Author Topic: Obama: Corruption, Deception, Dishonesty, Deceit and Promises Broken  (Read 221971 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Congressional report: “The War on Western Jobs”
By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
09/30/10 1:10 PM EDT


________________________ ________________________ ___


The Congressional Western Caucus, headed by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., and Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, have just released a report titled “The War on Western Jobs.” From the report’s introduction:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the West reported the highest regional jobless rate in August,  at 10.8 percent.  The western region has maintained the highest regional unemployment for the past year. At the same time, six of the top twelve states with the largest declines in the employment to population ratio since the recession began in 2007 are western states.  According to The Associated Press Economic Stress Index, 3 of the top 5 states showing the most stress in June were western states: Nevada, California, and Arizona.

There’s a lot of reasons that job numbers are flagging in the West, but the purpose of the report is to identify the ways which Washington, D.C.  is exacerbating the situation. “Instead of making it easier for western businesses and communities to create new jobs, this Administration enforced an anti-business, anti-multiple use agenda that only makes the situation worse,” said Barraso.To that end, the report focuses at 10 areas where the Obama administration is making things worse:

1. Taxing energy use

2. Federalizing all surface water within the 50 states and territories

3. Restricting access to America’s vast reserves of affordable, American oil and natural gas

4. Imposing “one size fits all” mandates on western communities

5. Putting a priority on protecting species over American jobs

6. Blocking a multiple-use policy in our National Forests

7. Over-regulating coal

8. Seizing additional private western lands and placing them under control of the federal government

9. Requiring new federal permitting requirements into new areas of the western economy

10.Stopping domestic mining in favor of the importation of foreign minerals

You download the report here.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/congressional-report-the-war-on-western-jobs-104091063.html#ixzz12FEIbry8


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Is there a doctor in the house? Obamacare will worsen the physician shortage Congress helped create
NY Daily News ^ | 10/13/2010 | Dr. Marc Siegel




There is a new disease spreading like a cancer in doctors' offices and hospitals throughout the U.S. I have named it Doctor Unavailability Syndrome (DUS). It is characterized by a rising shortage of doctors, both specialists and primary care, as well as the growing inability of the doctors we do have to take care of patient needs.

What good is a shiny new insurance card if there is not a physician available to see you?

This disease can be traced back to 1997, when Congress, anticipating a doctor surplus, included a section in its budget-balancing law that froze the number of Medicare-sponsored residency positions.

But instead of a surplus, a shortage soon developed, and has worsened over the years, now reaching epidemic proportions. The Association of American Medical Colleges Center for Workforce Studies just reported an anticipated shortage of 90,000 doctors of all kinds over the next decade, with half of them being primary care physicians and the other half surgeons and specialists.

The report suggests that Medicare should support at least a "15% increase in GME (Graduate Medical Education) positions, allowing teaching hospitals to prepare another 4,000 physicians a year to meet the needs of 2020 and beyond."

Don't count on this proposed subsidy happening any time soon. Instead, the new health care law, known ironically as the Affordable Care Act, is promoting and extending the kind of low co-pay and low deductible insurance that is easy to overuse, overwhelming doctors further and leading to an upward spiral of health care costs.

The doctors we do have are beleaguered and many are dropping out, increasing overall unavailability. As Obamacare adds 32 million uninsured - including 16 million on Medicaid - to the rolls over the next decade...


(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Skip to comments.

Value-Added Tax Could Cost 850,000 Jobs: Retail Group
CNBC ^ | 14 Oct 2010 | Christina Cheddar Berk



________________________ ________________________ ____


The National Retail Federation is trying to put some numbers behind its argument against a value-added tax, which is one option being considered by a presidential commission looking into ways of reducing the ballooning federal deficit.

The retail industry's trade group said a study it commissioned estimates a European-style VAT would result in the loss of 850,000 jobs in its first year, reduce the US gross domestic product for three years, and cut retail spending by $2.5 billion over its first decade.

The study, which was conducted by Ernst and Young and economic research firm Tax Policy Advisers, concluded that although lower deficits would have positive long-run effects for the economy, most Americans would be worse off due to the VAT.

Talk of a VAT has surfaced in recent months as a way of dealing with the rising federal deficit, which is currently at its highest share of GDP since World War II.

Although policymakers who are considering such a measure have not offered specifics about what a VAT would look like, the calculations in the study were based on a "narrow-based" VAT similar to VATs in other countries. In order to achieve the goal of reducing the annual federal deficit by 2 percent of GDP, the VAT would need to be 10.3 percent.

The study also assumed the VAT would be applied to most consumer goods and services but would exempt sales of homes, rent, groceries medicine, health care, financial services and education to ease the tax's regressive impact on low-income families.

"In the face of an economy that continues to struggle, immediate enactment of an add-on VAT would pose serious risk. The drop in retail spending, jobs, and GDP under an add-on VAT has the potential to further weaken the economy in the near term, rather than strengthen it," the study's authors wrote.

The study also notes that other countries have reduced, not increased, their VATs in the face of the recent economic downturn.

The authors expect retail spending would fall by 5.0 percent, or almost $260 billion, as consumers adjust to the tax.

It's also assumed that the VAT would be in additional to other taxes, which means middle-income families would get hit the hardest. It is estimated a family of four making roughly $70,000 a year would pay $2,400 a year in value-added taxes. That would increase their tax burden by 100 percent.

A family making $100,000 would pay $2,800 in VAT, or an increase of more than 40 percent to of their current federal income tax liability.

Meanwhile, families earning $40,000 would pay $1,800 in VAT. Currently families at that income level don't have a federal income tax liability.

"This report has found that a VAT would have negative economic consequences for most working Americans alive today," said NRF President and CEO Matthew Shay. "If Congress wants to reduce the deficit, the solution is to cut spending, not create a new tax."

In August, the NRF commissioned a survey by BIGresearch that found nearly two-thirds of Americans expect a VAT would impact their spending.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
How Obama is Invading Your Home
By Ben Lieberman October 11, 2010
Originally published in The New York Post

________________________ ________________________ ____


The Obama administration isn't satis fied giving the American public vast things we don't want — from stimu lus packages to bailouts to ObamaCare: It's a small-scale nuisance, too — witness its attempt to redesign home appliances.

In the pipeline are dumb regulations for almost everything that plugs in or fires up in your home.

Just weeks after taking office, the president ordered the Energy Department to speed up the process of issuing harsh new energy-efficiency standards for appliances. Since then, the agency boasts, it "has issued or codified new efficiency standards for more than 20 different products," and still more are on the way.

These regulations are sure to raise the price of appliances — often by more than consumers are ever likely to earn back in the form of energy savings. And some will make the product perform well.

The administration is meddling with every room in the house:

The basement:New standards are in the works for water heaters and furnaces. For water heaters, the Energy Department estimates price hikes from $67 to $974, depending on size and type.

The bathroom:The same 1992 law that gave us those awful low-flush toilets also restricted the amount of water showerheads could use to 2.5 gallons per minute. Some consumers who disliked the resulting weak trickle opted for models with two or more showerheads, each using the maximum 2.5 gallons. But Team Obama has now eliminated this "loophole" by requiring that the total flow must comply with the limit.

The kitchen: Think remodeling a kitchen is expensive now? Pending regulations target refrigerators, dishwashers, microwaves, ovens and ranges.

For refrigerators (at least), this is a clear case of overkill. The American fridge has already been hit by several rounds of tighter standards, with each new rule saving less energy than the last — but boosting the price and compromising performance and reliability. Even the Energy Department admits that most consumers will lose money on its latest refrigerator regulation.

The laundry room:New standards are on the way for washers and dryers. When the last clothes-washer regulation hit in 2007, Consumer Reportslamented that several ultra-efficient models "left our stain-soaked swatches nearly as dirty as they were before washing" and that "for best results, you'll have to spend $900 or more." The Obama rules will probably mean even worse news.

Any air-conditioned room:Both central air conditioners and window units are scheduled for new regulations. When the Energy Department rolled out its last round of central-AC rules back in January 2001 (one of those last-minute Clinton administration "midnight" regulations), it admitted that many homeowners would never recoup the added up-front costs. The new standards will follow the same "logic" — and thus should make for another lousy deal.

