So today Chris Christie's hired lawyers reported the governor had nothing to do with 'Bridgegate'.
Liberals and democrats alike scoffed at the report, claiming it would naturally find Christie innocent, because the lawyers reporting work for the governor. Hmm. Let's extrapolate on that theory.
The Obama administration has several scandals it is facing. Well facing may not be the best word to use.
The Benghazi scandal was investigated by the Departement of State.
The IRS targeting conservatives, the Justice Department investigating reports at Fox and AP, the Justice Department running guns to Mexican drug lords, were all investigated by Eric Holder and crew.
I really do not recall any liberal or democrat claiming that is improper or biased at all. I do recall Mr. Obama proclaiming indignation at those scandals, claiming he would get to the bottom of each. Then more recently dismissing them as "phony scandals".
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Monday, March 17, 2014
Contradictions Over PPACA
The politics surrounding the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (PPACA, Obamacare) is full of contradictions.
1. The PPACA was supposed to do several things including lower premiums, insure the uninsured, and improve quality and access to health care. Yet more the five million insured families had the insurance cancelled, and only 5% of those purchasing insurance via health care.gov were previously uninsured.
2. Most people purchasing insurance in the exchange have reported increased premiums, increased deductibles, and limited choices, or combinations of the three. The exchanges only permit three levels of insurance plans: silver, gold and platinum. And some states don't allow all three of those.
3. Labor unions overwhelmingly supported the passage of the act, but now many are asking for relief from the requirements and mandates that come with it.
4. As good as this act was billed to be, it came with delays built into it. Many of the more painful provisions did not take affect until after the presidential election cycle ended, and Obama was safely re-elected. If it was actually that good, why wait?
5. This is the biggest contradiction of all. The republicans have tried and tried to repeal the law, and delay the law if not repealed. Senator Ted Cruz tried to include the repeal of the law in the budget dealings which resulted in the government shutdown. If Cruz had been successful in his tactics to delay Obamacare in the budget deal, the president said he would have vetoed it. In fact, the president has said on multiple occasions that he would veto any bill aimed at delaying Obamacare. Meanwhile, the president issued 29 separate executive orders doing just that, delaying various mandates and parts of the law.
6. Is it a tax or a penalty? The answer to that question depends on who is asking. The supporters of Obamacare argue it is a tax when it suits their purpose, and a penalty when that is the politically expedient answer.
7. Congress voted on the bill without even reading it. Talk about not only the strangest contradiction, but also the most stupid. Exactly how can you argue the benefits of 2400 pages of legalese without reading it, and then claim you have to read it to know what's in it? Not so incidentally, the HHS has added nearly 20,000 pages of regulations to explain and interpret the 2400 pages of the bill. Those pages were added after the bill became law.
8. Finally the contradiction on what republicans offered to the conversation before voting on the bill. Months before the bill was written there was a meeting of members of both parties, and the president and vice-president which was televised. During the discussions, several republicans, including a couple of medical doctors, suggested several options for debate, including legal and insurance reforms. To their collective face the president responded with praise for the good ideas and room for further discussion. Then the president left the room for a press conference where he quickly stated the republicans had no new ideas worthy of discussion, and suggested we "...must do something."
Now that democrats have realized what they're up against in the November mid-term elections, they are beginning to talk about fixing Obamacare. Even though the government spent more than $700 million and 3 years developing the web site exchange, they are are not talking about fixing that. They are talking about fixing various parts of the original bill. Too late, I say.
The bill is so comprehensively bad, that it must be repealed and we must start over. Closing half of the people out of the debate by improperly declaring they have nothing to offer is bad legislative process.
1. The PPACA was supposed to do several things including lower premiums, insure the uninsured, and improve quality and access to health care. Yet more the five million insured families had the insurance cancelled, and only 5% of those purchasing insurance via health care.gov were previously uninsured.
2. Most people purchasing insurance in the exchange have reported increased premiums, increased deductibles, and limited choices, or combinations of the three. The exchanges only permit three levels of insurance plans: silver, gold and platinum. And some states don't allow all three of those.
3. Labor unions overwhelmingly supported the passage of the act, but now many are asking for relief from the requirements and mandates that come with it.
