Thursday, July 04, 2013

Cruising the Web

Happy Independence Day, everyone! The Declaration of Independence is just as radical today as it was back in 1776.

Don't think that postponing the employer mandate for a year will solve Obama's problems with his health care monstrosity. James Capretta explains how this is just the beginning of his problems.
For starters, the delay confirms precisely what the critics have been saying all along: That Obamacare is a huge burden on the economy that will reduce employment and stifle wages. By delaying enforcement of the mandate, and citing complaints from employers as the reason, the Obama administration is essentially conceding this point. How do Democrats defend the law now that the administration has admitted it has the potential to harm business vitality and job growth?

And if the law has that potential now, why wouldn’t it have it in a year? Next year, with the mid-term election approaching, how would Democrats resist pushing the employer mandate back again, to 2016, or 2017? A one-year delay will also be interpreted by the business community as the first step in the ultimate repeal of the mandate, and such an expectation could easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

At the same time, the law without the mandate becomes even harder to justify. It will, for one thing, be more expensive. In assessing Obamacare’s cost before it was enacted, the Congressional Budget Office assumed the employer mandate reduced its cost, because although employer-provided insurance is tax-preferred, it still costs the federal government less than Obamacare’s exchange subsidies.

But above all, the delay leaves Obamacare with an individual mandate but without an employer mandate, which could well prove politically untenable for the Democrats.

The administration’s announcement made no mention of changing the enforcement schedule for the “personal responsibility requirement.” So, with the delay, employers are under no obligation to offer insurance to workers but the IRS can still impose a tax on workers who don’t have qualified insurance in 2014. The Obama administration therefore wants to let big businesses off of the hook but not hard-pressed working families. How do Democrats defend that position? And how do they vote against a bill to delay the individual mandate? This is a huge opening for Republicans, and it would be political malpractice not to pursue it. The GOP can now quite credibly push for a delay of the entire law for a year, or at the very least attach a delay of the individual mandate to a statutory delay of the employer requirements.

Timothy Carney explains how we ended up with the craptastic Obamacare employer mandate in the first place.

Basically, the administration is admitting that Obamacare will kill jobs - just as critics have been saying from the beginning.

It's not a sign of success when the administration announces a delay of a major part of the bill in a blog post by a deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy on the eve of the Fourth of July holiday. Since when should major changes be announced in blog posts anyway? Did they think no one would notice? And do they really think a year's delay will also delay the dampening effect that the policy has on employment? Employers aren't stupid. And add this on to the list of laws that the administration is choosing to selectively enforce.

Here's a suggestion of how Jennifer Lopez can redeem herself for her performance for the dictator of Turkmenistan.

It's taken a century for Democrats to think that there is a problem with the requirement that nonprofits had to devote 50% of their efforts to social welfare activities even though it's always been unclear.

Here's another motivation for Dwight Howard to go to either the Mavericks or the Rockets instead of staying with the Lakers or going to Golden State.
But as Tony Nitti has noted in Forbes, this picture looks a lot different once the tax man cometh: "Howard would pay nearly $12 million in California tax over the four years if he signs with the Lakers, but only $600,000 in state tax should he sign with Houston. This means that a four-year deal with Houston would actually yield an additional $8 million in after-tax income."

California has the highest top rate for personal income in the nation, while Texas has no state income tax. The difference is even greater if cost-of-living is taken into account: California's is the fourth-highest in the nation, while Texas's is the second-lowest.
Why does the IRS pay 201 employees to work full-time as union reps? Why should the taxpayers pay for union employees to do union business?

Why would we want to spy on the European Union in the first place?

More hilariously bad videos being created by government employees as some sort of frivolous group activity for the GSA. Judicial Watch has obtained the videos through a FOIA request. Apparently, the same sorts of people who didn't think it was bad form to spend over a million dollars on a costly Las Vegas blowout conference didn't think it was dumb to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars making videos of GSA employees jogging through the halls or doing a parody "Mission Impossible" video to join the silly "Star Trek" parody.

Will there ever be another good action movie?


mark said...

When I travel to other countries, the one thought I always come home with is how lucky I was to be born here in the United States.

Last, First, MI said...

I agree with you Mark. Do you think it is just luck that the United States is so much different than other countries?

And just so you don't think I'm getting soft on you, I'm also glad when you are visiting other countries.

Betsy Newmark said...

That's just unnecessary, LFM.

I think the most patriotic time of my life was the summer I spent in the Soviet Union.

elkh1 said...

The GOP should never touch Obamacare. They touch it, they own it.

A year's delay, 5 years' delays make not a bit of difference. No business would start hiring knowing that the politicians could decide anytime not to delay any longer. Don't forget, the business's obligation depends on the number of hires in 2014. The delay is a trap.

Republicans should stay out, let the mandated individuals rage at the Dems. To force the individual mandate delay would let the Dems off the hook and blame the Republicans for rising health care cost, and lack of insurance.

Hope the stupid party is not that stupid.

elkh1 said...

There are good reviews about Man of Steel.
I think it's horrible, as bad as those Batman movies. I like Christopher Reeves' light-hearted version much better.

For goodness sake, Superman is a comic, making it serious means making it look real. Who the hell believes that Superman is real? A comic lets the audience enjoy some improbable fantasies for an hr or two, making those comic strips serious is stupid as if the audience would believe Superman really exists.

To be fair, I never watched pass Russell Crowe's telling his wife and everybody that they're doomed. His furrowed brows have already taken the joy out of the comic, watching it further would be a waste of my time.

To not be fair: where the hell are the American actors? No American qualified to be an American icon that they have to use an Aussie and a Brit?

mark said...

I'm sure you have the expertise to explain it all to me. Perhaps another day.

Last, First, MI said...


Why are you asking Equitus?

Besides, I'd rather hear your reflections on your recent trip to Venezuela. Compare and contrast, perhaps?

mark said...

C'mon, equitus,
Besides your nearly-identical Menendez rants in which you made a mockery of the Constitution (condemning him as a "rapist" and "pedophile" based on the word of anonymous prostitutes), you've slipped up at least twice, with lfm's ability to "remember" things I wrote here long before "he" started posting here.

As far as Venezuela, a beautiful country that has suffered much from Chavez' reign. It was sad to see and hear about the damage he caused, and that will likely continue under Maduro.
The trip also re-affirmed just how idiotic and ignorant the Obama comparisons are.

Last, First, MI said...


I used to visit with friends in Venezuela and I remember well when Chavez attempted to take power through a coup. It saddened me when he eventually came to power through the ballot box and then began to deconstruct a once proud democracy to say nothing of the damage he did to the economy. It has been a long time since I paid a visit there but back in the mid-80s there was a growing middle class and a great deal of potential for it's expansion. I suspect that is no longer the case.

Knowing that you have seen for yourself the damage he has done to such a wonderful country and it's people, from your observations, what would you say to those that herald men like Chavez?

I cannot understand why Oliver Stone, Michael Moore and other Hollywood dolts are so fascinated by people like Chavez. Maybe you can explain. If so, I wonder how it is that Hollywood seems so at ease with its part in erecting facades, if not cults of personality, around their political favorites.

As for your continued concern for preserving Menendez' ability to abuse his office and flout the law, I can only wonder why. But if it is to simply avoid debate, then I guess that's just the way it's going to be.

mark said...

What a pathetically dishonest person you are. I clearly stated that if Menendez were guilty of the ethics or sexual charges, he should face the maximum penalty. I also said he was entitled to due process, as clearly stated in the Constitution. Somehow, that led to you calling me a "friend" to rapists and pedophiles.
While I am not a democrat, I am embarrassed by leaders such as Charles Rangel and Al Sharpton, and I don't like it when liberals "whitewash" the lives of Chavez, Guevara, Castro, etc.
While not nearly as significant, what you've written here at times is disgraceful. Why worry about Stone and Moore when your ramblings are far more pathetic.
People here who have remained silent at your mocking of the Constitution share the guilt, which I guess is why they remain silent.

Last, First, MI said...


I gave you a chance to have a reasoned discussion but instead you ran off on another personal attack on Equitus.

I am relieved to hear of your new found interest in due process as I've previously seen you rant on endlessly about this "fraud" and that "fraud" as you engage in personal attacks on the character of various candidates that chose to run for office against Obama.

mark said...

Have you really "seen" that? Again, that was before lfm started posting here. Are you claiming that you've been here for well over a year, just waiting for the perfect moment to jump in (that moment being to embarrass yourself regarding Menendez.

A reasoned person with the person who wrote this?:

Last, First, MI - "Why does the left embrace the racist, genocidal policies of Margaret Sanger?"

Mark - "I don't know who David Foster is but I'd have his baby.'

Last, First, MI - "?!"

Mark - "Really? Do you actually expect me to explain why I have no morals when I'd rather give David Foster a tongue bath than make an inept attempt to explain why I am nothing more than a left wing bootlick?"

Last, First,"Well, yes, Mark. I would think that if you feel so strongly about something, you would not hesitate to stand up for your beliefs. You might even want to explain why it is that you think the quaint idea of a nuclear family is outmoded in the face of a state supported single parent model, or even better, a government funded abortion mill alternative."

Mark - "Republicans have launched a war on women!"

Last, First, MI - "Calm down, Mark. Take a breath and tell us why you think the left has ignored the national tragedy of abortion mills and the likes of Kermit Gosnel."

Mark - (Swooning) "David Foster is dreamy."

mark said...

btw, equitus,

I accused one candidate, Herman Cain, of being a fraud, and clarified that I was talking only in the context of his candidacy. I did not accuse him of criminal behavior.
Comparing that to calling someone a "pedophile" and "rapist" is, of course, absurd. But that's all you've got.

Last, First, MI said...

Ah, good times. I remember the whole David Foster and Sanger thing. I recall that once again, you chose to avoid a stand-up debate so I provided a faithful recreation for you. Pretty close to the real deal, I suspect.

You can keep whinning about your hurt feelings or discuss Venezuela and the Left. My guess is you'll go with your strength.