The Obama regulations come on top of all the past ones, including the worst one of all — the Bush-era requirement that will effectively ban incandescent light bulbs starting in 2012.

In nearly every case, consumers who want more efficient appliances — or those compact fluorescent light bulbs — are free to buy them. Energy-use labels tell you everything you need to know to make comparisons. All the federal rules do is is to force the government's preferred choice on everyone.

Government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is busy enacting a bunch of things the people don't want, including these appliance regulations. Add them to the growing list of Obama (and Bush) measures ripe for repeal.


» See All Media Appearances ..Competitive Enterprise Institute
1899 L ST NW Floor 12, Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-331-1010 | Fax: 202-331-0640
©2001-2010 Competitive Enterprise Institute

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obamacare Sticker Shock: Taxing Over 15,000 Medicines
by  Connie Hair

10/14/2010




Nancy Pelosi warned us we’d have to pass Obamacare to find out what’s in it.  And what we’re finding we don’t like at all.

Higher insurance premiums are hitting families hard.  Medicare Advantage has been decimated.  Millions will be forced into government-run Medicaid where long lines and rationing await.

If we like our insurance -- too bad.

Beginning January 1, 2011, more than 15,000 over-the-counter (OTC) health care items will require a prescription (and that means a doctor’s visit) for tax-free reimbursement.

Under Obamacare, OTC drugs cannot be reimbursed tax-free from Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) or Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) without a government bureaucrat-required permission slip.
 
In response to new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance (the IRS is the Obamacare enforcement agency), the Special Interest Group for IIAS Standards (SIGIS) released a new list of OTC medications that will require a prescription for a tax-free withdrawal from an HSA or an FSA under Obamacare.   SIGIS is an industry group for health care debit card transactions and merchants.  According to SIGIS, 15,000 OTC health care items are barred from purchase by these accounts without prescription.

Below is a partial list of the OTC item categories:
 
Acid Controllers
Allergy and Sinus medicine
Antibiotics
Anti-Diarrheals
Anti-Gas Products
Anti-Itch and Insect Bite
Anti-Parasitic Treatments
Baby Rash Ointments/Creams
Cold Sore Remedies
Cough, Cold, and Flu
Digestive Aids
Motion Sickness
Pain Relievers
Respiratory Treatments
Stomach Remedies

The detailed SIGIS Eligible Products List will be published on December 15, 2010.
 
As of May 2010, approximately 10 million people were covered under HSA plans for their family’s health care needs.   The non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this provision of Obamacare will cost families $5 billion.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Hair writes daily as HUMAN EVENTS' Congressional correspondent. She is a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference. You can follow Connie on Twitter @ConnieHair.

You can also follow Connie Hair and Human Events on FACEBOOK.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Updated: Thu., Oct. 14, 2010, 4:52 AM 
O's new Gulf gambit
Last Updated: 4:52 AM, October 14, 2010
www.nypost.com


________________________ ________________________ ________________


Look -- it's an October Mini-Surprise!

It's midterm-election time, the Democrats are cratering -- and Inte rior Secretary Ken Salazar this week announced that he's lifting the moratorium that the White House imposed on deepwater offshore-oil and gas drilling after the Gulf of Mexico spill.

The move came six weeks earlier than expected, and followed the promulgation of some new safety rules said to ensure against future well blowouts.

"I have decided that it is now appropriate to lift the suspension," said Salazar, adding: "We are open for business."

And of course it's just a coincidence that there are US Senate races in Louisiana and Florida as Democrats fight to maintain control of that body.

As for being open for business -- well, what Salazar did not say is that it will be some time before any actual drilling begins. Like weeks -- and maybe even months.

And it will likely be years before drilling resumes to pre-spill levels.

Which is why Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat who's so furious about the moratorium that she's single-handedly been blocking the White House nomination of Jack Lew as budget director, isn't ready to sign on.

Indeed, she said, she's not going to let Lew's nomination proceed until Congress reconvenes next month -- by which time "I will have had several weeks to evaluate if [this] lifting of the moratorium is actually putting people back to work."

From the outset, the White House came under heavy criticism from area legislators for the moratorium, which idled 33 rigs and is estimated to have killed as many as 12,000 local jobs.

And a panel of experts whose views were used to justify the suspension publicly complained that their position had been misrepresented by the White House -- they'd actually opposed the ban.

Back then, though, emotion ruled -- and Team Obama was trying to mollify the environmental lobby.

Now it's October; votes matter more.

But will the voters be fooled?


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
New pay bill could spell big trouble for businesses
October 13, 2010 | Jared Bilski

http://www.whatsnewinbenefitsandcompensation.com/new-pay-bill-could-spell-big-trouble-for-businesses/?ur=1X2EWF56

________________________ ________________________ ____


This post is in: Employment Law, FLSA, Top Story


Heads up: The Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA) is back on the table. Should it pass, the PFA will likely make employers’ lives much harder.
Where it could hurt you

The Society for Human Resource Management recently highlighted four major areas of concern for companies. The bill would:

• make employers liable for unlimited punitive damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act – even for unintentional pay disparities

• eliminate current limits on the amount of back pay and punitive and compensatory damages employees can receive

• wipe out the requirement that employees must give written consent to become a party in an Equal Pay Act class action – setting the stage for more class action lawsuits against employers, and

• limit an employer’s flexibility to pay workers based on current law criteria (cost-of-living differences among geographic locations, different work responsibilities, etc.)

The bill has been criticized by business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and opponents feel the unlimited damages provision has the potential to destroy smaller businesses.



Tags: Chamber of Commerce, Equal Pay Act, Fair labor standards act, law, The Paycheck Fairness Act





Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
www.politico.com
Medicare: Reform may cost seniors
By: Jennifer Haberkorn
October 13, 2010 12:00 PM EDT


________________________ ___________________


A Medicare official concedes that seniors may have to dig deeper into their wallets next year thanks to the health care law.


The new analysis obtained by POLITICO finds the health care overhaul will result in increased out-of-pocket costs for seniors on Medicare Advantage plans.

Richard Foster, the actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, also tells Senate Republicans that the overhaul will result in “less generous benefit packages” for Medicare Advantage plans next year. Foster is independent from the administration and non-partisan.

Democrats have long contended that Medicare Advantage plans – private insurance alternatives to Medicare – overpay private insurers, increasing premiums for everyone, and needs to be reformulated.

But Republicans say dramatic changes to the program mean some seniors won’t be able to keep their plans – a promise President Barack Obama made during the reform debate – and the GOP has made the issue part of its attempt to roll back the health law.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, says the administration is trying to downplay the effects of the overhaul on the Medicare Advantage plans.

“Painting a rosy picture of Medicare Advantage options denies the facts from the government’s own chief actuary,” he said in a statement to POLITICO. “And it’s a disservice to the 11 million current beneficiaries who count on this popular program.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says, in a separate letter sent recently to Grassley, the changes in the health care overhaul will end up strengthening the program.

“Next year, seniors will have new benefits, new protections against fraud, and better Medicare Advantage choices with meaningful differences at affordable premiums, and more beneficiaries will participate in the program,” she wrote.

Sebelius says that the remaining Medicare Advantage plans have higher standards to meet, stemming from a 2008 Medicare law. In addition, 99.7 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who have access to an Advantage plan this year will have it next year and that premiums are expected to decline by 1 percent next year.

Foster says the additional costs seniors face will be partially offset by other pieces of the law, including reduced cost sharing for Medicare Parts A and B, lower Part B premiums and the filling of the prescription drug donut hole.

Last week, Grassley’s office highlighted an error Sebelius made in a speech to a gathering of AARP members. She incorrectly said the number of Medicare Advantage plans would increase next year. HHS later changed the written copy of the speech online without highlighting the change, which angered Grassley.

“Despite making a limited correction last week to an earlier speech delivered in Florida, the administration refuses to set the record straight appropriately,” Grassley said.

“But a new letter from Medicare’s chief actuary is nonpartisan and indisputable. Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage will pay more out of their own pockets as a result of the new health care law. Their costs will go up by hundreds of dollars on average in the coming years, by $346 in 2011 to a high of $923 in 2017.”

CLARIFICATION: The cost estimate came from the office of the actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, an independent, non-partisan office.
 
 
© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC


________________________ ________________________ ______________


FUCK YOU EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTED THIS! 
 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
“But a new letter from Medicare’s chief actuary is nonpartisan and indisputable. Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage will pay more out of their own pockets as a result of the new health care law. Their costs will go up by hundreds of dollars on average in the coming years, by $346 in 2011 to a high of $923 in 2017.”


________________________ ___


More liberal lies coming to fruition. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Published on The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barack Obama’s War on Jobs
The Democrats are the party of no jobs.
October 14, 2010 12:00 AM


________________________ ___________________



Last week’s anemic jobs report came as a sobering reminder that America’s economic malaise shows little sign of slowing. Overall non-farm payrolls shrunk by 95,000 in September, while private sector hiring decelerated for the third consecutive month. High unemployment is now an acute national headache that won’t go away.

As the economy suffers this employment migraine, its causes come into sharper focus. Instead of providing relief, President Obama and his party have aggravated an already grim employment picture.

Job creators apparently pushed the pause button. Why?

Obviously a host of factors contribute to the equation.  But two reasons – both produced in Washington – deserve mention: uncertainty and divisive rhetoric. President Obama and the Democrats in Congress peddle large dollops of both.  Together they produced the real party of no: The Party of No Jobs.

First, consider uncertainty. Businesses cannot plan effectively in the current environment. 

Doubt about future tax policy is a case in point.  The Democratic majority adjourned to campaign without providing any clarity.  No one knows what a post-election lame duck session might concoct. As a result, income taxes, capital gains, dividends and a host of other expiring business incentives are all hostage to congressional fiat.

It’s possible nothing happens this year – meaning, major tax increases on income, savings and investments on January 1.  Uncertainty on the tax front is higher than it’s been in at least the last decade. Job creation suffers in this environment.

Health care and environmental regulation also contribute to the uncertainty. The Obama administration continues to implement portions of the health care law.  We hear new stories every day about premium increases and employers changing coverage.  Major upheaval in this sector of the economy also clouds the jobs picture.

Questions about the Democrats’ plans on the environmental regulatory and legislative front produce even more doubt. The administration’s alacrity when it comes to using the power of Washington to step into the affairs of private business is well known.  The White House might even redouble its efforts to impose new requirements in the air, water, and energy producing sectors, particularly if Democrats lose the majority in Congress.

But uncertainty is only one front in this war. The president’s own rhetoric also creates unnecessary and harmful divisions – an “us” vs. “them” mentality that polarizes the country.  Taking on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over allegedly using foreign money for campaign contributions is just the most recent example.

Speaking at the World Business Forum in New York last week, former General Electric CEO Jack Welch summed up the view of many in corporate America, saying the Obama administration is “just plain anti-business.”

Americans want a president that brings the country together, a leader who tries to unify, not divide. But, instead, Obama serves up fiery, campaign-like speeches fingering business leaders as boardroom bogeymen, not job creators. 

Public policy is often a zero sum game; it produces winners and losers. But it’s not necessary for the president and Democrats in Congress to blame everything that ails us on “big oil,” “Wall Street,” “greedy insurance companies” or “the rich.”

That kind of rhetoric might have a place in an election, but this president and his allies in Congress brought the permanent campaign to daily governing. This is very jarring to many Americans.

The tone and language may be appropriate for a liberal community organizer, but not the leader of the free world – someone that wants to spur economic confidence and increase business investment that produces jobs.

The Democrats’ war on jobs is also producing a political backlash of historic proportions. Last week Gallup noted that 54 percent of likely voters now identify as conservative – up from 42 percent in the last midterm election.  And 57 percent of likely voters identify as Republicans (including those who say they lean toward the GOP), compared to 45 percent in 2006.

But beyond politics, uncertainty and divisive rhetoric produce other, more pernicious, job-killing results.  News reports over the last month also show that American companies are sitting on record amounts of cash.  Instead of investing in creating new employment, many keep their money idle, waiting to see if the fog of political war will ever lift.

The November election should clear up some of this uncertainty.  Voters may collectively clip the wings of the Democrats, thus avoiding the most extreme excesses of the current one party rule in Washington. But the current occupant of the White House also needs to understand that an economy will not produce jobs when the president wages war against those that create them.

225for70

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3127
  • Suckmymuscle is OneMoreRep's little bitch
The only thing left for Obama to do to kill the economy is Pass some Cap N trade scam.



Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
The only thing left for Obama to do to kill the economy is Pass some Cap N trade scam.




That will really screw us over and cause energy price inflation like we have never seen, which in essence will lead to massive food and goods inflation and cost increases.   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
CNSNews.com

Democrats’ Cap-and-Trade Bill Creates ‘Retrofit’ Policy for Homes and Businesses
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
By Matt Cover


________________________ _________________


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) (AP Photo)(CNSNews.com) – The 1,400-page cap-and-trade legislation pushed through by House Democrats contains a new federal policy that residential, commercial, and government buildings be retrofitted to increase energy efficiency, leaving it up to the states to figure out exactly how to do that.
 
This means that homeowners, for example, could be required to retrofit their homes to meet federal “green” guidelines in order to sell their homes, if the cap-and-trade bill becomes law.
 
The bill, which now goes to the Senate, directs the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and implement a national policy for residential and commercial buildings. The purpose of such a strategy – known as the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) – would be to “facilitate” the retrofitting of existing buildings nationwide.
 
“The Administrator shall develop and implement, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy for single-family and multi-family residences,” the bill reads.
 
It continues: “The purpose of the REEP program is to facilitate the retrofitting of existing buildings across the United States.”
 
The bill leaves the definition of a retrofit and the details of the REEP program up to the EPA. However, states are responsible for ensuring that the government’s plans are carried out, whatever the final details may entail.
 
“States shall maintain responsibility for meeting the standards and requirements of the REEP program,” the bill says.
 
States may contract with private agencies to oversee the retrofitting and measuring of improved efficiency and environmental friendliness of houses and other buildings, making sure that private citizens have a variety of choices for retrofitting their homes.
 
“States and local government entities may administer a REEP program in a manner that authorizes public or regulated investor-owned utilities, building auditors and inspectors, contractors, nonprofit organizations, for-profit companies, and other entities to perform audits and retrofit services,” reads the bill.
 
It further says, “A State or local administrator of a REEP program shall seek to ensure that sufficient qualified entities are available to support retrofit activities so that building owners have a competitive choice among qualified auditors, raters, contractors, and providers of services related to retrofits.”
 
In fact, individual homeowners are even allowed to retrofit buildings themselves. The bill gives specific protection to individual owners’ rights to choose who inspects and retrofits their property.
 
“Nothing in this section is intended to deny the right of a building owner to choose the specific providers of retrofit services to engage for a retrofit project in that owner’s building.”
 
Even though Congress says the states are responsible for carrying out the retrofits, the EPA and the Department of Energy will establish the guidelines and rules for doing so.
 
“The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall establish goals, guidelines, practices, and standards for accomplishing the purpose stated in subsection (c) [the retrofits],” the bill says.
 
The program would involve a system of certified auditors, inspectors, and raters who inspect homes and businesses using devices such as infrared cameras (which measure how much heat a building is giving off) to measure their energy efficiency.
 
The results of these energy audits would then be used to determine what retrofits need to be performed. The audits would examine things like water usage, infrared photography, and pressurized testing to determine the efficiency of door and window seals, and indoor air quality.   

Those retrofits would be performed by licensed retrofit contractors using government-approved methods and resources including roofing materials that reflect solar energy.
 
“uilding retrofits conducted pursuant to a REEP program utilize, especially in all air-conditioned buildings, roofing materials with high solar energy reflectance,” the legislation states.
 
After the retrofitting is complete, the government – state, local, or federal – will come back and re-inspect the house to determine how much energy has been saved and whether the retrofit is up to federal government standards.
 
“Determination of energy savings in a performance-based building retrofit program through — (A) for residential buildings, comparison of before and after retrofit scores,” the proposal states.
 
To help pay for the cost of these retrofits, states and localities may provide loans, utility rate rebates, tax rebates, or implement retrofit programs on their own. In fact, the government will even pay up to 50 percent of the cost of a retrofit through financial awards to individual home and building owners.

“PERCENTAGE.—Awards under clause (i) shall not exceed 50 percent of retrofit costs for each building,” reads the bill.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama’s Healthcare Rules Will Shut Down Catholic Hospitals Nationwide
biggovernment.com ^ | 10/14/2010 | Warner Todd Huston



________________________ ________________________ ___________________


Obama’s Healthcare Rules Will Shut Down Catholic Hospitals Nationwide


Some of Obamacare’s most destructive forces are quickly becoming common knowledge. We have, for instance, become painfully aware that Obama’s claim that we all could keep our plans and doctors “if you like them” is an outright falsehood as some people are already losing their coverage.


It is also becoming clear that companies will be dropping plans all over the place making a lie of the idea that plans will be cheaper and easier to get once Obamacre comes into force. Another aspect of the destructive nature of this top down-style of “healthcare” is that once government takes over the system Democrats will assume they have the power to force religious-based healthcare providers to perform abortions and this will cause thousands of facilities to close down.

This will, of course, make care even harder to get in many cities across the nation as hospital beds are lost in great numbers.

In fact, we are already seeing this disastrous situation of closing hospitals playing out in Scranton, Pennsylvania where three Catholic-operated hospitals are likely going to be shut down and/or sold off because of the negative affects Obamacare will have on these facilities.

Kevin Cook, the CEO of Mercy Health Partners, the company that operates these three hospitals, told WNEP TV News that Obamacare “absolutely” playing a role in the decision to sell off the facilities.

“Health care reform is absolutely playing a role.” Cook said. “Was it the precipitating factor in this decision? No, but was it a factor in our planning over the next five years? Absolutely.”

Almost immediately Obama associate Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Association came out to slam Mr. Cook. Keehan’s press release says in part: “Reports that health reform is the primary motive behind the sale are completely false, misleading and politically motivated. Deliberations to sell the facilities began well before the Affordable Care Act became law and did not hinge on enactment of the legislation.”

The CHA is a for profit company that works for some Catholic hospitals as a sort of trade association and Keehan is a close associate of the president and a prominent supporter of Obamacare. Keehan was even a recipient of one of the 21 pens that Obama used to sign the Orwellian named Affordable Care Act — much to the chagrin of Catholic Bishops.

This Keehan apostate is constantly put forth by the Old Media as some representative of Catholic hospitals. Worse few Old Media outlets note that she is an Obamacare activist and Obama associate.

As Jeffery Lord of the Spectator says, “In other words, Sister Carol is not just some kindly nun who reminds you of the nun whacking your knuckles in grade school for this or that offense. No, in the world of Washington Sister Carol is a powerhouse lobbyist — make that a liberal social justice lobbyist — with a clear set of political skills and a very, very high-powered set of very elite friends.”

For instance, back in March the AP passed off a false news story attempting to mislead the public into thinking that Catholic hospitals supported Obama’s healthcare bill. AP then reported the support of Obamacare announced by the CHA, an independent group that does not represent the Catholic Church nor Catholic hospitals per se, and conflated that announcement to a claim as if all Catholic hospitals and therefore the Church itself were standing behind Obama’s take over of the nation’s healthcare system.

AP reported the announcement by the CHA and made as if it somehow represented “Catholics,” but this group has no official relationship with the Catholic Church, nor does it represent any groups of religious Catholics, nor serve as a source for Catholic teaching or doctrine. Needless to say the CHA also does not represent all Catholic hospitals but only the few that have paid to join her association.

The costs that Obamacare will force upon hospitals isn’t the only problem for Catholic-based healthcare. Obama, his party, and their pro-infanticide supporting associates also intend to force Catholic and other religious based healthcare facilities to perform abortions whether it violates their consciences or not.

Recently former Senator Rick Santorum (R, Penn) raised this point in an editorial for Philly.com. Santorum cites a new effort by the ACLU to get Dr. Donald Berwick, Obama’s controversial abortion supporting recess appointment to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, to force all healthcare providers to perform abortion procedures.

Santorum rails against this effort saying: “This abuse of conscience betrays American principles that go back at least to the country’s founding, when George Washington respected the pacifist consciences of Quakers. Similarly, since Roe v. Wade and under both political parties, Congress has passed laws that respect the consciences of health-care workers.”

This effort to force all healthcare providers to provide abortion is a serious threat to the nation’s healthcare system.

By 2005 there were over 615 Catholic hospitals, some 400 healthcare centers, and over 1,500 specialized healthcare homes. These facilities employ almost 600,000 employees and accounted for more than 20% of all hospital admissions. And this is just the Catholic oriented healthcare facilities.

As the realities of the strict, anti-religious qualities of Obamacare dawns on people and as the government begins to crack down on religious organizations forcing them to obviate their consciences the eventual result will be the end of religious-based healthcare institutions. This will leave millions of Americans underserved and will also leave their health in danger.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Stop Bashing Business, Mr. President
If we tried to start The Home Depot today, it's a stone cold certainty that it would never have gotten off the ground.
By KEN LANGONE
www.wsj.com


________________________ _____________________



Although I was glad that you answered a question of mine at the Sept. 20 town-hall meeting you hosted in Washington, D.C., Mr. President, I must say that the event seemed more like a lecture than a dialogue. For more than two years the country has listened to your sharp rhetoric about how American businesses are short-changing workers, fleecing customers, cheating borrowers, and generally "driving the economy into a ditch," to borrow your oft-repeated phrase.

My question to you was why, during a time when investment and dynamism are so critical to our country, was it necessary to vilify the very people who deliver that growth? Instead of offering a straight answer, you informed me that I was part of a "reckless" group that had made "bad decisions" and now required your guidance, if only I'd stop "resisting" it.

I'm sure that kind of argument draws cheers from the partisan faithful. But to my ears it sounded patronizing. Of course, one of the chief conceits of centralized economic planning is that the planners know better than everybody else.

But there's a much deeper problem than whether I am personally irked or not. Your insistence that your policies are necessary and beneficial to business is utterly at odds with what you and your administration are saying elsewhere. You pick a fight with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, accusing it of using foreign money to influence congressional elections, something the chamber adamantly denies. Your U.S. attorney in New York, Preet Bahrara, compares investment firms to Mexican drug cartels and says he wants the power to wiretap Wall Street when he sees fit. And you drew guffaws of approving laughter with your car-wreck metaphor, recently telling a crowd that those who differ with your approach are "standing up on the road, sipping a Slurpee" while you are "shoving" and "sweating" to fix the broken-down jalopy of state.

View Full Image

Associated Press
 
President Barack Obama during a September 20th town hall.


That short-sighted wavering—between condescending encouragement one day and hostile disparagement the next—creates uncertainty that, as any investor could tell you, causes economic paralysis. That's because no one can tell what to expect next.

A little more than 30 years ago, Bernie Marcus, Arthur Blank, Pat Farrah and I got together and founded The Home Depot. Our dream was to create (memo to DNC activists: that's build, not take or coerce) a new kind of home-improvement center catering to do-it-yourselfers. The concept was to have a wide assortment, a high level of service, and the lowest pricing possible.
We opened the front door in 1979, also a time of severe economic slowdown. Yet today, Home Depot is staffed by more than 325,000 dedicated, well-trained, and highly motivated people offering outstanding service and knowledge to millions of consumers.

If we tried to start Home Depot today, under the kind of onerous regulatory controls that you have advocated, it's a stone cold certainty that our business would never get off the ground, much less thrive. Rules against providing stock options would have prevented us from incentivizing worthy employees in the start-up phase—never mind the incredibly high cost of regulatory compliance overall and mandatory health insurance. Still worse are the ever-rapacious trial lawyers.

Meantime, you seem obsessed with repealing tax cuts for "millionaires and billionaires." Contrary to what you might assume, I didn't start with any advantages and neither did most of the successful people I know. I am the grandson of immigrants who came to this country seeking basic economic and personal liberty. My parents worked tirelessly to build on that opportunity. My first job was as a day laborer on the construction of the Long Island Expressway more than 50 years ago. The wealth that was created by my investments wasn't put into a giant swimming pool as so many elected demagogues seem to imagine. Instead it benefitted our employees, their families and our community at large.

I stand behind no one in my enthusiasm and dedication to improving our society and especially our health care. It's worth adding that it makes little sense to send Treasury checks to high net-worth people in the form of Social Security. That includes you, me and scores of members of Congress. Why not cut through that red tape, Mr. President, and apply a basic means test to that program? Just make sure that money actually reduces federal spending and isn't simply shifted elsewhere. I guarantee you that many millionaires and billionaires will gladly forego it—as my wife and I already do when we forward those checks each month to charity.

It's not too late to include the voices of experienced business people in your efforts, small businesses owners in particular. Americans would be right to wonder why you haven't already.

Mr. Langone, a former director of the New York Stock Exchange and co-founder of Home Depot, is chairman of Invemed Associates.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Democrats hurting business, economy
Comments

October 15, 2010

BY STEVE HUNTLEY


________________________ _____________________


Gesturing toward the magnificent steel, glass and concrete towers of Chicago's Loop during a conversation with the Chicago Sun-Times editorial board, Mayor Daley noted that "almost 95 percent" of the skyscrapers were private-sector constructions. Then he declared this self-evident truth: "I don't think Democrats realize how important business is to our economy and to our cities."

While Democrats have long struggled under the mantle of being anti-business, President Obama and the Democratic Congress have acted as if they're not particularly bothered by it. They pushed tax and fee increases, imposed new regulations through thousand-plus page bills and bureaucratic fiat and bashed Wall Street, bankers, insurers and other businesses that dared question their agenda.

» Click to enlarge image Steve Huntley




Democrats talk a good game about small business, but actions speak louder than words. Obama and the Democrats are pushing a tax increase that would hit 50 percent of small enterprise income and their massive health-care law saddles business with a flood of tax-filing paperwork for expenditures as low as $601.


Such government meddling in the economy and the threat of more have injected so much uncertainty into economic planning that businesses small and large are hesitant to invest until they get a clearer picture of the tax and regulatory environment. Democratic policies haven't reduced unemployment. Their stimulus did more to protect government jobs than lay the foundation for robust private-sector job creation.

It's no wonder that an alarmed business community is pushing back this election cycle, funneling campaign contributions to candidates and independent groups rallying around a pro-growth and jobs-creation agenda.

The White House response has been again to demonize its opponents. Obama accused the U.S. Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to fund campaign activities -- a criminal act. The basis for this accusation? An unsubstantiated allegation on a left-wing blog. Recall how Democrats lambasted Republicans for taking their lead from Rush Limbaugh? Well, here's the president of the United States passing along an outrageous, unfounded bit of Internet character assassination.

An independent watchdog group, FactCheck.org, said there was "no evidence" backing this charge, as did several major media outlets not known for Republican leanings, such as the New York Times.

When challenged about the weakness of the accusation on the CBS program "Face the Nation," presidential adviser David Axelrod said, "Well, do you have any evidence it's not true?" In other words, the chamber is guilty of a crime until proved innocent. Thank you for your lesson on American civics, Mr. Axelrod. As the FactCheck organization notes, others such as the extreme left-wing group MoveOn.org have followed Axelrod's unscrupulous tactic.

The fact is that liberal and conservative, Democratic and Republican groups take money under rules that don't require them to reveal donors. Some, like the chamber and the big unions, do collect contributions from foreign sources but don't use them for U.S. electioneering.

The Democrats are raising this red herring in a desperate attempt to distract the voters from their failed economic policies, the 9.6 percent unemployment rate, slowing GDP growth and the vastly unpopular ObamaCare.

Obama, with a background in community organizing, the university classroom and politics, staffed his administration mostly with like-minded folks with little business background. It's too bad -- for the economy as well as his current political predicament -- that Obama, during his time in Chicago, didn't learn from Daley a fuller appreciation of the vital role of business in a vibrant economy.

Comment at suntimes.com.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
A Shovel-Unready President
By Jonah Goldberg


________________________ _________________

Back in early 2009, President-elect Barack Obama was asked on Meet the Press how quickly he could create jobs. Oh, very fast, he said. He'd already consulted with a gaggle of governors, and "all of them have projects that are shovel-ready." When Obama revealed the members of his energy team, he explained that they were part of his effort to get started on "shovel-ready projects all across the country." When he unveiled his education secretary, he assured everyone that he was going to get started "helping states and local governments with shovel-ready projects."

In interviews, job summits, and press conferences, it was shovel-ready this, shovel-ready that. Search the White House website for the term "shovel-ready" and you'll drown in press releases about all the shovels ready to shove shovel-ready projects into the 21st century, where no shovel is left behind.

Only now it turns out that the president was shoveling something all right when he was talking about shovel-ready jobs - a whole pile of steaming something.

In the current issue of The New York Times Magazine, Obama admits that there's "no such thing as shovel-ready" when it comes to public works.


It's not that Obama was lying when he said all that stuff. It's just that he didn't know what he was talking about. All it took was nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus money and 20-plus months of on-the-job training for him to discover that he was talking nonsense.

It seems to me that, if I were president, and I not only staked vast swaths of my credibility but gambled the prosperity of the country generally on this concept of "shovel-ready jobs," I might be a bit miffed with the staffers who swore that shovel-ready jobs were, like, you know, a real thing.

And yet, if you read Peter Baker's Obama profile, it's clear that Obama isn't mad about that. In fact, he still thinks he got all the policies right. Baker writes that Obama is "supremely sure that he is right," it's just that the president feels he didn't market himself well.

"Given how much stuff was coming at us," Obama explains, "we probably spent much more time trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right. There is probably a perverse pride in my administration - and I take responsibility for this; this was blowing from the top - that we were going to do the right thing, even if short-term it was unpopular. And I think anybody who's occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and politics and that you can't be neglecting of marketing and PR and public opinion."

This is an old progressive lament: Our product is perfect, we just didn't sell it convincingly to the rubes.

But wait a second. If they spent "much more time trying to get the policy right," how come nobody said, "Uh, Mr. President, these ‘shovel-ready jobs' you keep talking about? They're sort of like good flan - they don't exist."

Let's not dwell on such things. Besides, Obama has already said that his problems come from "neglecting marketing and PR and public opinion." Indeed, that, and only that, explains why people think he looks like "the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat."

The only problem with that: facts. Obama's health-care plan raises taxes on Americans (though Obama says this is not so, they're merely mandatory fees and premiums) and will cost trillions. He wants to raise taxes on "the rich" - defined so that a cop married to a nurse might well count as rich - and on small businesses.

Meanwhile, Washington is now spending 23 percent more than it did two years ago. As the Washington Post recently editorialized, Congress's "emergency" bailout to avoid "a teachers crisis" was a fraud to simply transfer billions to the teachers' unions in advance of the midterms.

And then, of course, there's the stimulus that paid for all of those "shovel-ready jobs" that Obama now admits never existed. Los Angeles County deployed $111 million in stimulus money to "save" 55 jobs at the cost of $2 million apiece. The White House has spent $192 million on road signs that brag about how the construction delays ahead were paid for by the stimulus. Meanwhile, unemployment is a full three percentage points higher during Obama's "recovery" than it was during the "worst recession since the Great Depression."

Maybe it's unfair for people to think Obama is just another tax-and-spend Democrat. After all, some tax-and-spend Democrats are actually competent at it.

www.realclearpolitics.co m


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
All dressed up, nowhere to go
As the government and energy firms butt heads over spill risks, rigs stand idle and hundreds have lost jobs
By JENNIFER A. DLOUHY
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Oct. 18, 2010, 12:15AM



Sources: ODS-Petrodata, the Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Regulation

________________________ _____________________



WASHINGTON — Offshore drilling regulators and energy companies are at loggerheads over a requirement that the firms plan for nightmare scenarios about possible oil spills, with the standoff slowing permits for new shallow-water wells.

Now that the Obama administration has lifted its moratorium on deep-water drilling, the dispute threatens to hold up some of those projects, too.

At issue is the government's mandate that companies seeking to drill offshore must describe the "worst case discharge" of oil and gas from their proposed wells. That single calculation dictates a cascade of other requirements - including how much insurance companies must carry and the amount of response equipment they must reserve to clean up such a spill.

But offshore operators and government regulators have been at odds over how to arrive at the numbers - which are, at best, subjective predictions based on a broad assortment of factors, from how much of a geological formation might be exposed to the number of oil and gas zones at a proposed well.

"It's not an exact science, and there's a lot of engineering judgment that goes into it," said Randy Stilley, CEO of Seahawk Drilling, a shallow-water contractor based in Houston. "If I pick 10 different reservoir engineers, they'll probably give you 10 different numbers. So trying to get agreement on the right number is not an easy thing to do."

Even though oil companies and regulators generally use the same mathematical formula to estimate the worst-possible flow of oil from a proposed well, they are plugging in different data for those calculations. It can take weeks of meetings, exchanged notes and new calculations before a consensus is reached.

Approval pace lags

The disputes are at the heart of a major slowdown in the government's permitting of new shallow-water drilling, which was allowed to continue even though a moratorium blocked exploration in deeper depths from late May until it was lifted last week.

Since the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded April 20, federal regulators have given the green light to 12 new shallow-water wells, with another 10 applications pending.

Despite a flurry of recent approvals - with six new permits issued since Sept. 28 - the pace still lags behind historic levels. Before the oil spill - and the new worst-case discharge requirements - the government was permitting an average of 16.8 wells per month in 2008 and 8.5 each month in 2009, when the recession drove demand down. During the first quarter of 2010, before the oil spill in the Gulf , the government was approving an average of 10.3 wells each month.

Industry officials say the result has been idled rigs and workers - with an estimated 500 direct jobs lost since the oil spill. Roughly one-quarter of the shallow-water drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico are not working.

At Seahawk, Stilley said the slow flow of new well permits has forced the idling of 14 rigs out of a 20-vessel fleet and the furlough of at least 150 employees - roughly 25 percent of the company's workforce. The company is selling one of its rigs to an India-based oil service firm, and Stilley warns that Seahawk will get rid of others if work doesn't pick up soon.

"We just don't think we're going to be able to put all of our rigs back to work in the U.S.," he said, adding that it could take years "to get back to a more normal level of permitting activity."

With daily carrying costs of about $3,000 to $4,000 to maintain even idle stacked rigs, Stilley said any sale is an instant cash boost to the company's balance sheet - and the plugging of an economic drain on the company.

The pace of permitting became a major issue this summer, when oil companies and regulators at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement were still adapting to new mandates imposed since the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Confusion over rules

Michael Bromwich, the bureau director, acknowledged that the new rules - especially the requirement for the worst-case discharge estimate - were not clear enough.

"Companies had not dealt with it in the way that they needed to, nor had we put out clear guidance on the way that they needed to," he said.

But Bromwich said regulators have made big strides in clearing up the confusion. And he credits the shifting of 20 bureau workers from other divisions to a permit-vetting team of about 40 with helping to ease the backlog recently.

"This is going to continue to be an evolving process," Bromwich said. "We're not going to have 100 percent clarity immediately, but we've made an enormous amount of progress over the last several weeks."

In a bid to further streamline the process, the industry's Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition has proposed a tiered review plan that would step up regulatory requirements along with increases in risk factors at proposed wells. For instance, the regulatory hurdles could grow for projects tapping a thicker pay zone or expected to encounter higher pressures. Less risky projects would have to meet fewer demands.

"Our whole goal is to find a consistent, more expeditious way to process these permits and still meet the regulatory requirements," said Kalil Ackal, a drilling manager for Arena Offshore, based in The Woodlands . "We know better than to say, 'Just trust our numbers.' "

Instead, Ackal said, the shallow-water advocates are trying to peg regulatory decisions to "simple, objective, verifiable factors" for proposed wells.

Bromwich said he is considering the tiered review ideas, "and if they have merit, technically, we hope to be able to embrace at least some of them."

'Significant' numbers

American Petroleum Institute leaders say they want to ensure that the bureau has enough resources to swiftly review applications for new wells, now that the deep-water moratorium has ended. "Our big concern is that BOEM is going to be flooded with permits," said Robin Rorick, an API analyst.

Another factor, Rorick said, is making sure that regulators are making "appropriate" predictions about the potential worst-case discharge from wells, since higher estimates drive up requirements for how much oil spill response equipment needs to be reserved and how much money or insurance coverage companies must prove they have before being allowed to drill.

So far, higher estimates have pushed at least one shallow-water operator into a higher financial responsibility category, as required under federal law, according to officials with knowledge of the matter. At the smallest possible hike, from a minimum $35 million threshold to the next level - $50 million - that translates to an extra $1.5 million a year in payments to the insurer that issues a financial responsibility certificate guaranteeing the money.

"Those numbers are significant, in terms of planning," especially for small operators, Rorick said. "They've budgeted for $35 million coverage, and now, to go to $50 million is not insignificant."

Rorick said the energy companies are factoring in those higher certificate costs when deciding whether to drill. "The (certificate of financial responsibility) amounts get into a company's business decisions - and whether or not it's worthwhile to drill that well," he said.

Bromwich said his agency won't be rushed and insisted that meeting historic approval levels shouldn't be an artificial goal for regulators.

jennifer.dlouhy@chron.com


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama’s Job-Killing Regulations
Townhall.com ^ | October 18, 2010 | Lurita Doan



________________________ ________________________ __________


Barack Obama has a credibility problem. Obama has overpromised and under-delivered on countless issues such as the economy, job creation, healthcare reform and transparency. And, after 19 months of teleprompted platitudes, Obama has surrendered all credibility regarding the economy and Americans are skeptical of his latest promises.

For many Americans this has been the summer of discovery, not recovery. The rosy glow from electing the first African American president has faded and the failures and the flaws of Obama’s economic policies and Obama’s economic team have been exposed.

Americans are painfully aware that the 3.5 million jobs that Obama promised have not been created. Americans are painfully aware that the 3.5 million jobs weren’t saved either. Americans have seen that the shovel ready projects weren’t very ready and that transparency is a lot easier to talk about than to achieve. But what is most likely apparent to all Americans is that Obama has made mistakes.

Any experienced CEO knows that mistakes happen, that oftentimes plans don’t materialize as anticipated, and a course correction is required to save the enterprise. But Obama does not seem to have learned this lesson. As recently as last week, the President is still stumping, still trying to convince Americans that his economic recovery policies are working.

What’s hard to figure out is why Obama persists in using la-la land language to describe the outcomes of his economic policies.

I find myself wondering: is it possible that Obama actually believes the tripe that’s printed on his teleprompter? Is it possible that Obama hasn’t read any of the Bureau of Labor Statistic reports for the past 19 months, or the consumer price indices, or the CBO estimates, or the GDP indices, or the GAO reports or the Treasury department reports of the weekly sales of tens of billions of treasuries?

Or could his economic advisors have been assuring him that matters will improve? And he believed them?

Since July, most of the architects of the Obama Administration economic strategy for recovery have resigned. Consider: Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Christina Romer, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Larry Summers, Director of the National Economic Council and Herb Allison, the TARP Bailout Czar.

While some may try to sugar coat the reasons for their departures, preferring perhaps to believe that these departures are just the inevitable transition attrition at the two year point, or that the pressure, tensions, and the clash of strong personalities caused an unending jockeying for power among various members of the President’s economic team, these seem to be secondary reasons. The painful reality is that despite their top-tier academic credentials, the economic policy team didn’t live up to expectations and their economic policies didn’t work.

We’ve come a long way since December 2008 when Obama named his “dream team” of economic advisors, claiming to have selected “leaders who could offer both sound judgment and fresh thinking, both a depth of experience and a wealth of bold, new ideas”.

Instead, what Americans have seen is failed leadership at all levels of the Obama Administration’s economic policy team and a lack of innovation. The team may have had its internal squabbles, but they were united in their flawed beliefs that more government intervention, subsidies and control would be the cure to all economic ills. They were wrong and the country has suffered as a result.

So, what message are they now sending to our nation, facing the most severe, turbulent economic crisis in its history, when the team the president entrusted with charting the ship of state to calmer waters, jumps ship? No matter how the White House may try to sugar coat it, one can’t help thinking the president’s economic advisors are cutting their losses and hope to escape before being exposed.

There is a delusional quality to the ideology and the language used by the Administration. When Larry Summers coined the phrase “Summer of Recovery”, was he trying to ‘spin” the failed policies? Was he simply crafting a sound byte to give Dems cover while campaigning at home? Or was he delusional since he had access to all the data indicating the contrary?

There comes a point—and we seem to have reached that point—where the Obama Administration’s statements simply aren’t credible and our president, who reads them off the teleprompter each day, isn’t credible either. The president can continue to capture prime time TV to address Americans, but until he admits that his policies aren’t working, and some changes are going to have to be made, Obama will not be credible and will not be trusted by many Americans.

The departure of almost all of the leadership of Obama’s economic team provides the perfect opportunity for the president to do a course correction. As the Chinese say: it’s never too late to turn back on the wrong road.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Gallup: Next unemployment report will be worseS
by Ed Morrissey
www.hotair.com

________________________ ____


Gallup’s mid-month report on national unemployment gives a mixed outlook on joblessness, which winds up being mainly negative.  The surge in unemployment they found in September continued into October, but the number of long-term unemployed dropped slightly, as did part-time workers looking for full-time employment.  They expect a bigger number for the jobless rate on November 5th from the Department of Labor, perhaps into double digits:

Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, is at 10.0% in mid-October — essentially the same as the 10.1% at the end of September but up sharply from 9.4% in mid-September and 9.3% at the end of August. This mid-month measurement confirms the late September surge in joblessness that should be reflected by the government’s Nov. 5 unemployment report. …
The decline in part-time workers wanting full-time work has led to a situation in which underemployment is declining even as unemployment is increasing. The 18.6% mid-October underemployment figure (the sum of the 10.0% unemployed and the 8.6% employed part time but wanting full-time work) is down slightly from 18.8% at the end of September and is the same as the reading in the middle of last month. …

In this regard, Gallup modeling suggests the government’s unemployment rate report for October will be in the 9.7% to 9.9% range when it is released Nov. 5. The government’s last report showed the U.S. unemployment rate at 9.6% in September on a seasonally adjusted basis, as Gallup anticipated. In addition to seasonal adjustments, the official unemployment rate is likely to be held down by a continued exodus of people from the workforce. It is easy for potential workers to become discouraged when the unemployment rate is expected to remain above 9% through the end of 2011.

Even the good news about the decline of underemployment is suspect, Gallup notes.  Because the topline unemployment figures keep rising, it appears that the decrease isn’t coming from part-timers finding full-time jobs.  Instead, they could be losing their jobs and dropping out of the workforce figures.

This will have little impact on the upcoming elections, of course, and for a couple of reasons.  First, the Gallup poll won’t get a whole lot of attention, even though it has shown to be a fairly reasonable indicator of overall results.  Second, the kind of unemployment the poll projects is close enough to already-known results to give it only a limited impact on midterm races and perceptions of the Obama administration’s economic policies.  Moving back to double digits might have more impact on electorate psychology, but that expectation may already be baked into the midterm cake.  And, of course, the actual DoL report won’t come out until three day after the election anyway.

Still, it’s worth keeping a close eye on the Gallup indicators as we move closer to the holiday season.  Gallup does not adjust figures for seasonal demand, which means that we should see an increase in employment soon if retailers expect to see a decent Christmas shopping season.  Some are predicting a mildly better season this year in both spending and employment:

Retailers are expected to add between 550,000 and 650,000 jobs nationally this holiday season, according to a forecast from the national outplacement firmChallenger, Gray and Christmas.

That’s more than the 501,400 added last year, but it’s still well below the 720,800 added in 2007, just as the recession was beginning.
Most of that will come at large retailers, though.  Small businesses won’t be hiring, but may expand hours for existing staff instead:
Much of the holiday hiring is taking place at national chains including Macy’s, Kohl’s and Toys R Us. Some smaller local retailers say they won’t be adding any more workers but could give current employees more hours.

That follows from better-than-expected retail numbers from September, announced last week.  It’s not recovery levels, but it’s better than the direction those indicators had been heading over most of the year.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
U.S. To Train 3,000 Offshore IT Workers
http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/integration/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=226500202


$22 million, federally-backed program aims to help outsourcers in South Asia become more fluent in areas like Java programming—and the English language.

By Paul McDougall
InformationWeek
August 3, 2010 01:59 PM


________________________ ________________________ ___



Despite President Obama's pledge to retain more hi-tech jobs in the U.S., a federal agency run by a hand-picked Obama appointee has launched a $22 million program to train workers, including 3,000 specialists in IT and related functions, in South Asia.

Following their training, the tech workers will be placed with outsourcing vendors in the region that provide offshore IT and business services to American companies looking to take advantage of the Asian subcontinent's low labor costs.

David Fox, CEO of Agistix, talks about the company's logistics and supply chain management software as a service. The service gives customers visibility over their global supply chains, with built-in analytics and reporting features.Under director Rajiv Shah, the United States Agency for International Development will partner with private outsourcers in Sri Lanka to teach workers there advanced IT skills like Enterprise Java (Java EE) programming, as well as skills in business process outsourcing and call center support. USAID will also help the trainees brush up on their English language proficiency.

"To help fill workforce gaps in BPO and IT, USAID is teaming up with leading BPO and IT/English language training companies to establish professional IT and English skills development training centers," the U.S. Embassy in Colombo, Sri Lanka, said in a statement posted Friday on its Web site.

Learn about issues that may arise and discover an effective tool to smooth the transition

Simplify Your Migration to Exchange 2010 

"Courses in Business Process Outsourcing, Enterprise Java, and English Language Skills will be offered at no charge to over 3,000 under- and unemployed students who will then participate in on-the-job training schemes with private firms," the embassy said.

USAID is also partnering with Sri Lankan companies in other industries, including construction and garment manufacturing, to help create 10,000 new jobs in the country, which is still recovering from a 30-year civil war that ended in 2009.

But it's the outsourcing program that's sure to draw the most fire from critics. While Obama acknowledged that occupations such as garment making don't add much value to the U.S. economy, he argued relentlessly during his presidential run that lawmakers needed to do more to keep hi-tech jobs in IT, biological sciences, and green energy in the country.

He also accused the Bush administration of creating tax loopholes that made it easier for U.S. companies to place work offshore in low-cost countries.

As recently as Monday, Obama, speaking at a Democratic fundraiser in Atlanta, boasted about his efforts to reduce offshoring. The President said he's implemented "a plan that’s focused on making our middle class more secure and our country more competitive in the long run -- so that the jobs and industries of the future aren’t all going to China and India, but are being created right here in the United States of America."

Obama in January tapped Shah to head USAID. At the time of his appointment, Shah—whose experience in the development community included senior positions at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—said the organization needed to focus more on helping developing nations build technology-based economies. "We need to develop new capabilities to pursue innovation, science, and technology," said Shaw, during his swearing in ceremony.

Sri Lanka's outsourcing industry is nascent, but growing as it begins to scoop up work from neighboring India.

In addition to homegrown firms, it's attracting investment from Indian outsourcers looking to expand beyond increasingly expensive tech hubs like Bangalore, Hyderabad, and Mumbai. In 2007, consultants at A.T. Kearney listed the country as 29th on their list of the top 50 global outsourcing destinations.




Emerging technology always comes with a learning curve. Here are some real-world lessons about cloud computing from early adopters. Download the latest all-digital issue of InformationWeek for that story and more. (Free registration required.)


________________________ ________________________ _________

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Updated: Mon., Oct. 18, 2010, 5:19 AM 
Killing Marcus Welby
By SCOTT GOTTLIEB

Last Updated: 5:19 AM, October 18, 2010


________________________ ________________________ ____




If ObamaCare really called for the creation of "death panels," the first victim of these in vented tribunals would have been Marcus Welby MD, the character in the hit 1960s television show that followed the daily dramas of a small-town family doctor.

The health legislation doesn't call on government tribunals to euthanize seniors, as some fanciful critics claim, but the bill does kill off private-practice medicine.

ObamaCare envisions that doctors will fold their private offices to become salaried hospital employees, making it easier for the federal government to regulate them and centrally manage the costly medical services they prescribe. To get this control, ObamaCare creates "Accountable Care Organizations," which are basically hospitals coupled with local doctor networks that the hospital owns.

Under ObamaCare, an ACO is supposed to take "accountability" for local Medicare patients, who in turn get most care from providers working inside the ACO's network. To encourage efficiency and cost-cutting, an ACO can share in the savings it achieves from more closely managing its assigned pool of patients. The idea is to give doctors a financial incentive to better coordinate care and reduce their use of costly medical services.

The ACO concept was coined in 2006 by the same Dartmouth health researchers who famously found that higher Medicare spending doesn't correlate with better medical outcomes. Their data was controversial. Some experts refuted the findings. Even so, it became the intellectual foundation for ObamaCare's vision of "bending the cost curve" -- that you can improve medical outcomes by cutting Medicare spending. The ACOs have become Washington's most fashionable vehicle for pursuing that prophecy.

In many ways, the ACO concept builds on the 1990s approach to "capitation," in which health-maintenance organizations gave doctors a lump sum to care for a group of patients. This arrangement put a financial onus on doctors to cut costs. The concept lowered spending but was unpopular with patients, leading to a backlash against managed care.

Even if the Obama team dresses up the same concepts in a new acronym, their regulatory impulse to tightly manage how these organizations operate tilts the ACOs into the hands of hospitals. It forces doctors to sell their medical practices to these networks if the physicians want to maintain what they're paid by Medicare.

Obama's health-care czar, Nancy Ann DeParle, laid bare this financial coercion. Writing recently in the "Annals of Internal Medicine," she said that "the economic forces put in motion by [the Obama health-care plan] are likely to lead to vertical organization of providers and accelerate physician employment by hospitals and aggregation into larger physician groups." Physicians, she said, "that accept the challenge will be rewarded in the future payment system" as ObamaCare "reforms" how doctors are paid under Medicare.

The Obama plan contains other economic forces that will drive such "vertical integration" in which doctors become employees of hospitals and health plans. For one, under ObamaCare, health plans will see their revenue (premiums) and costs (medical benefits) largely fixed by government regulation. So the only way health plans can improve their profits is by cheapening the product that they provide, in other words, holding down the cost of the health coverage that they offer.

In turn, the only way to cheapen health coverage is to control the medical services consumers can access. The only way to tightly control the use of medical services is to exert more leverage over the doctors who order the tests and treatments. That means health plans will need to maintain tight networks of providers to exert more control over doctors -- or else own the physicians outright. So expect to see health plans doing their own "vertical integration" -- buying out medical practices, just like hospitals are doing.

According to a recent survey of health executives, 74 percent said their hospitals or health systems plan to employ more physicians over the next 3 years, and 61 percent plan to acquire medical groups. The doctor-recruitment firm Merritt Hawkins said that 45 percent of physician job searches last year were for direct employment of a doctor by a hospital, up from 23 percent in 2005.

In 2005, more than two-thirds of medical practices were doctor-owned, a share that was largely constant for many years. By next year, the share of practices owned by physicians will probably drop below 40 percent, according to data from the Medical Group Management Association. Hospitals or health plans will own the balance of doctor practices.

So the next time you see your doctor, it may be far from home, in an office park built by your nearest hospital. Thanks to ObamaCare, Marcus Welby is taking down his shingle. He's becoming an employee of General Hospital.

Scott Gottlieb, a physician and American Enterprise Institute resi dent fellow, is a partner in a firm that invests in health-care compa nies.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
The Obama Debt Tracker - more than $3 trillion of new national debt in 21 months
The United States Department of the Treasury ^ | Monday October 18, 2010 | The United States Department of the Treasury



________________________ ________________________ _

Since President Barack Hussein Obama was inaugurated into office a bit less than 21 months ago, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have increased the total combined national debt by more than three trillion dollars:


Date                   Debt Held by the Public         Intragovernmental Holdings   Total Public Debt Outstanding



01/20/2009         6,307,310,739,681.66         4,319,566,309,231.42         10,626,877,048,913.08
10/18/2010         9,059,271,396,291.56         4,606,655,246,964.40         13,665,926,643,255.96



In this time period, the debt has increased precisely $3,039,049,594,342.88, and worst of all, the overwhelming bulk of this is debt held by the public which has been borrowed from foreign governments like the communist Chinese.


This is an absolutely mind-blowing increase of roughly one trillion dollars every seven months, or approximately $4.8 billion each and every single day. Three trillion dollars is a bit less than $10,000 for every single man, woman, and child in the United States.



And given that true economic recovery appears to be nowhere in sight and the federal reserve continues to endlessly monetize the debt and pump countless billions into the markets via quantitative easing, it is pretty much a certainly that the next trillion dollars of debt will be accumulated by the middle of next year.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Boeing To Raise Employee Costs Thanks To Obamacare
By Carole on Oct 18, 2010 | Comment »


________________________ ________________________ ___


 Aircraft manufacturer Boeing Comany is the latest mega employer claiming the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) is part of why its employees will have to pay more for their medical benefits next year. In a letter mailed to employees late last week, Boeing said deductibles and copayments are going up significantly for some 90,000 non-union workers due in part to the effects of the new law. (source)

Continued...

President Obama and his fellow Democrats who pushed the unpopular legislation through Congress have stated repeatedly that the law would bring down individuals' costs for health insurance. Meanwhile the debate over the obscenely expensive bill raged on with Republican lawmakers and the majority of the American people speaking out against the far-reaching government power grab disguised as reform. Announcements like Boeing's are proving the opposition right.

Boeing joins other companies like 3M which earlier this month announced it will stop offering its health insurance plan to their 23,000 retirees in response to Obamacare's passage. (source)

While Boeing cited two additional reasons for the cost shift including untamed health care inflation and lifestyle issues such as being overweight, company spokeswoman Karen Forte said the company is concerned that its relatively generous plan will get hit with a new tax under the law in 2018.

Tags: 3m, boeing, employer, health care, karen forte, obabacare, obama, patient protection and affordable care act, unemplyment

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39470
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Citing health care law, Boeing pares employee plan
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – 6 mins ago


________________________ _____


WASHINGTON – Aerospace giant Boeing is joining the list of companies that say the new health care law could have a potential downside for their workers.

In a letter mailed to employees late last week, the company cited the overhaul as part of the reason it is asking some 90,000 nonunion workers to pay significantly more for their health plan next year. A copy of the letter was obtained Monday by The Associated Press.

"The newly enacted health care reform legislation, while intended to expand access to care for millions of uninsured Americans, is also adding cost pressure as requirements of the new law are phased in over the next several years," wrote Rick Stephens, Boeing's senior vice president for human resources.

Boeing is the latest major employer to signal a shift for its workers as a result of the legislation, which expands coverage to more than 30 million uninsured people and ranks as President Barack Obama's top domestic achievement. Earlier, McDonald's had raised questions about whether a limited benefit plan that serves some 30,000 of its employees would remain viable under the law. That prompted the administration to issue the plan of a waiver from certain requirements under the law.

Spokeswoman Karen Forte said the Boeing plan is more generous than what its closest competitors offer, and the company was concerned it would get hit with a new tax under the law.

The tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans doesn't take effect until 2018, but employers are already beginning to assess their exposure because it is hefty: at 40 percent of the value above $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for a family plan.

"We want to manage our costs so this tax doesn't apply to our plan, but that's down the road," said Forte. "If this health care law hadn't passed, would we be making changes to the health care benefit? Absolutely. For competitive reasons."

In the letter to Boeing employees, Stephens said out-of-control health care inflation is hampering Boeing's ability to compete with other manufacturers. Its major civilian aviation competitor, Airbus, is based in Europe, where governments shoulder the burden of health care costs.

Stephens also cited lifestyle issues, such as people who are overweight and do not adequately exercise, as a the third major reason for the cost shift. The health care law ranked second among the three, ahead of lifestyle factors.

Boeing said annual deductibles and copayments will increase for all its plans next year.

Deductibles, the share of medical costs that employees pay annually before their plan kicks in, will go up to $300 for individuals, an increase of $100. For families, the new deductible will be $900, an increase of $300.

In addition, Boeing is instituting a copayment of 10 percent after the deductible has been met. The copayment will rise to 20 percent in 2012.

Those changes will reduce the value of the Boeing plan, but it's unclear whether that will allow the company to escape the tax looming in 2018.

"It's certainly going to help," said Forte. But "we are still slightly above market in what we offer to our employees."


Follow Yahoo! News on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook