had been mostly defined by President Obama’s campaign ads, and perhaps an SNL skit or two.

Last night, perhaps for the first time, many people got to see Mitt Romney the intelligent, caring and decisive leader.

His defenses weren’t always supported by facts, nor were his attacks, but neither were the president’s. That’s how this works, although the candidates did pretty well to keep it mostly in the realm of reality.

One of the biggest problems the left had with Romney last night was his evasiveness on his tax plan. They insist that in order to get to the 20% in cuts Romney wants, you have to backfill $5 trillion.

Obama says Mitt Romney said he’d cut taxes $5 trillion, only Romney never used the $5 trillion figure, only the left has in an effort to show that closing tax loopholes would be insufficient to cover the costs and raising middle class taxes would be a necessity. Romney and Paul Ryan have said they want to cut taxes, but Romney was unequivocal last night that he would not support a plan that increased the deficit, or that raised taxes.

His plan is based on job growth helping to increase revenues. The fact that the left doesn’t believe this is reality, as Obama mentioned ‘it’s math,’ but as our soon-to-be-former President is so fond of saying, if we use Clinton as an example, we’ve seen it work.

Clinton lowered capital gains taxes and actually increased revenues because more people were investing. The heart of the Romney plan is to lower taxes as a job-creating incentive. The more people you have working, the more people are paying taxes. Republicans have never said you can go on by simply cutting departments and government spending.

Conservatives want to raise revenues by putting people back to work.

Furthermore, the lack of specifics in some of Romney’s plans are actually intentional as the Governor and Paul Ryan have stated on numerous occasions. Why? Because they want to create a plan with bi-partisan support.

They want to involve Congress, both the House and the Senate because that’s how you make policy, at least good policy. When you create something out of nothing in terms of having support for it, you are saddled with onerous burdens on the tax payers.

You’ve heard of ObamaCare?

Mitt Romney was better last night than his campaign has been and Obama was worse. Is it an aberration or a trend? There are plenty of votes still out there to get as the Wall Street Journal explains. If last night is any indication, Mitt Romney is serious about getting them.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,