Rock Meet Hard Place

You have to feel for the Republicans (unless your a Liberal then the only feeling you have is a seething hatred and nothing else) because they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

UPDATE: Congressional Republicans have passed legislation to repeal Obamacare for the first time.

They know it’s an empty gesture because King Obama would never sign it.

But they have to do it to make the Rebel elements in the party happy.

But a lot of them also figure it’s a stunt to curry favor made by the disingenuous RINOs.

Both are likely true.

The Republicans spent so many years, especially under Jar Jar Boehner, being the Capitulation Weasals that they were no one quite believes them.

I know I don’t, YET. But it’s a good start.

The legislation would also significantly reduce taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, redirecting those dollars to other women’s health clinics and organizations that aren’t languishing under an ethical cloud amid credible allegations of criminality.  (When poll question wording includes the important point that no women’s health funding is actually being cut, a majority of Americans support the move).  A recent undercover journalistic investigation exposed the abortion giant’s grisly practice of harvesting and selling body parts from late-term fetuses.  The videos show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the profits associated with this endeavor, as well as altering abortion procedures in order to obtain more intact organs — both of which are illegal.  A whistleblower also alleged that aborted children were picked apart and sold without their mother’s consent, another violation of the law.  Separately, Planned Parenthood has come under fire for its active promotion among young people of the notion that an individual’s ‘right’ to sexual pleasure supersedes his or her obligation to inform a partner of an HIV-positive status.  Republicans argue that taxpayers should not subsidize an organization that engages in these horrific abortion-related activities, and that pushes breathtakingly dangerous sexual ethics.

On Obamacare, the GOP says it is keeping its word to voters and fighting on behalf of the majority of Americans who continue to oppose the failing law.  A recent Gallup survey showed that uninsured Americans — who still number in the tens of millions — are most likely to disapprove of the so-called “Affordable” Care Act, largely because they can’t afford it.  The law has broken most of the biggest promises upon which it was sold, is actively harming real people, and is hurting the US economy, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — which has also just concluded that repealing the law would substantially reduce deficits:

    “CBO: ObamaCare repeal bill would reduce deficits by half a trillion dollars over 10 years”
    — Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) January 5, 2016

The New York Times reported this week that many Americans have run the math and determined that paying Obamacare’s individual mandate tax is more affordable than paying through the nose for costly coverage that doesn’t even kick in until after consumers fork over thousands in out-of-pocket costs. Meanwhile, a recent survey finds that more than one-quarter of American households have struggled to pay medical bills over the past 12 months, several years into the full implementation of the “Affordable” Care Act.  Among this group, a majority was insured:

    Kaiser/NYT: 62% of people who can’t afford to pay their medical bills are insured. pic.twitter.com/xVjqwlFjRS
    — Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) January 5, 2016

For the umpteenth time, coverage does not equal care — and being insured to does not mean your healthcare-related financial hardships disappear.  Indeed, under Obamacare, expensive compulsory coverage may very well exacerbate affordability woes.  Parting thought: Of the many worthy provisions in the soon-to-be-vetoed repeal legislation (exhibit A in the case for electing a Republican president), only one element will actually be the law of the land in 2016.  One of the bright spots of December’s ugly omnibus spending bill was an extension of the 2015 rollback of funding Obamacare bailout-style programs, which were designed to hide the true costs of the law for several years by defraying insurer losses with huge sums of taxpayer money.  This successful push to protect taxpayers and force policy transparency, spearheaded by Marco Rubio, constitutes a rare Obamacare win for conservatives.

But we have to start somewhere. King Obama will not relent on his Agenda one bit. He’s incapable of that.

So we have to force him to defend his Royal Majesty until we get someone that isn’t King Bernie or Queen Hillary.

Then maybe the American People have a chance. Maybe.

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

The Law of Demand

Many people argue that liberals, socialists and progressives do not understand basic economics. I am not totally convinced about that.

Me too. And the fact that they don’t WANT to understand it. Since it’s evil and they wantn to destroy it they don’t want to understand their enemy.

Take the law of demand, for example, one of the fundamental principles of economics. It holds that the lower the cost of something the more people will take or do of it. Conversely, the higher the cost the less people will take or do something. By their actions, liberals fully understand the law of demand. Let’s look at some proof.