4. As good as this act was billed to be, it came with delays built into it. Many of the more painful provisions did not take affect until after the presidential election cycle ended, and Obama was safely re-elected. If it was actually that good, why wait?
5. This is the biggest contradiction of all. The republicans have tried and tried to repeal the law, and delay the law if not repealed. Senator Ted Cruz tried to include the repeal of the law in the budget dealings which resulted in the government shutdown. If Cruz had been successful in his tactics to delay Obamacare in the budget deal, the president said he would have vetoed it. In fact, the president has said on multiple occasions that he would veto any bill aimed at delaying Obamacare. Meanwhile, the president issued 29 separate executive orders doing just that, delaying various mandates and parts of the law.
6. Is it a tax or a penalty? The answer to that question depends on who is asking. The supporters of Obamacare argue it is a tax when it suits their purpose, and a penalty when that is the politically expedient answer.
7. Congress voted on the bill without even reading it. Talk about not only the strangest contradiction, but also the most stupid. Exactly how can you argue the benefits of 2400 pages of legalese without reading it, and then claim you have to read it to know what's in it? Not so incidentally, the HHS has added nearly 20,000 pages of regulations to explain and interpret the 2400 pages of the bill. Those pages were added after the bill became law.
8. Finally the contradiction on what republicans offered to the conversation before voting on the bill. Months before the bill was written there was a meeting of members of both parties, and the president and vice-president which was televised. During the discussions, several republicans, including a couple of medical doctors, suggested several options for debate, including legal and insurance reforms. To their collective face the president responded with praise for the good ideas and room for further discussion. Then the president left the room for a press conference where he quickly stated the republicans had no new ideas worthy of discussion, and suggested we "...must do something."
Now that democrats have realized what they're up against in the November mid-term elections, they are beginning to talk about fixing Obamacare. Even though the government spent more than $700 million and 3 years developing the web site exchange, they are are not talking about fixing that. They are talking about fixing various parts of the original bill. Too late, I say.
The bill is so comprehensively bad, that it must be repealed and we must start over. Closing half of the people out of the debate by improperly declaring they have nothing to offer is bad legislative process.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Tax Rates Too High
Cash Abroad Article
As long as corporate tax rates remain as high as they are, companies across the country will continue to keep their money off shore. It is an easy decision to make for the stock holders they are accountable to for making as much as possible. Paying less tax to countries anywhere, rather than more to the IRS, makes sense.
Politicians like to talk about taxes and tax rates incorrectly. They think higher rates equates to more tax dollars collected, but they are incorrect. They also like to think that changing the tax code will simply mean people will do what they always did, and pay higher taxes in the process. What it really means is people will find a way to manipulate the system to allow them to pay the least amount of taxes possible, keeping more for the companies.
Politicians need to lower tax rates on corporations, to a point where they elect to bring that money home. Once back on shore, they will invest it, causing the economy to grow. The increased investments will result in higher incomes and higher tax revenue for government at all levels. Unemployment would also decrease as the investment would result in expansion of existing business and into new markets.
As long as corporate tax rates remain as high as they are, companies across the country will continue to keep their money off shore. It is an easy decision to make for the stock holders they are accountable to for making as much as possible. Paying less tax to countries anywhere, rather than more to the IRS, makes sense.
Politicians like to talk about taxes and tax rates incorrectly. They think higher rates equates to more tax dollars collected, but they are incorrect. They also like to think that changing the tax code will simply mean people will do what they always did, and pay higher taxes in the process. What it really means is people will find a way to manipulate the system to allow them to pay the least amount of taxes possible, keeping more for the companies.
Politicians need to lower tax rates on corporations, to a point where they elect to bring that money home. Once back on shore, they will invest it, causing the economy to grow. The increased investments will result in higher incomes and higher tax revenue for government at all levels. Unemployment would also decrease as the investment would result in expansion of existing business and into new markets.
Friday, March 7, 2014
Zero Tolerance = Real Stupidity
Suspended for using a "Finger Gun" - Article
I agree with the congressman who thinks schools need more flexibility in handing out punishments for misbehavior. However, is a 10 year old using a "finger gun" really worthy of any punishment at all? I say no.
There have been many reports of young children suspended for using weapons that consist of food products like Pop-Tarts and chicken fingers. Now we also have this about a 10 year old boy who pointed his finger at a fellow student. Shame on him.
