Here we go....

And if anyone is shocked by this, I have a bridge to sell you. A few bridges. Companies, economists, politicians, and pundits have been warning about this for a while now. Read the original here.

PICKET: Companies plan massive layoffs as Obamacare becomes realityBy Kerry Picket - The Washington Times
November 8, 2012, 09:52PM

Freedom Works has put together a list of companies that will be laying off employees as a result of President Barack Obama's health care law:

Welch Allyn

Welch Allyn, a company that manufactures medical diagnostic equipment in central New York, announced in September that they would be laying off 275 employees, or roughly 10% of their workforce over the next three years. One of the major reasons discussed for the layoffs was a proactive response to the Medical Device Tax mandated by the new healthcare law.

Dana Holding Corp.

As recently as a week ago, a global auto parts manufacturing company in Ohio known as Dana Holding Corp., warned their employees of potential layoffs, citing "$24 million over the next six years in additional U.S. health care expenses". After laying off several white collar staffers, company insiders have hinted at more to come. The company will have to cover the additional $24 million cost somehow, which will likely equate to numerous cuts in their current workforce of 25,500 worldwide.

Stryker

One of the biggest medical device manufacturers in the world, Stryker will close their facility in Orchard Park, New York, eliminating 96 jobs in December. Worse, they plan on countering the medical device tax in Obamacare by slashing 5% of their global workforce - an estimated 1,170 positions.

Boston Scientific

In October of 2009, Boston Scientific CEO Ray Elliott, warned that proposed taxes in the health care reform bill could "lead to significant job losses" for his company. Nearly two years later, Elliott announced that the company would be cutting anywhere between 1,200 and 1,400 jobs, while simultaneously shifting investments and workers overseas - to China.

Medtronic

In March of 2010, medical device maker Medtronic warned that Obamacare taxes could result in a reduction of precisely 1,000 jobs. That plan became reality when the company cut 500 positions over the summer, with another 500 set for the end of 2013.

Others

A short list of other companies facing future layoffs at the hands of Obamacare:

Smith & Nephew - 770 layoffs
Abbott Labs - 700 layoffs
Covidien - 595 layoffs
Kinetic Concepts - 427 layoffs
St. Jude Medical - 300 layoffs
Hill Rom - 200 layoffs
Beyond the complete elimination of a significant number of American jobs is another looming problem created by the health care law - a shift from full-time to part-time workers.

Read more: PICKET: Companies plan massive layoffs as Obamacare becomes reality - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/nov/8/picket-companies-plan-massive-layoffs-obamacare-be/#ixzz2BkrycLdy
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Mourning in America - Here's Those Layoffs We Voted For Last Night
By Rusty Weiss on November 07, 2012 
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/grusbf5/good-morning-america-heres-those-layoffs-you-voted

Last night's victory for the President marks the first time since its inception that Obamacare is no longer a what-if; it is the future of health care in America.

It also means a near immediate impact on the economy. With 20 or so new or higher taxes set to be implemented, ranging from a $123 billion surtax on investment income, through the $20 billion medical device tax, all the way down to the $600 million executive compensation limit, Obamacare will be a nearly unbearable tax burden on the economy.

Who will pay? The middle-class workforce, of course.

So with another four years for President Obama to look forward to, and the obvious inevitability of Obamacare that this entails, let's examine the very real jobs that will be lost, and the very real lives that will be affected.

Welch Allyn

Welch Allyn, a company that manufactures medical diagnostic equipment in central New York, announced in September that they would be laying off 275 employees, or roughly 10% of their workforce over the next three years. One of the major reasons discussed for the layoffs was a proactive response to the Medical Device Tax mandated by the new healthcare law.

Dana Holding Corp.

As recently as a week ago, a global auto parts manufacturing company in Ohio known as Dana Holding Corp., warned their employees of potential layoffs, citing "$24 million over the next six years in additional U.S. health care expenses". After laying off several white collar staffers, company insiders have hinted at more to come. The company will have to cover the additional $24 million cost somehow, which will likely equate to numerous cuts in their current workforce of 25,500 worldwide.

Stryker

One of the biggest medical device manufacturers in the world, Stryker will close their facility in Orchard Park, New York, eliminating 96 jobs in December. Worse, they plan on countering the medical device tax in Obamacare by slashing 5% of their global workforce - an estimated 1,170 positions.

Boston Scientific

In October of 2009, Boston Scientific CEO Ray Elliott, warned that proposed taxes in the health care reform bill could "lead to significant job losses" for his company. Nearly two years later, Elliott announced that the company would be cutting anywhere between 1,200 and 1,400 jobs, while simultaneously shifting investments and workers overseas - to China.

Medtronic

In March of 2010, medical device maker Medtronic warned that Obamacare taxes could result in a reduction of precisely 1,000 jobs. That plan became reality when the company cut 500 positions over the summer, with another 500 set for the end of 2013.

Others

A short list of other companies facing future layoffs at the hands of Obamacare:
Smith & Nephew - 770 layoffs
Abbott Labs - 700 layoffs
Covidien - 595 layoffs
Kinetic Concepts - 427 layoffs
St. Jude Medical - 300 layoffs
Hill Rom - 200 layoffs

Beyond the complete elimination of a significant number of American jobs is another looming problem created by the health care law - a shift from full-time to part-time workers.

Sean Hackbarth of Free Enterprise explains:


A JP Morgan economist "points out that 8.3 million people are working in part-time jobs even though they'd prefer full-time work. Unfortunately, because of President Obama’s health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), workers in the hotel, restaurant, and retail industries could be pushed into part-time jobs working less than 30 hours per week."

"Under the health care law, if a company has more than 50 “full time equivalent” workers, a combination of full and part-time employees, but doesn’t offer “affordable” coverage that meets the government’s minimum value standard, the company will have to pay a penalty. This penalty is determined by the number of full-time employees minus 30 full-time employees. So to reiterate a very important point: part-time workers are not part of the penalty formula. The health care law creates a perverse incentive to hire part-time versus full-time workers."

Tangible examples of Obamacare causing a reduction in full-time workers:

Darden Restaurants

According to the Orlando Sentinel, Darden Restaurants, a casual dining chain best known for their Red Lobster, Olive Garden and LongHorn Steakhouse restaurants, is "experimenting with limiting the hours of some of its workers to avoid health care requirements under the Affordable Care Act when they take effect in 2014".

JANCOA Janitorial Services

The CEO of JANCOA, Mary Miller, testified to Congress that Obamacare was a "dream killer", adding that one option she had to consider "is reducing the majority of my team members to part-time employment in order to reduce the amount that I will be penalized."

Kroger

The American retailer in Cincinnati, Ohio recently was reported to be planning a significant slashing of their hourly workers. Doug Ross writes:


Operative Faith (a mid-level manager with the company) reveals that Kroger will soon join the ranks of Darden Restaurants and slash the hours of its non-exempt (hourly) workers to avoid millions in Obamacare penalties.