The Seattle City Council voted unanimously to establish a tax on gun and ammunition sales. Hillary Clinton has called for a 25 percent tax on gun sales. In Chicago, Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle proposed “violence taxes” on bullets to discourage criminals from buying guns. Let’s ignore the merit of these measures. They do show that gun grabbers acknowledge the law of demand. They want fewer gun sales and thus propose raising the cost of guns.

And it makes them “feel good” to “do something” and taxing something always makes a liberal happy.

NBCBLK contributor Danielle Moodie-Mills said, “We need to stop misgendering people in the media, and there needs to be some type of fine that’s put into place for … media outlets … that decide that they’re just not going to call people by their name.” What Moodie-Mills wants is for us to be obliged, if a man says he’s a woman, to address him as her and, if a woman says she’s a man, to address her as him. The basic point here is that Moodie-Mills acknowledges the fundamental law of demand when she calls for FCC fines for media people who “misgender” folks. By the way, if I claimed to be the king of Siam, I wonder whether she would support my demand that I be addressed as “your majesty.”

That’s reserved for Obama. 🙂

In the Ohio Legislature, Rep. Bill Patmon, a Democrat from Cleveland, introduced a bill to make it illegal to manufacture, sell or display toy guns. The ban would apply to any toy gun that a “reasonable person” could confuse with a real one. A $1,000 fine and up to 180 days in jail would be imposed for failure to obey the law. That’s more evidence that liberals understand the law of demand. You want less of something? Just raise its cost.

Even San Francisco liberals and environmentalists understand the law of demand. They’ve proposed a ban that over the next four years would phase out the sale of plastic water bottles that hold 21 ounces or less in public places. Violators could face fines of up to $1,000.

Former U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu once said, “We have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe” in order to make Americans give up their “love affair with the automobile.” If gas prices rise high enough, Chu knows that Americans will drive less.

And for a while there when it was over $4 a gallon it was working. Then those damn oil companies found Oil in Bakken region in the Dakotas and the supply got to big overall…curses! foiled again!

Then there’s the EPA and “making energy prices skyrocket” as Obama once said.

There you have it — abundant evidence that liberals, socialists and progressives understand the law of demand. But wait a minute. What about raising the cost of hiring workers through increases in the minimum wage?

Aaron Pacitti, Siena College professor of economics, wrote that raising the minimum wage “would reduce income inequality and poverty while boosting growth, without increasing unemployment.” The leftist Center for Economic and Policy Research has written a paper whose title tells it all: “Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?” The U.S. Department of Labor has a page on its website titled “Minimum Wage Mythbusters” (http://tinyurl.com/lt47co9), which relays a message from liberal economists: “Increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers.”

Just like Global Warming, science in the slavish service of Liberal Ideology.

What the liberals believe — and want us to believe — is that though an increase in the cost of anything will cause people to use less of it, labor is exempt from the law of demand. That’s like accepting the idea that the law of gravity influences the falling behavior of everything except nice people. One would have to be a lunatic to believe either proposition. (Walter E Williams)

Or Global Warming “consensus”. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Sorry

I’m not going to dignify Hillary Clinton mea culpa recently because its so laughably silly.

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

Just like this story from our “more secure than ever” border and  don’t you criticize us you border wall demanding racist pigs.

HIDALGO, Texas — A convicted burglar from Mexico with a history of repeated felony convictions and deportations is back in Texas. Arturo Oleague Martinez, 48, was arrested by federal agents last week at the county jail in this border city and taken before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. He was charged with one count of illegally re-entering the country.

Magistrate Judge Peter Ormsby ordered that Oleague Martinez be held without bond for his court hearings.

Oleague Martinez had been last deported in November through Del Rio, Texas, after serving a 42 month prison sentence for being entering the country illegally while having a prior felony conviction, the criminal complaint filed by U.S. Border Patrol agents revealed.

State court records, from the border county of Hidalgo, revealed that in addition to multiple immigration violations since 1985, Oleague Martinez has been convicted on five different charges connected to burglaries of homes and businesses and a separate charge for burglarizing a car.

Court records show that the man has spent most of the last 30 years in prison both federal and state facilities.

According to court records, Oleague Martinez entered the U.S. in August 17, through the border city of Laredo. As Breitbart Texas has reported in the past, Laredo doesn’t have a border fence and the border enforcement in that area is sorely lacking.

Laredo is the same border city where Mexican drug traffickers shot down a U.S. Customs and Border Protection helicopter, forcing the federal agency to begin using Blackhawk helicopters which are able to withstand small arms fire, Breitbart Texas reported.

That border city just north of the border from Nuevo Laredo, the stronghold of the hyper-violent Los Zetas criminal organization, who according to various law enforcement sources consulted By Breitbart Texas control with an iron grip the human smuggling and the drug trafficking.

So long before #6?

Or am I just being my “racist” little self… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

More Reasons to Repeal ObamaCare

Forecasts: ObamaCare advocates tout a new Congressional Budget Office report saying that ObamaCare’s repeal would boost the deficit. But read the actual report. It tells a far different, more disturbing tale about this law.

The report found that repealing ObamaCare lock, stock and barrel would boost the deficit by $353 billion. That was enough for news outlets like CNN to report that repeal would “blow out the deficit.”

Actually, given that the CBO expects deficits to total $7.2 trillion over those same years, the increase is more like a rounding error than a blowout.

But what the CBO’s latest analysis does is provide three more reasons ObamaCare is a bad deal for the American public.

• It’s bad for the economy. President Obama sold ObamaCare as a major boost to the economy. But the CBO says ObamaCare is hurting the economy and that its repeal would boost the nation’s GDP by 0.7% from 2021 to 2025. Based on the CBO’s own GDP forecasts, that translates into $886 billion. When you account for these economic effects, ObamaCare’s impact on the deficit shrinks to just $137 billion.

• It relies on phony accounting. The only way the CBO can claim that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit by any amount is by assuming — as it must — that the roughly $800 billion in Medicare provider cuts all take effect. But that’s a fantasy. The Medicare Board of Trustees says these payment cuts aren’t realistic over the long term. And Obama just signed a law repealing Congress’ last attempt to impose deep cuts to doctors.

• Past forecasts have been wildly wrong. Back in 2011, the CBO said ObamaCare would cut the 2016-21 deficit a total of $109 billion. Now it says it will boost deficits by $109 billion over those same years, once you factor in the harm ObamaCare will do to the economy.

To its credit, the CBO admits its latest forecast should be taken with heaping grains of salt. “All of the resulting estimates,” it notes right upfront, “are subject to substantial uncertainty.”

Yes, the CBO says that repealing ObamaCare would increase the number of uninsured. But as we’ve pointed out here many times, there are other, far better ways to boost insurance coverage that won’t balloon deficits, wreck Medicare and destroy the economy.

Getting rid of ObamaCare is just the first step. (IBD)

A commenter put it well:

Insurance is a transfer and spreading of risk. The “essential” contracts permitted and required under PPACA provide for payments for services and goods related to administratively determined (presumed) “needs” rather than risks.
This conflation, which began under the several states issuing “mandates” of specific provisions has shifted the functions from spreading risks to spreading costs.

This is one method of “redistribution.” Instead of taking income from one person and transferring it directly (less bureaucratic overheads) to another, this process uses the income of one to pay the costs of others -plus the bureaucratic expenses of the cost re-assignments.

That’s really what these kinds of programs are about. Sometimes it is done by regulations (as is the case of PPACA), often by taxation (and its exemptions).

Ultimately, “All oxen are gored.”

Now that’s “equality”. 🙂

Flights of Liberal Fancy

More grateful Welfare Democrats imported by Obama…

A new State Department and Department of Homeland Security program seeks to stop the surge of immigrant children from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador at the southern border by giving their U.S.-based parents the option to apply to have their kids picked up and put on a plane, without paying a penny.

The parents are eligible as long as they have some sort of legal status. As first reported in The Daily Caller, this would include permanent residents and even illegal immigrants given a work permit and deportation reprieve under President Obama’s recent executive actions, though much of that is on hold due to a pending court case. Of them, those with children under 21 and living in El Salvador, Guatemala or Honduras reportedly could apply.

That’s right—they’ll be getting a one-way flight into the U.S. courtesy of American taxpayers. Moreover, under this program they will be considered “refugees,” which gives them access to government benefits such as living expenses, medical care, food stamps, and more.