The teacher who witnessed this horrific event was so angry she could neither look at him nor talk to him. Imagine that. The teacher and the principal should both be suspended for being stupid.
I agree with the congressman who thinks schools need more flexibility in handing out punishments for misbehavior. However, is a 10 year old using a "finger gun" really worthy of any punishment at all? I say no.
There have been many reports of young children suspended for using weapons that consist of food products like Pop-Tarts and chicken fingers. Now we also have this about a 10 year old boy who pointed his finger at a fellow student. Shame on him.
The teacher who witnessed this horrific event was so angry she could neither look at him nor talk to him. Imagine that. The teacher and the principal should both be suspended for being stupid.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Connecting the IRS Dots
Bradley A Smith Op-Ed
Fake scandal, eh Mr. President? This column connects the dots that lead from the Citizen United decision by the Supreme Court, to the IRS unfairly scrutinizing conservative groups applying for 501(c)(4) status.
Fake scandal, eh Mr. President? This column connects the dots that lead from the Citizen United decision by the Supreme Court, to the IRS unfairly scrutinizing conservative groups applying for 501(c)(4) status.
Delay! And I Don't Mean Tom Delay
New Obamacare Delay
Voters better remember this, and all the 29 previous changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Ace (PPACA or Obamacare). The president and democrats supporting Obamacare like to point out to those opposed to the law, that it is the law of the land, and you can't change or repeal it. However, that argument does not apply to the signor.
Obama has changed his own signature piece of legislation 29 times, and now another time. Not only is changing laws arbitrarily and without congressional passing a bill unconstitutional, but it indicates just how bad this law really is.
Republicans are often called obstructionists and dysfunctional, for their opposition to Obamacare, and other parts of the liberal agenda. But democrats, especially Obama, are functional for passing a law without reading it, and then unconstitutionally changing it 30 times?
Voters better remember this, and all the 29 previous changes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Ace (PPACA or Obamacare). The president and democrats supporting Obamacare like to point out to those opposed to the law, that it is the law of the land, and you can't change or repeal it. However, that argument does not apply to the signor.
Obama has changed his own signature piece of legislation 29 times, and now another time. Not only is changing laws arbitrarily and without congressional passing a bill unconstitutional, but it indicates just how bad this law really is.
Republicans are often called obstructionists and dysfunctional, for their opposition to Obamacare, and other parts of the liberal agenda. But democrats, especially Obama, are functional for passing a law without reading it, and then unconstitutionally changing it 30 times?
Monday, March 3, 2014
Possibility #2, You're All Racists
At the Academy Awards show last night, the host, Ellen Degeneres, joked that there are many possibilities for the show.
"Possibility number one, "12 Years a Slave" wins best picture. Possibility number 2, you're all racists."
Well, "12 Years a Slave" ended up winning the best picture award, so I guess Hollywood is off the racist hook.
But let's analyze this "joke". Hollywood is generally very liberal. Liberals often call any conservative opposed to the liberal agenda, especially President Obama's agenda, racist. So the questions are as follows.
Did Ellen know something about the best picture award and was she hinting to the audience?
Did Hollywood actually vote for the movie about the life of a real slave in order to avoid being tagged as racist?
If they had voted for another movie (there were nine movies nominated for that award), would they have been called racist?
What are the implications to society when your choices are limited or influenced by the prospect of being labeled racist, even when race is not actually part of the criteria for choosing?
Am I being paranoid because people who think like me are called racists so much?
"Possibility number one, "12 Years a Slave" wins best picture. Possibility number 2, you're all racists."
Well, "12 Years a Slave" ended up winning the best picture award, so I guess Hollywood is off the racist hook.
But let's analyze this "joke". Hollywood is generally very liberal. Liberals often call any conservative opposed to the liberal agenda, especially President Obama's agenda, racist. So the questions are as follows.
Did Ellen know something about the best picture award and was she hinting to the audience?
Did Hollywood actually vote for the movie about the life of a real slave in order to avoid being tagged as racist?
If they had voted for another movie (there were nine movies nominated for that award), would they have been called racist?
What are the implications to society when your choices are limited or influenced by the prospect of being labeled racist, even when race is not actually part of the criteria for choosing?
Am I being paranoid because people who think like me are called racists so much?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)