According to the source, Obamacare could result in tens of thousands of Kroger employees being limited to working 28 hours per week.

Summary

This is by no means, meant to be an exhaustive list. But it is meant to provide examples of real companies, real jobs, and real names, soon to be added to the growing list of employment casualties provided by the inevitable implementation of Obamacare.

Last night, America voted for four more years of President Obama and his destructive economic and health care policies. By extension, America last night voted their approval of the aforementioned layoffs and overall work reduction.

Now we must accept the inevitable. Welcome to mourning in America.

Scheduling Priorities

What do you want your President to spend his time doing? Does the President deserve the flexibility to work the same hours as you do? Is being POTUS, a 9 to 5, 5 days a week job?  I was wondering if perhaps he was skipping intelligence meetings to concentrate on the economy.  Or maybe it's something else.  Don't get me wrong, everyone needs a vacation.  I suppose campaigning is hard work.  Err...governing.  Read the original here.

REPORT: OBAMA SPENDS MORE TIME ON GOLF THAN ECONOMY
by WYNTON HALL 19 Jul 2012
Breitbart.com

An eye-opening new report by the Government Accountability Institute reveals that President Barack Obama averages just eight minutes more a week on economic meetings than the average dog owner spends walking their dog.

When it was recently reported that Mr. Obama had played his 100th round of golf, the president said that playing golf was "the only time that for six hours, I'm outside." Therefore, by his own estimate, the president has spent 600 hours playing golf, as compared to just 412 hours in economic meetings of any kind throughout his presidency.

“You should know that keeping the economy growing and making sure jobs are available is the first thing I think about when I wake up every morning,” Mr. Obama said in 2011 to an audience of UPS workers. “It's the last thing I think about when I go to bed each night."

But just how little time Mr. Obama has spent working on the economy can be seen in the data contained in the Government Accountability Institute’s analysis:

• Throughout the first 1,257 days of his presidency, Mr. Obama has spent just 412 hours in economic meetings or briefings of any kind
• In 2012, so far Obama has spent just 24 total hours in economic meetings of any kind
• Assuming a six day, 10-hour workweek, Obama has spent less than 4 percent of his total time in economic meetings or briefings of any kind
• There were 773 days (72 percent), excluding Sundays, in which he had no economic meetings
• Mr. Obama has spent an average of 138 minutes a week in economic meetings. According to a study published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, new dog owners spent an average of 130 minutes a week walking their dogs

The study, which was based upon the president’s official schedule, practically bent over backwards to include anything even remotely akin to an economic meeting. For example, “Obama meets with Consumer Product Safety Commission Chairwoman Inez Tenenbaum” was tallied as an economic meeting. Also included was, “Obama meets with Cabinet secretaries,” which may or may not have dealt with economic issues, counted as well.

Still, with Americans suffering in the worst economy since the Great Depression, Mr. Obama’s time spent in economic meetings came in shockingly low.

POTUS, the Democrats, and the Auto Industry Takeover

Yeah, I'm just going to let the editors of the National Review Online take this one. Read the original here.

The Democrats’ GM Fiction
By The Editors of the National Review
SEPTEMBER 10, 2012 4:00 A.M.

The Democrats have decided to run in 2012 as the bailout party. It is an odd choice — the 2008–09 bailouts were deeply unpopular among the general public, and even their backers were notably conflicted about the precedent being set and the ensuing moral hazard. But Democrats have nonetheless made one of the most abusive episodes in the entire bailout era their economic cornerstone: the government takeover of General Motors.

The GM bailout was always an odd duck: The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was created in order to preserve liquidity in the financial markets by heading off the collapse of key financial institutions that had made catastrophically bad bets on real-estate securities — nothing at all to do with cars, really. GM’s financial arm, today known as Ally Financial, was in trouble, but GM’s fundamental problem was that its products were not profitable enough to support its work-force expenses. A single dominant factor — the United Auto Workers union’s extortionate contracts with GM — prevented the carmaker from either reducing its work-force costs or making its products more efficiently. And its hidebound management didn’t help.

Admirers of the GM bailout should bear in mind that it was the Bush administration that first decided to intervene at the firm, offering a bridge loan on the condition that it draw up a deeply revised business plan. President Obama’s unique contribution was effectively to nationalize the company, seeing to it that the federal government violated normal bankruptcy processes and legal precedent to protect the defective element at the heart of GM’s troubles: the financial interests of the UAW. It did this by strong-arming GM’s bondholders into taking haircuts in order to sweeten the pot for the UAW. The Obama administration also creatively construed tax law to relieve GM of tens of billions of dollars in obligations — at the same time that Barack Obama & Co. were caterwauling about the supposed lack of patriotism of firms that used legal means rather than political favoritism to reduce their tax bills.

Mitt Romney’s proposal for a structured bankruptcy would have necessitated considerable federal involvement, too, but with a key difference: The UAW contracts would have been renegotiated, and GM’s executive suites would have been cleaned out, placing the company on a path toward innovation and self-sufficiency rather than permanent life support. Which is to say, Obama did for GM what he is doing by un-reforming welfare: creating a dependent constituency.

The Democrats cling to the ridiculous claim that the bailout of GM and its now-Italian competitor, Chrysler, saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs. This preposterous figure is based on the assumption that if GM and Chrysler had gone into normal bankruptcy proceedings, the entire enterprise of automobile manufacturing in the United States would have collapsed — not only at GM and Chrysler but at Ford and foreign transplants such as Toyota and Honda. Not only that, the Democrats’ argument goes, but practically every parts maker, supplier, warehousing agency, and services firm dedicated to the car industry would have collapsed, too. In fact, it is unlikely that even GM or Chrysler would have stopped production during bankruptcy: The assembly lines would have continued rolling, interest and debt payments would have been cut, and — here’s the problem — union contracts would have been renegotiated. Far from having saved 1.5 million jobs, it is not clear that the GM bailout saved any — only that it preserved the UAW’s unsustainable arrangement.

Bill Clinton bizarrely tried to claim that the bailout has been responsible for the addition of 250,000 jobs to the automobile industry since the nadir of the financial crisis. Auto manufacturers and dealerships have indeed added about 236,000 jobs since then, but almost none are at GM, which has added only about 4,500 workers, a number not even close to offsetting the 63,000 workers that its dealerships had to let go when the terms of the bailout unilaterally shut them down.

Ugly as the bank bailouts were, the federal government appears set to make its money back on most of them, with the exception of some smaller regional banks and CIT. Even AIG, one of the worst of the financial basket cases, is set to end up being a break-even proposition for U.S. taxpayers. But tens of billions of dollars will be lost on GM. The federal government put up more for a 60 percent interest in the firm than GM is worth today.

At their convention, Democrats swore that GM is “thriving,” but the market doesn’t think so: GM shares have lost half their value since January 2011. And while the passing of the Great Recession has meant growing sales for all automakers, GM is seriously lagging behind its competitors: Its sales are up 10 percent, a fraction of the increases at Kia, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Porsche. With its sales weak, its share price crashing, and its business model still a mess, some analysts already are predicting that GM will return to bankruptcy — but not until after the election.

The Obama administration talks up all of the “jobs” it saved at GM — but jobs doing what? Manufacturing automobiles that are not competitive without a massive government subsidy? Propping up an economically unviable enterprise just long enough to get Barack Obama reelected? As much as it will pain the hardworking men and women of GM to hear it, it is not worthwhile to save jobs at enterprises that cannot compete on their own merits. So long as the federal government is massively subsidizing the operation, a job at GM is a welfare program with a fairly robust work requirement. (And we all know how the Obama administration feels about work requirements.)

We have bankruptcy laws and bankruptcy courts for a reason. It may make sense to expedite the proceedings for very large firms such as GM in order to prevent disruptions in the supply chain that would, as Ford’s executives argued, harm other, healthier firms. But bankrupt is what GM was, and bankrupt is what GM is, a fact that will become blisteringly apparent should the government ever attempt to sell off the shares it owns in the company.

The GM bailout was a bad deal for GM’s creditors, for U.S. taxpayers, and, in the long run, for the U.S. automobile industry and our overall national competitiveness. No wonder the Democrats are campaigning on a fictionalized account of it.

Those who don't learn from history...

...are doomed to repeat it. Of course, POTUS doesn't believe it's a "doom", but rather, a success. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that someone with no business or private sector experience would deem this a success. And I shouldn't be surprised, that he'd want more of the same. Regardless of his intent, the great orator still says that what happened with the government takeover of GM was a success. I disagree.

Read the originals here and here.

Obama: Let's repeat auto industry success
By DONOVAN SLACK

Politico.com
8/9/12 2:18 PM EDT

PUEBLO, Colo. – President Obama, while villifying Mitt Romney for opposing the auto industry bailout, bragged about the success of his decision to provide government assistance and said he now wants to see every manufacturing industry come roaring back.

“I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.

“I don’t want those jobs taking root in places like China, I want those jobs taking root in places like Pueblo,” Obama told a crowd gathered for a campaign rally at the Palace of Agriculture at the Colorado State Fairgrounds here.

He made the remarks while pushing for the renewal of a tax credit for wind energy manufacturing – something Romney opposes – and for the creation of credits for companies who bring jobs home from overseas, as well as the elimination of loopholes for offshoring.

“Gov. Romney brags about his private sector experience, but it was mostly invested in companies, some of which were called 'pioneers of outsourcing,'” Obama said. “I don’t want to be a pioneer of outsourcing. I want to insource.”

Clarification: This post was updated to reflect the president's intent to express his support for manufacturing success. An earlier version was unclear about his intent.

(This is the success, that the President refers to. -TheStrategeryBlog)

Report: U.S. Treasury ups expected bailout losses to $25 billion
Published: Monday, August 13, 2012, 4:00 PM Updated: Monday, August 13, 2012, 4:17 PM
By Michael Wayland

mwayland@mlive.com 

Mlive.com

DETROIT, MI- The U.S. Treasury Department reportedly expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout involving General Motors and Chrysler.

A new report sent to Congress on Friday states the Obama administration now expects to lose about $25.1 billion, according to the Detroit News.

Aug. 13, DetroitNews.com: “The report may still underestimate the losses. The report covers predicted losses through May 31, when GM's stock price was $22.20 a share.”

The government still owns 500 million shares of the automaker as part of the 2009 auto bailout, which forced both automakers into government-backed bankruptcies.

To recoup all of its nearly $50 billion from GM, government officials would have to sell the remaining shares at about $53 per share.

Earlier this year, GM spokesman Selim Bingol said it is "anybody's guess" as to when the government will exit the automaker.

“The day will eventually come when the Treasury sells its GM stake,” he wrote in an executive blog post in March. “When is anybody’s guess (we have no say in the matter). Meantime, we are focused on designing, building and selling the best vehicles in the world.”

As of 3:45 p.m. today, the Detroit-based automaker’s stock [NYSE: GM] was trading for about $20.45 a share, a 38 percent decline from its initial offering price of $33 in November 2010. The stock hit a record low of $18.85 per share late last month.

During the company’s annual shareholder meeting in June, GM CEO and Chairman Dan Akerson said global economic uncertainty, along with its troubled European operations and pension obligations were hindering the stock’s performance.

“I regret that the stock has not done well post-IPO,” he said. “I will ensure you that we are all dedicated to improving that over the immediate to long-term.”

The Obama administration completely exited Chrysler last year after recovering $11.2 billion of its $12.5 billion bailout to the Auburn Hills-based automaker.

The $25 billion in losses remains less than its estimates of $30 billion in December 2009, according to the Detroit News.

Supply & Demand is a fairly straightforward principle

Unfortunately, free medical care is a limited commodity, and as a commodity, subject to the economical principles of supply and demand. If the demand goes way up, the supply will be even more limited. I'm not saying people shouldn't have healthcare. I'm questioning why people are surprised with developments like this one. Read the original here.

Rationing Begins: States Limiting Drug Prescriptions for Medicaid Patients
By Melanie Hunter
July 30, 2012

(CNSNews.com) – Sixteen states have set a limit on the number of prescription drugs they will cover for Medicaid patients, according to Kaiser Health News.

Seven of those states, according to Kaiser Health News, have enacted or tightened those limits in just the last two years.

Medicaid is a federal program that is carried out in partnership with state governments. It forms an important element of President Barack Obama's health-care plan because under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--AKA Obamcare--a larger number of people will be covered by Medicaid, as the income cap is raised for the program.

With both the expanded Medicaid program and the federal subsidy for health-care premiums that will be available to people earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level, a larger percentage of the population will be wholly or partially dependent on the government for their health care under Obamacare than are now.

In Alabama, Medicaid patients are now limited to one brand-name drug, and HIV and psychiatric drugs are excluded.

Illinois has limited Medicaid patients to just four prescription drugs as a cost-cutting move, and patients who need more than four must get permission from the state.

Speaking on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal on Monday, Phil Galewitz, staff writer for Kaiser Health News, said the move “only hurts a limited number of patients.”

“Drugs make up a fair amount of costs for Medicaid. A lot of states have said a lot of drugs are available in generics where they cost less, so they see this sort of another move to push patients to take generics instead of brand,” Galewitz said.

“It only hurts a limited number of patients, ‘cause obviously it hurts patients who are taking multiple brand name drugs in the case of Alabama, Illinois. Some of the states are putting the limits on all drugs. It’s another place to cut. It doesn’t hurt everybody, but it could hurt some,” he added.

Galewitz said the move also puts doctors and patients in a “difficult position.”

“Some doctors I talked to would work with patients with asthma and diabetes, and sometimes it’s tricky to get the right drugs and the right dosage to figure out how to control some of this disease, and just when they get it right, now the state is telling them that, ‘Hey, you’re not going to get all this coverage. You may have to switch to a generic or find another way,’” he said.

Arkansas, California, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia have all placed caps on the number of prescription drugs Medicaid patients can get.

“Some people say it’s a matter of you know states are throwing things up against the wall to see what might work, so states have tried, they’ve also tried formularies where they’ll pick certain brand name drugs over other drugs. So states try a whole lot of different things. They’re trying different ways of paying providers to try to maybe slow the costs down,” Galewitz said.

“So it seems like Medicaid’s sort of been one big experiment over the last number of years for states to try to control costs, and it’s an ongoing battle, and I think drugs is just now one of the … latest issues. And it’s a relatively recent thing, only in the last 10 years have we really seen states put these limits on monthly drugs,” he added.

Taranto on Obamacare's Effect

Is anyone surprised by this? If so, I have many things to sell you, starting with a bridge. Read the original here.

The ObamaCare Tax Increase
WSJ BEST OF THE WEB TODAY
Updated July 25, 2012, 12:39 p.m. ET
By JAMES TARANTO

The Congressional Budget Office has revised its estimates of the effects of ObamaCare, taking into account last month's Supreme Court decision that upheld most of the law. The office found that "of the 33 million people who had been expected to gain coverage under the law, 3 million fewer" now will because of changes in Medicaid., the New York Times reports. By 2022, CBO predicts, "30 million people will be uninsured." Universal health care, baby!

Here are the revenue and spending numbers:
With the expected changes as a result of the court decision, the budget office said the law would cost $84 billion less than it had previously predicted.
"The insurance coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act will have a net cost of $1.168 billion over the 2012-2022 period--compared with $1.252 billion projected in March 2012 for that 11-year period--for a net reduction of $84 billion," or about 7 percent, the budget office said.
In addition, the budget office said that repealing the health care law would add $109 billion to federal budget deficits over the next 10 years. Specifically, it said, repeal of the law would reduce spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion in the years 2013 to 2022.

Now, how can it "cost" money to repeal a massive new entitlement? Well, the entitlement comes with even more massive new taxes. So right now the prospect of cutting taxes is serving as an argument against cutting spending. The logic of Grover Norquist's "starve the beast" philosophy has never seemed clearer.

WSJ on the debate on Gun Control

Taranto hits the nail on the head...again. Read the original here.


OK, Let's Debate Gun Control!
A second Obama term could kill the Second Amendment.
By JAMES TARANTO

WSJ BEST OF THE WEB TODAY
Updated July 23, 2012, 4:05 p.m. ET 

Last week's horrific crime in Aurora, Colo., has, predictably enough, prompted many leftist politicians and commentators to call for more antigun laws. Actually, that's not quite right. Rather than directly call for more antigun laws, some of them are complaining about the absence of a debate over gun control. Where's the "searching conversation over what rational steps can be taken by individuals, communities and various levels of government to make the recurrence of a comparable tragedy less likely"? the Washington Post's E.J. Dionnewants to know.

"Where a gun massacre is concerned," Dionne writes, "an absolute and total gag rule is imposed on any thinking beyond the immediate circumstances of the catastrophe." It doesn't seem to occur to him that this assertion is self-refuting. If "an absolute and total gag rule" were actually in effect, it would prevent Dionne from saying so.

When people find it necessary to demand a "debate" or complain about the absence of same, it usually means they're frustrated because there is a debate and their side is losing. Sure enough, Dionne's complaint is that those who disagree with him--whom he labels "the gun lobby," "worshipers of weapons" and adherents to "the theology of firearms"--make their case far more effectively than his side does. "The rest of us," he whines, suffer from a "profound timidity," as a result of which they "allow" their opponents' arguments "to work every time."

Dionne is claiming that those on his side have good arguments but fail to advance them because they have poor character. That may be true, especially the part about poor character, but it's still an odd thing to say.

But anyway, by all means let's debate gun control! The Associated Press's Steven Hurst begins a dispatch on the subject by "reporting" that "controlling access to guns would appear, on its face, the simple answer to preventing public massacres like the movie-theatre tragedy in Colorado." He does not reveal the source of this information, but we'll bet it was an exclusive interview with the Associated Press's Steven Hurst.

New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who governs a city some 1,800 miles from Aurora, demanded to know what President Obama and Mitt Romney are "going to do about" making it "harder to get guns." Bloomberg asserted that lawmakers "have been cowed by a handful of advocates who think that the right to bear arms allows you to go out and kill people at random." It is unlikely that anybody actually holds the position that Bloomberg ascribes to his opponents.

The president got into the act too. He "condemned U.S. gun laws as 'mistaken' and urged Washington to review them after a shooter killed 12 people and injured more than 50 others at a U.S. movie theater on Friday,"Reuters reports, quoting his tweet: "Because of the Aurora, Colorado tragedy, the American Congress must review its mistaken legislation on guns. It's doing damage to us all."

Oh, we should specify that was Felipe Calderon, president of Mexico. We'll get to what President Obama said in due course.

Now, there's a very good reason why coastal elites' arguments for gun control fall on deaf ears in most of Middle America. Those who value the Second Amendment suspect that people like Dionne and Bloomberg advocate "reasonable" gun restrictions as a camel's nose to a total or near-total ban on private ownership of firearms and their use for self-defense.

This suspicion is entirely justified. At his press conference, for instance, Bloomberg professed to believe that "there's nothing wrong with you having a gun. . . . If you comply with the law you will have responsible people who know the danger that a weapon or the responsibility that somebody who has a weapon in their hands has."

Well, this columnist lives in Bloomberg's New York, and we would like to own a pistol. But our understanding is that the procedures for acquiring a permit are so onerous that it isn't worth our while to apply. In more than a decade as mayor, Bloomberg has never sought to relax the city's gun restrictions, which are among the nation's most oppressive. He has always pushed in the other direction, demanding loudly if ineffectually that the rest of the country make its laws more like New York's. His actions give every reason to think his claims to respect gun rights are in bad faith.

A New York Times editorial makes similarly disingenuous concessions but carelessly lets the mask slip at the end. The editorialists allow that "many perfectly reasonable people" (though not they themselves) are of the view that the Second Amendment "gives each individual the right to bear arms." They pretend to seek a reasonable middle ground: "The country needs laws that allow gun ownership, but laws that also control their sale and use in careful ways."

The editorial concludes by quoting Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas: "It does make me wonder, you know, with all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying? That could have stopped this guy more quickly?" To which the Times responds: "That sort of call to vigilante justice is sadly too familiar, and it may be the single most dangerous idea in the debate over gun ownership."

The answer to Gohmert's question is that the chain that owns the theater where the massacre took place has a no-weapons policy, which oddly enough did not deter the shooter any more than Colorado's strict laws against murder did.

But what gives away the game is the Times's characterization of Gohmert's musing as a "call to vigilante justice." To see why that is not just mistaken but pernicious, let's consider the story of another shooting in Aurora.

On April 22, Denver's KCNC-TV reports, a man ran into an Aurora church "and told people to take cover." The pastor's mother "came out of the church to see what was happening in the parking lot and got shot." She was killed, but further carnage was averted because "an off-duty [police] officer was at a service and went outside and shot the man who shot the woman." The officer, a cousin of the pastor, was unhurt, but the suspect later died.

Now, the Times might find this acceptable because the man who shot the murderer was not a "vigilante" but a law-enforcement officer with a (presumably) government-issued gun. But the crucial point is that the shooting was not an act of "justice," which is to say that it was not punitive. If the killer had dropped his weapon, held up his hands, and surrendered to the cop, shooting him would have been an act of murder. Even if he arguably deserved to die, he also has a right to due process of law.

The policeman shot him because there was an immediate danger that he would wound or kill more innocent people. It was an act of defense, not justice. Vigilante justice is contrary to the rule of law, but self-defense is an essential part of it. If the latter is indistinguishable from the former, as the Times claims, then individual self-defense is never justified. To put it another way, the Times editorialists claim not merely that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are dangerous but that it is wrong in principle to save innocent lives by stopping a mass murder in progress.

Does President Obama agree with this extreme and un-American position? He professes not to. "The White House signaled [yesterday] that President Obama . . . did not intend to make a push for stricter gun controls," reports ABC's Jake Tapper, Press secretary Jay Carney says the president stands by "the op-ed that was published in an Arizona newspaper."

That would be Tucson's Daily Star, in which the following assertion appeared under the president's byline in March 2011: "Like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land."

Is that a sincere expression of Obama's views? If you believe it is, we have a bridge we'd like to sell you. (Disclosure: We didn't build that.) After all, this is the man who in 2008, when he thought only his snotty and well-heeled San Francisco supporters were listening, said of Middle Americans: "It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

To be sure, the political exigencies are such that Obama's true feelings may not matter. As Politico notes: "The gun control caucus in Congress is increasingly urban, liberal and shrinking. . . . The handful of bills introduced this Congress that would tighten gun restrictions have languished, with a Republican majority in the House. No gun-control bills have cleared the Democratic-controlled Senate, either."

New federal gun-control legislation is highly unlikely to be enacted even if Obama is re-elected. None passed Congress in 2009-10, when Democrats had a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate. It's virtually impossible the Dems will reach 60 seats anytime before 2017.

But there's a third branch of government, and it is the reason why a second Obama term could prove deadly to the Second Amendment. Obama's professions of support for the right to keep and bear arms sounds awfully familiar. They sound, in fact, a lot like this: "Like you, I understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans. . . . I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller."

That was Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's first appointee to the Supreme Court, answering a question at her 2009 confirmation hearing from Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. She was referring to District of Columbia v. Heller, which astonishingly was the first Supreme Court decision ever to recognize this fundamental right. Sotomayor's statement was a careful one. She did not say that she agreed with Heller or even that she would respect it as precedent. She could easily turn out to "understand" it and wish to wipe it from the books.

And she did. In 2010 the court decided McDonald v. Chicago, which applied the "incorporation" doctrine to the Second Amendment--that is, it held that the amendment, coupled with the 14th, forbids states as well as the feds from encroaching on the right to keep and bear arms. Sotomayor (along with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) joined Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent, which flatly asserted: "The Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense."

McDonald, like Heller, was decided 5-4. One of the dissenters, Justice John Paul Stevens, has since retired from the court. His successor, Justice Elena Kagan, has not yet had occasion to cast a vote in a gun-rights case (and as solicitor general she did not file a brief in McDonald). But we are going to go out on a limb and guess that she agrees with Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor that the Second Amendment is essentially a nullity.

If that is correct, then the court is one vote away from having a majority to reverse Heller. Two of the justices in the pro-Second Amendment majority, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, will be 80 by the end of the next presidential term. If either or both of them were to leave the court during a second Obama term, it is far likelier than not that an Obama appointee would join what is now the minority to kill the Second Amendment.

Ginsburg and Breyer are also in their 70s. If Romney were to replace one or both of them, it is likely that the right to keep and bear arms would be secure, backed by a 6-3 or 7-2 majority.

So by all means, let's have a vigorous debate about gun control and the Constitution. But it's not too much to ask of President Obama that in describing his own views on the subject and the consequences of re-electing him, he be at least as honest as the New York Times editorial page.

Podcast: James Taranto on gun control.

Who built what?

Who is responsible for success? If something is given, it can be taken away. James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal gives his $0.02. Read the original here.

You Didn't Sweat, He Did
Constructing a sentence is hard work when you're the World's Greatest Orator.
By JAMES TARANTO

Wall Street Journal

"If you've got a business, you didn't build that." If the World's Greatest Orator turns out to be a one-term president, it is likely to go down as the most memorable utterance of his career. Mitt Romney certainly hopes that happens. HotAir.com's Ed Morrissey has highlights of Mitt Romney's response, in a speech yesterday at Irwin, Pa.:

The idea to say that Steve Jobs didn't build Apple, that Henry Ford didn't build Ford Motor, that Papa John didn't build Papa John Pizza, that Ray Kroc didn't build McDonald's, that Bill Gates didn't build Microsoft, you go on the list, that Joe and his colleagues didn't build this enterprise, to say something like that is not just foolishness, it is insulting to every entrepreneur, every innovator in America, and it's wrong.
And by the way, the president's logic doesn't just extend to the entrepreneurs that start a barber shop or a taxi operation or an oil field service business like this and a gas service business like this, it also extends to everybody in America that wants to lift themself [sic] up a little further, that goes back to school to get a degree and see if they can get a little better job, to somebody who wants to get some new skills and get a little higher income, to somebody who have, may have dropped out that decides to get back in school and go for it. . . . The president would say, well you didn't do that. You couldn't have gotten to school without the roads that government built for you. You couldn't have gone to school without teachers. So you didn't, you are not responsible for that success. President Obama attacks success and therefore under President Obama we have less success and I will change that.
I've got to be honest, I don't think anyone could have said what he said who had actually started a business or been in a business. And my own view is that what the President said was both startling and revealing. I find it extraordinary that a philosophy of that nature would be spoken by a president of the United States. It goes to something that I have spoken about from the beginning of the campaign. That this election is, to a great degree, about the soul of America. Do we believe in an America that is great because of government or do we believe in an America that is great because of free people allowed to pursue their dreams and build our future?

There's a website called didntbuildthat.com with a variety of hilarious treatments of the Obama philosophy. Of course, whoever's running the site didn't build that. As he acknowledges, Al Gore did. And hey, remember Julia, Barack Obama's composite girlfriend? At 42, she starts a Web business. Under President Obama, she didn't build that.

Obama may be God's gift to comedy, but Romney is right that the philosophical stakes here are serious. The president's remark was a direct attack on the principle of individual responsibility, the foundation of American freedom. If "you didn't build that," then you have no moral claim to it, and those with political power are morally justified in taking it away and using it to buy more political power. "I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," Obama said in another candid moment, in 2008.

This isn't even Obama's only such revelatory comment of the past week. Politico.com reports that the president, in an interview with WTOL-TV of Toledo, Ohio, let the mask slip again when asked about the ObamaCare mandate tax. "It's less a tax or a penalty than it is a principle--which is you can't be a freeloader on other folks when it comes to your health care, if you can afford it," he said.

Of course this is a dodge. The administration claimed that the mandate was not a tax for political purposes but was a tax for legal purposes. Chief Justice John Roberts tied himself in knots to accept the argument Obama is now running away from. Between them, the solicitor general and the chief justice look as if they were too clever by 1.

What's objectionable about Obama's comment, however, is not "tax" or "penalty" or even "principle." It's the way he uses the word "freeloader."

Normally we think of a freeloader as somebody who sponges off others, which in the context of public policy means the government. A freeloader is an able-bodied welfare recipient, or someone who fakes a disability to collect Supplemental Security income, or who waits until his unemployment runs out before looking for a job.

Now, think about how the ObamaCare mandate tax is structured. As Roberts noted in his opinion for the court in NFIB v. Sebelius, "It does not apply to individuals who do not pay federal income taxes because their household income is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue Code. For taxpayers who do owe the payment, its amount is determined by such familiar factors as taxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status."

The only people who pay the ObamaCare mandate tax are people who make a living. Actual freeloaders are exempt. What Obama calls a freeloader is someone who makes his own money and pays his taxes but does not spend his money in the government-approved way.

The Obama campaign hotly disputes Romney's contention that the president meant what he said. A "fact check" from the Obama-Biden "Truth Team" (formerly Attack Watch) claims that Romney "is taking President Obama's words out of context" to produce "a complete distortion." Here is the full context, as presented by the Truth Team:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

The Team then explains: "The President's full remarks show that the 'that' in 'you didn't build that' clearly refers to roads and bridges--public infrastructure we count on the government to build and maintain."

That's bunk, and not only because "business" is more proximate to the pronoun "that" and therefore its more likely antecedent. The Truth Team's interpretation is ungrammatical. "Roads and bridges" is plural; "that" is singular. If the Team is right about Obama's meaning, he shoudl have said, "You didn't build those."

Barack Obama is supposed to be the World's Greatest Orator, the smartest man in the world. Yet his campaign asks us to believe he is not even competent to construct a sentence.

Coincidence or Systemic Change?

Is this a coincidence or a result of an actual systemic change and improvement? You decide, and read the original here.

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DROPPED IN EVERY STATE THAT ELECTED A REPUBLICAN GOV. IN 2010
by TONY LEE 8 Jul 2012, 6:24 AM PDT

In 2010, influenced by the Tea Party and its focus on fiscal issues, 17 states elected Republican governors. And, according to an Examiner.com analysis, every one of those states saw a drop in their unemployment rates since January of 2011. Furthermore, the average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%, compared to the national decline of .9%, which means, according to the analysis, that the job market in these Republican states is improving 50% faster than the national rate.

Since January of 2011, here is how much the unemployment rate declined in each of the 17 states that elected Republican governors in 2010, according to the Examiner:


Kansas - 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8%

Maine - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%

Michigan - 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of 2.4%

New Mexico - 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of 1.0%

Oklahoma - 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of 1.4%

Pennsylvania - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%

Tennessee - 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of 1.6%

Wisconsin - 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of 0.9%

Wyoming - 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of 1.1%

Alabama - 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of 1.9%

Georgia - 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of 1.2%

South Carolina - 10.6% to 9.1% = a decline of 1.5%

South Dakota - 5.0% to 4.3% = a decline of 0.7%

Florida - 10.9% to 8.6% = a decline of 2.3%

Nevada - 13.8% to 11.6% = a decline of 2.2%

Iowa - 6.1% to 5.1% = a decline of 1.0%

Ohio - 9.0% to 7.3% = a decline of 1.7%

On the other hand, the unemployment rate in states that elected Democrats in 2010 dropped, on average, as much as the national rate decline and, in some states such as New York, the unemployment rate has risen since January of 2011.

This is yet another example of how the so-called “blue state” model is not working.

Status check on POTUS: Article from November, 2008

Here is an article from Investor's Business Daily from November 10, 2008.  Read it in its entirety, and it will make you think:

A Checklist Of Obama's Many Promises

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, November 10, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Few presidential candidates have made more specific promises to American voters than Barack Obama. They came so fast and furious in the latter part of the campaign, you'd be excused for not keeping up. So as a public service, we've put together a handy checklist of some of the biggest Obama promises — culled from his "Blueprint for Change," his campaign speeches and advertisements. Clip it. Save it. And see how he did in four years.

Taxes

• Give a tax break to 95% of Americans.

• Restore Clinton-era tax rates on top income earners.

• "If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime. Not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes. Nothing."

• Dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes.

• Give American businesses a $3,000 tax credit for every job they create in the U.S.

• Eliminate capital gains taxes for small business and startup companies.

• Eliminate income taxes for seniors making under $50,000.

• Expand the child and dependent care tax credit.

• Expand the earned income tax credit.

• Create a universal mortgage credit.

• Create a small business health tax credit.

• Provide a $500 "make work pay" tax credit to small businesses.

• Provide a $1,000 emergency energy rebate to families.

Energy

• Spend $15 billion a year on renewable sources of energy.

• Eliminate oil imports from the Middle East in 10 years.

• Increase fuel economy standards by 4% a year.

• Weatherize 1 million homes annually.

• Ensure that 10% of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012.

Environment

• Create 5 million green jobs.

• Implement a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

• Get 1 million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015.

Labor

• Sign a fair pay restoration act, which would overturn the Supreme Court's pay discrimination ruling.

• Sign into law an employee free choice act — aka card check — to make it easier for unions to organize.

• Make employers offer seven paid sick days per year.

• Increase the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2009.

National security

• Remove troops from Iraq by the summer of 2010.

• Cut spending on unproven missile defense systems.

• No more homeless veterans.

• Stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq.

• Finish the fight against Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida terrorists.

Social Security

• Work in a "bipartisan way to preserve Social Security for future generations."

• Impose a Social Security payroll tax on incomes above $250,000.

• Match 50% of retirement savings up to $1,000 for families earning less than $75,000.

Education

• Demand higher standards and more accountability from our teachers.

Spending

• Go through the budget, line by line, ending programs we don't need and making the ones we do need work better and cost less.

• Slash earmarks.

Health care

• Lower health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year.

• Let the uninsured get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress get.

• Stop insurance companies from discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

• Spend $10 billion over five years on health care information technology.

Stimulus money went to cheats...

...and in other news, the sky is blue. Read the original here.

GAO: $1.4 billion in stimulus credits went to tax cheats
Stimulus cash bought homes
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Tax cheats were given $1.4 billion in government-backed mortgage loans under President Obama’s economic stimulus, and the government doled out at least an additional $27 million in tax credits to delinquents who took the first-time-homebuyer tax break, according to a government audit released Tuesday.

Under government rules, delinquent taxpayers are supposed to be ineligible for the mortgage insurance program unless they have reached a repayment agreement with the Internal Revenue Service. But theFederal Housing Administration didn’t have the right controls to weed out bad applications, said the Government Accountability Office, Congress‘ chief investigative arm.

That meant FHA insured $1.4 billion in mortgages for 6,327 borrowers who collectively owed $77.6 million in unpaid taxes, or an average of more than $12,000 each.

The auditors said that as a category, the tax cheats had foreclosure rates up to three times as high as other borrowers, which meant the delinquent taxpayers exposed the government to even greater risks.

“In the name of ‘stimulus,’ the federal government gave mortgage insurance to thousands of people we knew were tax cheats and had a bad track record paying their debts,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, who joined a bipartisan group of other lawmakers to request the investigation. “The federal government needlessly put taxpayers on the line to help tax cheats buy homes. Congress needs to ensure that tax cheats are no longer allowed to take advantage of FHA programs.”

In addition to the mortgages, the auditors found that more than half of the tax-delinquent borrowers claimed the first-time-homebuyers’ credit, worth up to $8,000.

GAO said there is no prohibition against someone claiming the credit, even though they still have unpaid tax bills. The credit is refundable, meaning taxpayers can get a check back from the government if the benefit exceeds their liability. IRS rules generally call for the agency to subtract any unpaid taxes from the refund, but in three of the nine cases that GAO analyzed in depth, it said the taxpayers had declared bankruptcy, meaning the IRS was prevented from docking the refunds.

The report was the GAO’s second study looking at tax cheats and the stimulus.

In the first report, GAO said thousands of contracts and grants were paid out under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to those with unpaid tax bills.

Mr. Obama pushed the $831 billion economic stimulus in early 2009 as a means of bolstering the faltering economy, and promised to use strict controls to cut fraud and abuse. At its peak in mid-2010, it was responsible for as many as 3.6 million jobs, but could have funded as few as 700,000, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Part of the Recovery Act was aimed at shoring up the housing market, which included the first-time-homebuyer tax credit and the mortgage assistance, which let the FHA insure loans at a higher rate in high-cost housing markets.

About 1.7 million individuals claimed the tax credit, while FHA insured more than $20 billion in mortgages for 87,000 homeowners, thanks to the Recovery Act provisions.

Under a White House policy, buyers who are delinquent on their federal taxes are not supposed to receive the mortgage assistance, unless they have worked out a repayment agreement with the IRS. But FHA rules don’t prod private lenders to ask for that information, and the FHAdoesn’t have a system to work with the IRS to get that information.

Mr. Coburn joined Sens. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat; Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat; Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican; and Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, to request a review of the program.

“The stimulus-spending program was ill-conceived, with far too little oversight,” Mr. Grassley said. “It shouldn’t surprise anyone, unfortunately, that tax dollars have gone to tax cheats. It’s another one of many negative consequences of writing checks without enough checks and balances.”

Compounding the matter, those with tax problems are more likely to end up in foreclosure. Nearly a third of mortgage holders with unpaid taxes were “seriously delinquent” on their payments, and 6.3 percent had been foreclosed - a rate nearly three times higher than homeowners who were paid up with the IRS.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development accepted the report and will work with the IRS to try to get access to information that would help it cull tax cheats, Carol J. Galante, an acting assistant secretary, said in the department’s official response.

She said they also will try to clarify FHA rules so lenders are clear about the eligibility requirements for loans.

This feels a bit heavy handed...

Read the original here.

New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks
By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM
Published: May 30, 2012

New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity.

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores.

“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in the Governor’s Room at City Hall.

“New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something,” he said. “I think that’s what the public wants the mayor to do.”

A spokesman for the New York City Beverage Association, an arm of the soda industry’s national trade group, criticized the city’s proposal on Wednesday. The industry has clashed repeatedly with the city’s health department, saying it has unfairly singled out soda; industry groups have bought subway advertisements promoting their cause.

“The New York City health department’s unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks is again pushing them over the top,” the industry spokesman, Stefan Friedman, said. “It’s time for serious health professionals to move on and seek solutions that are going to actually curb obesity. These zealous proposals just distract from the hard work that needs to be done on this front.”

Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal requires the approval of the Board of Health, a step that is considered likely because the members are all appointed by him, and the board’s chairman is the city’s health commissioner, who joined the mayor in supporting the measure on Wednesday.

Mr. Bloomberg has made public health one of the top priorities of his lengthy tenure, and has championed a series of aggressive regulations, including bans on smoking in restaurants and parks, a prohibition against artificial trans fat in restaurant food and a requirement for health inspection grades to be posted in restaurant windows.

The measures have led to occasional derision of the mayor as Nanny Bloomberg, by those who view the restrictions as infringements on personal freedom. But many of the measures adopted in New York have become models for other cities, including restrictions on smoking and trans fats, as well as the use of graphic advertising to combat smoking and soda consumption, and the demand that chain restaurants post calorie contents next to prices.

In recent years, soda has emerged as a battleground in efforts to counter obesity. Across the nation, some school districts have banned the sale of soda in schools, and some cities have banned the sale of soda in public buildings.

In New York City, where more than half of adults are obese or overweight, Dr. Thomas Farley, the health commissioner, blames sweetened drinks for up to half of the increase in city obesity rates over the last 30 years. About a third of New Yorkers drink one or more sugary drinks a day, according to the city. Dr. Farley said the city had seen higher obesity rates in neighborhoods where soda consumption was more common.

The ban would not apply to drinks with fewer than 25 calories per 8-ounce serving, like zero-calorie Vitamin Waters and unsweetened iced teas, as well as diet sodas.

Restaurants, delis, movie theater and ballpark concessions would be affected, because they are regulated by the health department. Carts on sidewalks and in Central Park would also be included, but not vending machines or newsstands that serve only a smattering of fresh food items.

At fast-food chains, where sodas are often dispersed at self-serve fountains, restaurants would be required to hand out cup sizes of 16 ounces or less, regardless of whether a customer opts for a diet drink. But free refills — and additional drink purchases — would be allowed.

Corner stores and bodegas would be affected if they are defined by the city as “food service establishments.” Those stores can most easily be identified by the health department letter grades they are required to display in their windows.

The mayor, who said he occasionally drank a diet soda “on a hot day,” contested the idea that the plan would limit consumers’ choices, saying the option to buy more soda would always be available.

“Your argument, I guess, could be that it’s a little less convenient to have to carry two 16-ounce drinks to your seat in the movie theater rather than one 32 ounce,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a sarcastic tone. “I don’t think you can make the case that we’re taking things away.”

He also said he foresaw no adverse effect on local businesses, and he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop.

The Bloomberg administration had made previous, unsuccessful efforts to make soda consumption less appealing. The mayor supported a state tax on sodas, but the measure died in Albany, and he tried to restrict the use of food stamps to buy sodas, but the idea was rejected by federal regulators.

With the new proposal, City Hall is now trying to see how much it can accomplish without requiring outside approval. Mayoral aides say they are confident that they have the legal authority to restrict soda sales, based on the city’s jurisdiction over local eating establishments, the same oversight that allows for the health department’s letter-grade cleanliness rating system for restaurants.

In interviews at the AMC Loews Village, in the East Village in Manhattan, some filmgoers said restricting large soda sales made sense to them.

“I think it’s a good idea,” said Sara Gochenauer, 21, a personal assistant from the Upper West Side. Soda, she said, “rots your teeth.”

But others said consumers should be free to choose.

“If people want to drink 24 ounces, it’s their decision,” said Zara Atal, 20, a college student from the Upper East Side.

Lawrence Goins, 50, a postal worker who lives in Newark, took a more pragmatic approach.

“Some of those movies are three, three and a half hours long,” Mr. Goins said. “You got to quench your thirst.”


Colin Moynihan contributed reporting.

EPA wants to be friends with the Oil companies. Just kidding.

This is probably not productive. At least we know where the EPA stands on such a large sector of the US economy. Because remember, any punitive taxes or financial burden the US government places on energy corporation, will not be passed down to the consumer. No, the energy company will accept the additional financial cost, and say 'yes, we should make less money'. And all of their shareholders will agree. Oh wait, that's not true in any sense of the word. Read the original here.

EPA Official's 'Philosophy' On Oil Companies: 'Crucify Them' - Just As Romans Crucified Conquered CitizensBy Craig Bannister
April 25, 2012
CNSNews.com

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) took to the Senate floor today to draw attention to a video of a top EPA official saying the EPA’s “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies - just as the Romans crucified random citizens in areas they conquered to ensure obedience.

Inhofe quoted a little-watched video from 2010 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.

In the video, Administrator Armendariz says:

“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting, but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said:

“It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’dfind the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.

“Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

“It’s a deterrent factor,” Armendariz said, explaining that the EPA is following the Romans’ philosophy for subjugating conquered villages.

Soon after Armendariz touted the EPA’s “philosophy,” the EPA began smear campaigns against natural gas producers, Inhofe’s office noted in advance of today’s Senate speech:

“Not long after Administrator Armendariz made these comments in 2010, EPA targeted US natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming.

“In all three of these cases, EPA initially made headline-grabbing statements either insinuating or proclaiming outright that the use of hydraulic fracturing by American energy producers was the cause of water contamination, but in each case their comments were premature at best – and despite their most valiant efforts, they have been unable to find any sound scientific evidence to make this link.”

In his Senate speech, Sen. Inhofe said the video provides Americans with “a glimpse of the Obama administration’s true agenda.”

That agenda, Inhofe said, is to “incite fear” in the public with unsubstantiated claims and “intimidate” oil and gas companies with threats of unjustified fines and penalties – then, quietly backtrack once the public’s perception has been firmly jaded against oil and natural gas.

Work while you get unemployment...what could go wrong?

Ummm... Read the original here.

States asked to apply for unemployment test plan

By JIM KUHNHENN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is looking for states that will experiment withunemployment insurance programs by letting people test a job while still receiving benefits.

The plan is a key feature of a payroll tax cut package that President Barack Obama negotiated withcongressional Republicans in February.

The Labor Department will open the application process Thursday for 10 model projects across the country. Any state can apply for the "Bridge to Work" program.

The plan is modeled after a Georgia program called "Georgia Works." Under the plan, workers who have lost jobs can be placed in other temporary jobs as trainees for short periods to retain their skills or gain new ones while receiving jobless assistance. About a third of the time, those workers wind up getting hired full-time.

A number of states are combining unemployment benefits with on-the-job training, including North Carolina, New Hampshire, Utah and Missouri.

A senior administration official said those states would be eligible to apply for the federal demonstration project. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the program before an administration announcement.

States that are chosen could get waivers from the federal government allowing them to tap their unemployment insurance accounts to pay for such costs as transportation for workers in temporary jobs.

The program has had mixed results in some states that have their own programs. Administration officials said they hope the waivers and assistance offered by the federal demonstration projects could help rectify any problems that have emerged.

Supporters of the programs say it helps workers retain or learn new skills and add new job references to their resumes. The plan passed with support from leading Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

It also is designed to answer critics of unemployment benefits who say the aid discourages some people from aggressively seeking work.

Change

Well, no one said he was lying. I suppose it depends on whether you think this kind of change is good or bad. The way I see it, this change has: skyrocketed the debt, expanded government dependency, done nothing to help unemployment, alienation of traditional allies, frozen the US economy, and specifically in terms of the auto "bailout", wrested financial control of a private corporation through the power of government from it's legal shareholders and gifted it to the unions (aka, their cronies and lobbyists). While I disagree with some or many of the wartime decisions made by POTUS, I do not blame him for the US continued state of war. Read the original and see the video here.

Obama: "We've Begun To See What Change Looks Like"
Posted on April 19, 2012
RealClearPolitics.com

Touting the auto bailout at a fundraiser in Detroit, President Obama told supporters we are now seeing what change looks like.

"In just three years, because of what you did in 2008, we've begun to see what change looks like. We've begun to see it," Obama said. Transcript below.

OBAMA: When you decide to support a candidate named Barack Hussein Obama, you know the odds are not necessarily in your favor. You didn't need a poll to tell you that wasn't going to be a sure thing. But the point is, you didn't get involved in this campaign just because of me. You did it because you were making a commitment to each other. You had a shared vision for America.

It wasn't a vision where just a few were doing well and everybody else was left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules. It was a big, bold, generous vision of America where everybody who works hard has a chance to get ahead, not just those at the very top. That's the vision we share. That's the commitment you made to each other.

We knew it wasn't going to be easy. We knew the changes that we believed in wouldn't necessarily come quickly, but we understood that if we were determined that we could overcome any obstacle, that we could beat any challenge. And in just three years, because of what you did in 2008, we've begun to see what change looks like. We've begun to see it.

Think about it. Change is the decision we made to rescue the American auto industry from collapse when some politicians said let Detroit go bankrupt. There were one million jobs on the line and the fate of communities all across the Midwest was on the line and we weren't going to let it happen.