So far, the State Department has not provided a cost for the plane tickets, or the benefits that follow upon their arrival in America. Asked Friday about the issue, spokeswoman Marie Harf said: “The price tag? I don’t know.” (don’t care either)

The Agenda is The Agenda.

“I think many Americans are going to be surprised to learn that illegal aliens here in the United States are getting the Obama administration to go and get their children and fetch them,” Tom Fitton, president of the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, told Fox News. “And all at our expense.”

Potentially millions of current and former illegal immigrants now have the opportunity to fly their children to the U.S. with taxpayer dollars.

Once they arrive, they will be eligible for benefits including a free education, healthcare and food stamps.

The State Department and Department of Homeland Security will administer the program, which is a response to the flood of Central American children making dangerous journeys to illegally cross the U.S. southern border.

Any permanent resident, parolee or illegal immigrant granted or in the process of being granted a work permit under President Barack Obama’s recent executive order or his deferred action policy, who has children under 21 living in Honduras, Guatemala or El Salvador can apply for the program.

If their application is approved, the child will be granted a special refugee status and flown into the U.S. where they will receive “resettlement assistance” and be eligible for taxpayer benefits. If the child has children under 21 they can come too, as well as a parent of the child who is married to the applicant.

 

Some of the benefits they will receive are a free education, medical care, living expenses and food stamps.

 

Immigration and State Department officials explained how the program will work on an invite-only teleconference call Tuesday that was not open to the press and was mostly attended by groups known to advocate for illegal immigrants, reported Judicial Watch.

A State Department official said the “family reunification” program will be entirely funded by taxpayers, but claimed to have no clue how much the program will cost.

The only cost to the applicants is a DNA test to assure the child is theirs, but they will be reimbursed if the result of the test validates their claim. A U.S. medical official will interview the child or spouse, who will then undergo a medical examination and “cultural orientation” before entering the U.S.

While the children flooding the border are officially referred to as Unaccompanied Alien Children, these immigrants will be officially referred to as Central American Minors.

“The Central American Minors (CAM) Refugee/Parole Program provides certain qualified minors in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras a safe, legal, and orderly alternative to the dangerous journey that some children are currently undertaking to the United States,” a government page explaining the program states.

The U.S. has already sent staff to the region and began accepting applications in December.

If applicants don’t qualify for refugee status, they can be considered for parole status, in which case they would have to pay for medical clearance and the flight into the U.S.

The State Department assured those on the conference call that applicants won’t need to document a credible fear to qualify for the program because “we want to make sure this program is open to as many people as possible.”

Come on in, it all “free”. Here’s a Driver’s License and a voter Registration card and just remember on election day who gave them to you and don’t mind, just hate,  the racists who opposed you being here.

$50,000 Boondoggle-Surprise!

It will cost the federal government – taxpayers, that is – $50,000 for every person who gets health insurance under the Obamacare law, the Congressional Budget Office revealed on Monday.

The number comes from figures buried in a 15-page section of the nonpartisan organization’s new ten-year budget outlook. 

The best-case scenario described by the CBO would result in ‘between 24 million and 27 million’ fewer Americans being uninsured in 2025, compared to the year before the Affordable Care Act took effect.

Pulling that off will cost Uncle Sam about $1.35 trillion – or $50,000 per head.

The numbers are daunting: It will take $1.993 trillion, a number that looks like $1,993,000,000,000, to provide insurance subsidies to poor and middle-class Americans, and to pay for a massive expansion of Medicaid and CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) costs.

Offsetting that massive outlay will be $643 billion in new taxes, penalties and fees related to the Obamacare law.

That revenue includes quickly escalating penalties – or ‘taxes,’ as the U.S. Supreme Court described them – on people who resist Washington’s command to buy medical insurance.

It also includes income from a controversial medical device tax, which some Republicans predict will be eliminated in the next two years.

If they’re right, Obamacare’s per-person cost would be even higher.

President Barack Obama pledged to members of Congress in 2009, as his signature insurance overhaul law was being hotly debated, that ‘the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.’

He lied. Gee, what a shock that is!!

It would be a significant discount if the White House could return to that number today.

In that same speech, Obama claimed that there were ‘more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.’

$900 billion spent on those people would equate to no more than $30,000 each – less than two-thirds of what the CBO now says the program will cost when the dust settles. 

The CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation, a group of members from both houses of Congress, prepared Monday’s report on the overall direction of the federal budget.

They estimated that ‘the net costs of the coverage provisions of the ACA [Affordable Care Act] will rise sharply as the effects of the act phase in from 2015 through 2017.’

Those costs will ‘rise steadily through 2022′ before leveling off for three years, the groups’ economists determined. But even at that point, the Obamacare program will cost the governemnt ‘about $145 billion’ each year.

That number doesn’t include the insurance premiums and out-of-pocket health care costs paid by Americans – only the government’s role in implementing the law and paying for its guarantees.

And the law will still leave ‘between 29 million and 31 million’ nonelderly Americans without medical insurance, says the CBO.

See, the scam worked. They got socialized medicine and it do anyone any good but it made THEM feel good and they got to control your life! What could be better? 🙂

(Mission Impossible TV Theme): “Good morning Mr. Gruber.  Your mission, should you decide/choose to accept it is to lie your ass off about ObamaCare’s costs and to make sure the CBO gives us a favorable rating no matter what… As always, should you or any of your team be caught or have their lies revealed; the Ministry of Truth will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This tape will self destruct in 5/10 seconds. Good luck Jonathan.”

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

 Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel


Red Ink

It may not be the sexiest topic or the one that gets your venom flowing, but what more important in the long run?  $17.865 Trillion (that a a $Billion since yesterday’s blog-check it). It’s irresponsible. Period. We overspent less this year Yippee!! 😦

Red Ink: The White House is crowing that the deficit fell sharply this year. But in fact, there’s little to celebrate. The decline wasn’t a result of sound fiscal policy, and it won’t last.

This week, the Treasury Dept. reported that the total deficit for fiscal 2014, which ended Sept. 30, was $483 billion. Budget director Jacob Lew seized on the news to declare, “Not since World War II, more than 60 years ago, has there been faster and more sustained deficit reduction.”

Of course, time was that a nearly half trillion dollar deficit was the sign of abject failure, not success.

In mid-2008, then Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad said, “If we gave Olympic medals for fiscal irresponsibility, President Bush would take the gold, the silver and the bronze.” That was after the administration said that deficits would hit $482 billion.

Given that Obama’s deficits topped $1 trillion for four years straight, anything less looks good by comparison.

But a closer look at the numbers reveals that this meager good deficit news is not particularly good.

First, the decline came almost entirely from rising corporate and personal income taxes. That’s just a sign that the economy has been growing — albeit painfully slowly. And as people return to work, they start paying taxes again. This growth rate in revenues won’t continue.

And while spending climbed by less than 2% in 2014, that’s misleading as well. A big chunk of the slowdown came from a $25.6 billion drop in unemployment insurance costs, in part because Congress didn’t extend long-term jobless benefits. That’s not likely to be repeated.

It’s true that there has been spending restraint in so-called discretionary programs, largely because Republicans control the House.

Entitlement programs are another matter. Medicaid spending climbed an eye-popping 13% last year as ObamaCare expanded eligibility. Medicare spending went up 2.5%, which seems low but is almost twice the rate of overall federal outlays. Social Security spending climbed 4.4%. Interest on the debt climbed 3.3%.

On top of that, ObamaCare added $13 billion in new subsidies to the ledger.

All of which is why the Congressional Budget Office projects that, starting in 2016, annual deficits will start to march upward, as entitlement growth starts to outstrip even historically high tax revenues.

By the decade’s end, the CBO projects, deficits will once again be in the trillion-dollar range, while debt held by the public will have climbed to 77.2% of GDP.

And this assumes that ObamaCare costs don’t climb faster than expected, and its taxes come in as planned.

That’s not likely, given that several ObamaCare taxes — most notably a tax on devices — are coming in below expectations, while costs are higher than planned.

A Senate Budget Committee analysis released this week finds that ObamaCare’s net costs are running $300 billion ahead of what the CBO had forecast back in 2010, when it claimed that the law would cut the deficit in its first 10 years. Instead, the committee report says, it will likely add $131 billion in red ink by 2019.

The CBO’s projections also assume that interest rates won’t spike, which would send already massive interest payments spiraling up, or that the economy won’t hit another brick wall.

The administration says that the latest deficit news marks “a return to fiscal normalcy.” If deficits as far as the eye can see and massive debt are what they consider normal, we’re in big trouble. (IBD)

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert