Obama: Corruption, Deception, Dishonesty, Deceit and Promises Broken

[Soul Crusher]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Obama's Other Hand
IBD Editorials ^ | April 29, 2011 | Staff
Posted on April 29, 2011 8:41:57 PM EDT by Kaslin

Regulation: While we were distracted by the president's birth certificate show-and-tell, his EPA releases its guidelines for expanding federal power under the Clean Water Act. America's economy and freedom are at stake.

President Obama's long-form birth certificate wasn't the only thing released last Wednesday, but it was probably the least important. The Environmental Protection Agency also released its guidelines for expanding federal power over the nation's waterways, ponds and puddles.

These guidelines will take effect after a 60-day comment period and will serve as a reference for environmental agencies in determining their jurisdiction over a particular body of water, large or small. They will eventually morph into binding regulations as damaging to our economy and freedom as the EPA regulation of carbon dioxide emissions.

The 1972 Clean Water Act was originally intended to protect the "navigable waters of the United States" — you know, the kind boats travel down. It was broadly and quickly interpreted to any pool of water in America capable of supporting a bathtub-variety boat.

The word "navigable" was forgotten and ignored, and the act's scope expanded to the point that water that collected after a rainstorm was considered a "wetland" worthy of environmental protection.

A 2006 U.S. Supreme Court case from Michigan produced five different opinions and no clear definition of which waterways were covered. This essentially left the government with a clean slate on which to write its own interpretation — just about everything.

House Agricultural Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., says the expanded EPA guidelines would let the government "regulate essentially any body of water, such as a farm pond or even a ditch." A bipartisan group of 170 congressmen wrote a letter to the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers urging them not to issue the expanded guidelines.

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

[Soul Crusher]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Stimulus transparency: Nonprofit group declines to show how it spent taxpayer money
Chicago Tribune ^ | April 30, 2011 | By Kristen Schorsch and Julie Wernau
Posted on May 1, 2011 8:18:23 AM EDT by Oldeconomybuyer

With $5 billion in stimulus money for weatherization projects at stake, federal officials called for an unprecedented level of transparency to ensure citizens knew how their tax dollars would be spent.

It remains a big secret in Illinois.

In denying a Tribune request for records about its contractors and how it has spent millions of dollars, the nonprofit Community and Economic Development Association of Cook County said it wasn't a "public body" as defined in the state's Freedom of Information Act.

"There's no accountability," Pastika said. "There's no disclosure. A lot of times the public officials voting to allocate money aren't aware of how the money is being spent."

After CEDA refused to release information, the Tribune requested similar records, including names and addresses of contractors and invoices and receipts, from the state Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, which oversees the Illinois Weatherization Assistance Program.

The state provided contractors' names and addresses after five months, but not invoices and receipts, making it impossible to fully assess how the money was spent.

The Tribune requested similar records from the U.S. Department of Energy. The request, made in November, still wasn't filled Friday.

A look at recovery.gov, a federal website designed for taxpayers to track how stimulus dollars have been spent, revealed little more. CEDA contractors were listed, but there's no information about how much money they have received or how they've spent it.

(Excerpt) Read more at articles.chicagotribune. com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Obama: We're working on gun control 'under the radar'
WorldNetDaily ^ | April 26, 2011 | Jeff Knox
Posted on April 29, 2011 2:41:28 PM EDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

"I just want you to know that we are working on it," Barack Obama reportedly told Sarah Brady regarding gun control. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

This interesting bit of news was reported in an April 11 Washington Post Lifestyle section story about Obama's gun-control and regulatory policy wonk Steve Croley. Toward the end of the article the writer, Jason Horowitz, mentions a March 30 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney during which the President "dropped in."

Horowitz quotes Sarah Brady relating how President Obama gave his personal assurance that he and his administration were working hard on a gun-control agenda. Brady reported that Obama then told them about advancing the agenda "under the radar."

Apparently Mrs. Brady either doesn't grasp the concept of "under the radar," or, more likely, she expected the reporter to be discreet and keep the "good news" about Obama's stealth operations to himself. Thankfully this reporter chose to report the news, so we have direct corroboration of Obama's sneak-attack against the Second Amendment.

What is truly startling about this story is the way it has been totally ignored by the rest of the media. Compare the media's current silence with what happened during the 2000 presidential campaign when then NRA Vice-President (and GOP activist) Kayne Robinson told a group of rights supporters in California that electing Bush would mean "we'll have a president where we work out of their office, unbelievably friendly relations."

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

[Soul Crusher]

ObamaCare Subsidies Won't Keep Up With Premiums
By JED GRAHAM, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 09:10 AM ET
 


 View Enlarged Image
If the health care law survives the current legal and political attacks, it will soon come up against the law of economics.

Initially, individuals buying insurance via exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) will get subsidies that rise in line with premium cost growth.

But, starting in 2019, individuals would have to shoulder an ever-greater share of premiums as cost curbs kick in if subsidies top 0.5% of GDP, as the Congressional Budget Office projects.

The law's shift of premium costs to individuals "may be difficult to sustain," CBO director Doug Elmendorf recently testified.

"Difficult" is putting it mildly.

Consider a single 42-year-old earning 250% of the poverty level in 2014, or $28,750. Imagine that worker gets a 3.3% raise every year, outpacing inflation by 1 percentage point. Good news, right?

Not so much. Under a perhaps optimistic assumption that premium costs grow just 4.3% a year (2% above inflation), rising premium payments would gradually eat 75 cents of every extra dollar in real income earned over the next two decades, IBD's analysis shows. This reflects the law's curbs on subsidies and its sliding scale that cuts subsidies as income rises.

Add in similar growth in out-of-pocket payments, and health costs would eat 90% of real wage gains.

And this assumes relatively contained health-care-cost growth and decent pay gains. For those stuck at 250% of the poverty level, rising health costs would shrink real wages by 10% over two decades.

Now consider premium subsidies for midcareer adults earning 300% of the poverty level, $34,520 in 2014. Initially, the $1,470 subsidy would cover 31% of premiums, limiting a 42-year-old's payment to 9.5% of income.

But two decades later, a 42-year-old at 300% of poverty would have to shell out 19% of income. So the subsidy would not only fail to keep up with health costs or even inflation, it would be cut in half in nominal terms to $700, based on CBO's interpretation of the law.

Democrats are attacking Paul Ryan's Medicare plan, in part because vouchers would only track inflation. James Capretta, the top health care budget official in the George W. Bush administration, sees that as "hypocritical," given that exchange subsidies might in some cases do the same or worse.

Still, the average premium subsidy would rise by about 4.8% a year after 2019, well above inflation, CBO projections show.

Here's why it matters: Exchanges are supposed to make nongroup insurance affordable by pooling the young and healthy with the old and sick. But once premium costs become prohibitive for the young and healthy, many will drop out — despite the individual mandate and its associated penalty capped at 2.5% of income.

"A growing number of families in relatively good health would likely choose to pay a relatively small penalty for going without coverage rather than pay a much larger and ever-increasing share of their income," Paul Van de Water of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities wrote last year.

This exodus would further push up costs and drive out yet more families, making the mandate and market reforms "difficult or impossible to maintain," Van de Water wrote.

Would Congress would face heavy pressure to ramp up subsidies. Uncertainty over the law's subsidies and mandate are long-term issues with near-term implications as both political parties embrace talk of broadening the tax base while lowering marginal rates.

The biggest base-broadening option is to end the tax exemption for employer-sponsored health insurance. That reduces income tax revenue by about $180 billion a year, says Donald Marron, director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

But John Sheils of the health care consultancy Lewin Group told IBD last November that ending the tax break would result in an additional 22 million people receiving subsidies on ObamaCare exchanges.

As it is, CBO projects that about 20 million people will buy subsidized coverage via exchanges a decade from now. So scrapping the tax exemption for employer health benefits could double the stakes — and the uncertainty — over the subsidies and mandate.

[Soul Crusher]

Obama floats plan to tax cars by the mile
The Hill ^

Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2011 8:42:55 AM

Obama floats plan to tax cars by the mile By Pete Kasperowicz - 05/05/11 07:45 AM ET

The Obama administration has floated a transportation authorization bill that would require the study and implementation of a plan to tax automobile drivers based on how many miles they drive.

The plan is a part of the administration's "Transportation Opportunities Act," an undated draft of which was obtained this week by Transportation Weekly.

This follows a March Congressional Budget Office report that supported the idea of taxing drivers based on miles driven.

Among other things, CBO suggested that a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax could be tracked by installing electronic equipment on each car to determine how many miles were driven; payment could take place electronically at filling stations.

The CBO report was requested by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), who has proposed taxing cars by the mile as a way to increase federal highway revenues.

Obama's proposal seems to follow up on that idea in section 2218 of the draft bill. That section would create, within the Federal Highway Administration, a Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office. It would be tasked with creating a "study framework that defines the functionality of a mileage-based user fee system and other systems."

The administration seems to be aware of the need to prepare the public for what would likely be a controversial change to the way highway funds are collected. For example, the office is called on to serve a public relations function, as the draft says it should "increase public awareness regarding the need for an alternative funding source for surface transportation programs and provide information on possible approaches."

The draft bill says the "study framework" for the project and a public awareness communications plan should be established within two years of creating the office, and that field tests should begin within four years.

The office would be required to consider four factors in field trials: the capability of states to enforce payment, the reliability of technology, administrative costs, and "user acceptance." The draft does not specify where field trials should begin.

The new office would be funded a total of $200 million through FY 2017 for the project.

[Soul Crusher]

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[Soul Crusher]

Don't Trust the Boss: Labor Dept. Offers Smartphone 'App' for Tracking Wages
Cybercast News ^ | 5/10/11

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ __



(CNSNews.com) - Instead of relying on the company’s records, employees can now track their own work hours through a new application for smartphones.

The U.S. Labor Department on Monday announced the launch of its first app -- a timesheet to help employees independently track the hours they work and determine the wages they are owed.

“I am pleased that my department is able to leverage increasingly popular and available technology to ensure that workers receive the wages to which they are entitled,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. “This app will help empower workers to understand and stand up for their rights when employers have denied their hard-earned pay.”

The free app, available in both English and Spanish, allows users to track regular work hours, break time and any overtime hours.  A glossary, contact information and materials about wage laws are easily accessible through links to the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division.

"This new technology is significant because, instead of relying on their employers’ records, workers now can keep their own records," the news release said. "This information could prove invaluable during a Wage and Hour Division investigation when an employer has failed to maintain accurate employment records."

The free app is compatible with the iPhone and iPod Touch, and eventually it may also work with other smartphone platforms, such as Android and BlackBerry.


For workers without a smartphone, the Wage and Hour Division offers a printable work-hours calendar in English and Spanish to track rate of pay, work start and stop times, and arrival and departure times. "The calendar also includes easy-to-understand information about workers’ rights and how to file a wage violation complaint," the Labor Department said.

Both the app and the calendar can be downloaded from the Wage and Hour Division’s home page.



________________________ _________-


and you guys wonder why employers are moving overseas?   ha ha ha ha. 

[whork25]

Yeah employers is moving overseas because of this

[Soul Crusher]

Yeah employers is moving overseas because of this

Yes they are!  Its everything, between the EPA, DOL, state DOL, Workers Comp boards, county DOL, etc etc etc.   

Why even bother anymore?    Even Steve Jobs has said he cant do production in the USA since the costs are so prohibitive. 

 

[whork25]

Yes they are!  Its everything, between the EPA, DOL, state DOL, Workers Comp boards, county DOL, etc etc etc.   

Why even bother anymore?    Even Steve Jobs has said he cant do production in the USA since the costs are so prohibitive. 

 

And yet they have billions in profit each year...

[Soul Crusher]

And yet they have billions in profit each year...

No shit!   

Businesses dont exist to be a jobs program or employment agency like you left wing illiterates think.  So its better they lose money?   

[whork25]

No shit!   

Businesses dont exist to be a jobs program or employment agency like you left wing illiterates think.  So its better they lose money?   

Them making less profit but staying on American soil and not selling out and weakening the country= FUCK YEAH

But instead you support flushing this country down the drain so the riches people in the world can be even richer

[Soul Crusher]

Them making less profit but staying on American soil and not selling out and weakening the country= FUCK YEAH

But instead you support flushing this country down the drain so the riches people in the world can be even richer

  


You are so fucking clueless its not funny.   Seriously - how old are you and have you EVER taken even an econ 101 class? 

[Soul Crusher]

NLRB Attack on Right-to-Work States is Bad Politics and Worse Economics
www.Townhall.com

May 10, 2011 | Fred Wszolek

________________________ ________________________ _____________________



Defying efforts by both small and large businesses to create jobs and protect workers, whether union or non-union, President Obama’s labor board, namely the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has undertaken an assault against non-union jobs created in right-to-work states. On two fronts in recent days, the regulatory agency has gone after right-to-work states to the benefit Big Labor bosses, who happen to the top political contributors and supporters of this White House.

The NLRB has begun to sue states whose citizens voted to protect themselves from coercion and intimidation by adding secret ballot guarantees to their state constitutions, as well as attempting to deny a major corporation from operating a facility in a right-to-work state, which would create thousands of new jobs.

Why is the board attacking right-to-work states in a down economy? Perhaps it is due to the overwhelming and unmistakable connection between this administration and Big Labor bosses whose political spending has propelled not just President Obama to his position, but consequently, their allies into appointed positions of influence within government, starting with agencies such as the NLRB.

And it’s not as if union bosses are shying away from bragging about their access and influence. Just a few weeks ago, the president of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) Richard Trumka said, “I’m at the White House a couple times a week – two or three times a week … I have conversations every day with someone in the White House or in the administration. Every day. And that includes weekends, by the way.”

What are they talking about?

They are discussing ways to pursue job-killing strategies that reward labor bosses, but hurt job creators.

What the NLRB and their union boss friends cannot escape is the overwhelming proof that states with right-to-work laws are more financially and educationally accomplished than states where unionization is forced.

It’s no wonder South Dakota and Arizona, two right-to-work states, let the voters speak for themselves guaranteeing a secret ballot election in union organizing elections. By ensuring a secret ballot in this manner, workers are better able to vote their conscience and not be unfairly swayed, or even bullied, by union organizers who desperately seek new members to increase dues. By putting this notion into state law, they sent a message to Big Labor – we do not want forced unionization.

At its core, that’s what right to work is about. Right to work protects a worker’s freedom of association. It prohibits agreements between labor unions and employers making membership or payment of union dues or fees a condition of employment.

And if that wasn’t enough evidence of the Obama Administration’s gross favoritism and advocacy on the part of union bosses, the NLRB’s ludicrous actions in its complaint against Boeing regarding its new facility in South Carolina should suffice.

South Carolina – like many other states – is struggling through a difficult economy and is clearly concerned with bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. advancing policies that increase unemployment and hurt businesses. And the NLRB’s attack against Boeing for deciding to build a new facility in a right-to-work state is just that, government run amok and carrying water for special interests whose agenda takes precedence over the livelihoods of everyday Americans.

But to understand the reason for the animus both Big Labor and the Obama Administration have toward right-to-work states, one only has to look at the facts.

Unemployment is lower in right-to-work states and home ownership is higher. Right-to-work states produce more highly-educated workers than forced unionization states, and it comes as no surprise that the overwhelming majority of young professionals – 94.3% to be exact, choose to live in right-to-work states.

Additionally, in states without forced unionization, employers are more capable of providing health insurance to their employees – something forced unionization states have struggled to do. In the decade between 1999-2009, the number of people covered by any form of private health insurance decreased by 5.7% in forced-unionization states, but in right-to-work states, that number actually increased one percent. The freedom provided by right-to-work states affects the stability of its businesses; therefore, it secures the stability of benefits for workers.

And the list goes on and on. By any and just about every measurable indicator, it is more beneficial to live and work in a right-to-work state, which today is under threat by Big Labor and by extension, the Obama Administration and its administrative agents at the NLRB.

Thankfully, numerous Members of Congress have stepped up to speak on behalf of their constituents by signing a letter to President Obama demanding that the blatant advocates of Big Labor’s agenda in government namely NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon and Board Member Craig Becker be withdrawn from consideration as nominees to the regulatory agency. As Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina stated, “America will not win the future if Washington penalizes workers in states that have discovered winning economic strategies.”

[whork25]

 


You are so fucking clueless its not funny.   Seriously - how old are you and have you EVER taken even an econ 101 class? 

30 and no

Why?

[Soul Crusher]

30 and no

Why?

Case closed.   Businesses go based on projections of the future costs, etc.  They dont say "Ok, we project we will make x dollars next year, so lets make sure we spend x dollars so that we are doing our patriotic duty"    Thats pure madness and psycho shit.     

[whork25]

Case closed.   Businesses go based on projections of the future costs, etc.  They dont say "Ok, we project we will make x dollars next year, so lets make sure we spend x dollars so that we are doing our patriotic duty"    Thats pure madness and psycho shit.     

Well from this point of wiev selling nuclear arms secrets to the Russians during the cold war for profit would be cool though right?

Im exagerating here but both are done for profit and simultanously hurts the country

And i understand they do it for profit and all but if they hurt this country for own personal gain well then FUCK you to them

[Soul Crusher]

Obama Ready to Roll Out New Amnesty Carpet for Illegals
www.sunshinestatenews.co m ^ | May 9, 2011 3:00 PM | Kenric Ward




Amnesty or bust. Though not using those words, that's expected to be the message President Barack Obama will deliver in the border town of El Paso, Texas, on Tuesday.

Obama, according to unofficial reports, will argue that his administration has tightened America's borders and stepped up deportations, and that it is time for Congress to enact a "path to citizenship" for at least some of the estimated 11 million illegal aliens in this country.

Wary congressional Republicans and even a few Democrats say that "path to citizenship" means "amnesty," and they're not willing to go down that road again. Previous amnesty programs, which effectively rewarded lawbreakers, simply enticed more illegals to enter the country.

Obama, eager to make good on campaign promises from 2008 and bolster his Hispanic base for 2012, says the time is ripe for immigration reform. The administration reports that it deported a record 392,000 immigrants, and has put more "boots on the ground" along America's southern border.

Workplace raids have stepped up, too, and more businesses are using the federal E-Verify program to screen new hires.

As for the illegals who remain, reformers argue that it is unrealistic to expect the government to deport some 11 million people.

But the experience in Arizona suggests that self-deportation occurs when and where immigration laws are toughened.

Weeks before Arizona's strict law went into effect, large numbers of Hispanics left the state for good.

Schools in Hispanic areas reported unusually big drops in enrollment, USA Today reported. A district superintendent said parents told him the Arizona law was the reason for them leaving.

Arizona's immigration-control measure, signed into law by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, requires a police officer to determine a person's immigration status if they are stopped, detained or arrested and there is "reasonable suspicion" they are in the country illegally.

Paul Senseman, a spokesman for Brewer, said it's difficult to gauge how many people are leaving because of the law, but "If that means that fewer people are breaking the law, that is absolutely an accomplishment."

A court challenge by the U.S. Justice Department has since put the law into legal limbo. The administration's action indicates that Obama will not be calling for tougher national enforcement on Tuesday.

Still, Washington and Arizona appear to have found common ground with at least one effective immigration tool -- E-Verify.

When Arizona passed a 2007 law that enhanced penalties on businesses that hired undocumented workers, some 100,000 illegals left the state, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

E-Verify -- which combines Social Security and driver's license databases -- enables employers to check new employees' eligibility to work legally in this country. The federal program is free and the latest studies show it has a high accuracy rate.

Upgraded to handle up to 60 million requests at a time, E-Verify has an accuracy rate exceeding 95 percent, according to independent and government studies.

In addition to Arizona, several states and thousands of businesses have adopted E-Verify. Florida Gov. Rick Scott ordered its use by agencies under his control, but the state Legislature killed bills that would have extended it to the private sector.

Immigration-control advocates say that shutting off employment to illegals will inevitably result in self-deportation. If there is no work, there is no reason to stay, they contend.

The Center for Immigration Studies, a pro-enforcement think tank based in Washington, D.C., adds that tighter control of welfare benefits can also have a salutary effect.

Census Bureau data show that 57 percent of immigrant-headed households (legal and illegal) use at least one welfare program (versus 39 percent for native households). Illegal residents can obtain benefits because few agencies require recipients to provide proof of citizenship.

In the meantime, in advance of Obama's speech, the rhetoric is ramping up for immigration "reform" by any means necessary.

Speaking at a South Bend, Ind., church Sunday, U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez quoted Obama from 2008, talking about the need to change an immigration system where communities are "terrorized" by immigration raids and where "nursing mothers are torn from their babies."

Worried that the GOP-controlled House will oppose anything that smacks of amnesty, the Illinois Democrat said he's looking for the president to use "discretionary powers" to enact the changes.

In an indication of where he is heading Tuesday, Obama recently conducted a series of private meetings with business executives, evangelical leaders and Hispanic activists -- the same groups that repeatedly blurred the distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants in helping to defeat Florida's modest E-Verify legislation.

[Soul Crusher]

GOP Sen. Rand Paul questions whether White House has 'enemies list'
The Hill ^ | 5/10/11 | Kevin Bogardus





Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) asked Tuesday if the White House had an "enemies list" in light of the National Labor Relations Board's complaint against Boeing for moving some of its operations to South Carolina.

The complaint stems from Boeing's decision to move some of its production line for the Dreamliner jet to the right-to-work state to avoid the work stoppages that have hampered the company in the state of Washington. The labor board contends that the move is retaliation against unionized workers, while Boeing says it is a business decision designed to keep production running smoothly.

Speaking at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce with several other GOP lawmakers and business lobbyists, Paul implied that President Obama was playing politics, since the complaint could see Boeing move jobs out of South Carolina.

"I have a question for the president. Mr. President, do you have an enemies list? Is this decision based on the fact that South Carolina appears to be a Republican state, has two Republican senators? Is this decision based on the fact that South Carolina is a right-to-work state? Are they on your enemies list?" Paul said.

The freshman senator also mentioned a draft executive order under consideration by the White House that would have government contractors disclose their political contributions.

"Will you now punish contractors who have given money to Republican candidates?" Paul asked.

Paul rattled off several other states, including Kentucky, Alabama and Texas, that he said could fall under the administration's cross-hairs for voting Republican in the last election.

"Are we going to use the whole power and bully nature of government to say that business cannot be located in a state that might happen to vote Republican?" Paul said. "I find this appalling and I respectfully ask the president to immediately rescind this assault on business."

[Soul Crusher]

Obama mocks Republican position on immigration
Associated Press ^ | 5-10-11 | DARLENE SUPERVILLE and ERICA WERNER



Delving anew into an explosive issue, President Barack Obama stood near the border with Mexico on Tuesday and declared it more secure than ever, trying to build pressure on Republicans to take on a comprehensive immigration overhaul—and eagerly working to show vital Hispanic voters that he is not the one standing in the way. Countering Republican calls to focus on border security before moving to a comprehensive overhaul, Obama said their demands have been more than met by his administration but "they'll never be satisfied."

He boasted of increasing border patrol agents, nearing completion of a border fence, and screening more cargo.

"We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement," Obama said. "But even though we've answered these concerns, I gotta say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time."

"Maybe they'll need a moat," Obama said mockingly to laughter from the crowd. "Maybe they'll want alligators in the moat."

Trying to build public support for legislation congressional Republicans don't want to pass, Obama said: "The question is whether those in Congress who previously walked away in the name of enforcement are now ready to come back to the table and finish the work we've started."


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



________________________ ________________________ _____________

Maybe this communist sleeper cell terrorist potus needs to talk to the family of the ATF Agent killed by his owen policies sending AK's and AR's over the border.


What a freaking disgraceful asshole.   

Fuck you whoever still supports this freak of nature.     

[Soul Crusher]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Poor Distraught Fishermen Are Attempting Suicide After One Year of Obama Job-Killing Regulations
GatewayPundit ^ | 5/10/11 | Jim Hoft
Posted on May 10, 2011 9:53:09 PM EDT by SanFranDan

East Coast fishermen say the new Obama job-killing regulations are killing the industry. Poor distraught fishermen are attempting suicide.

WMUR reported:

Fishermen on New Hampshire’s Seacoast are warning that new fishing regulations could destroy their industry and have already caused them severe emotional stress.

The U.S. Department of Commerce has sent a team to Seabrook to look at the effects of the new regulations.

“If they don’t do something to modify the fishing regulations, we won’t have a fishing industry on the Seacoast, is what it boils down to,” said Hampton Town Manager Fred Welch.

Many in the fishing industry said they want the federal team to do more than its stated task of creating an economic development assessment report. The team is spending three days in Seabrook and visiting five other New England fishing towns…

…“One of the fishermen from Rye had said that there had been three suicide attempts and a half dozen divorces during this first year of catch-shares,” said Bob Campbell of the Yankee Fisherman’s Cooperative. “Commercial fishermen are usually pretty tight-lipped, and for something this serious to come out, I mean, you know that the whole situation is grave.”

Campbell said the cooperative has lost about $750,000 in business since the new regulations went into effect.

“We’re off 1.1 million pounds of fish from last year, and over a million and a half pounds from the year before,” he said.

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: 0bamahatesfishermen; Click to Add Keyword

[whork25]

Well from this point of wiev selling nuclear arms secrets to the Russians during the cold war for profit would be cool though right?

Im exagerating here but both are done for profit and simultanously hurts the country

And i understand they do it for profit and all but if they hurt this country for own personal gain well then FUCK you to them

BUMP

[Soul Crusher]

Obama Admin Defends Dropping Doctors’ Conscience Protections
Life News ^ | 5/11/11 | Steven Ertelt




In a letter to several pro-life groups complaining about President Barack Obama’s decision to drop some of the conscience protections for medical professionals, the administration is defending the decision.

Several pro-life groups sent a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius warning her of the alarming effects on patients that will follow the Obama administration’s recent move to strip the medical community of key conscience protections on abortion.

As LifeNews.com reported in February, the Obama administration overturned some of the conscience protections the Bush administration put in place to protect pro-life medical workers who don’t want to be involved in certain medical procedures. The administration rescinded part of the protections by removing protections for medical workers who have moral or religious objections to dispensing or giving to women the Plan B drug or other emergency contraception that could act in some cases as an abortion drug.


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

[Soul Crusher]

May 11, 5:14 PM EDT
Obama plan for health care quality dealt a setback
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Associated Press
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_CARE_SETBACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-05-11-16-10-25

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's main idea for getting quality health care at less cost was in jeopardy Wednesday after key medical providers called his administration's initial blueprint so complex it's unworkable.

Just over a month ago, top officials released long-awaited draft regulations for "accountable care organizations," networks of doctors and hospitals that would collaborate to keep Medicare patients healthier and share in the savings with taxpayers. Obama's health care overhaul law envisioned quickly setting up hundreds of such networks around the county to lead a bottom-up reform of America's bloated health care system.

But in an unusual rebuke, an umbrella group representing premier organizations such as the Mayo Clinic wrote the administration Wednesday saying that more than 90 percent of its members would not participate, because the rules as written are so onerous it would be nearly impossible for them to succeed.

"It's not just a simple tweak, it's a significant change that needs to be made," said Donald Fisher, president of the American Medical Group Association, which represents nearly 400 large medical groups around the country providing care for roughly 1 in 3 Americans. Its members, including the Cleveland Clinic, Intermountain Healthcare in Utah, and Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania, had been seen as the vanguard for accountable care.

The medical groups say they are worried they will be left holding the bag for losses, that the government has designed things so there is no easy way to tell which patients are part of the program, and that there's no reliable way to adjust for patients who are sicker and require closer follow-up and more expensive treatments.

The deadline for public comments on the proposed regulations is still weeks away, but Fisher said "we needed to get their attention early on, so (the administration) could be thinking about how major changes are needed to make these regulations viable."

Medicare spokesman Brian Cook said the agency is doing extensive outreach to explain and take feedback on the regulations and hat "we will carefully consider this input."

"We are confident that providers' decisions on whether to participate in the program will be made on the basis of the final rule, which will reflect the feedback we receive," added Cook.

Many in the health care industry were silent partners backing Obama's overhaul law, but disappointment over the accountable care rules has put a chill into the relationship. During the congressional debate, Obama extolled Mayo and Geisinger, holding them up as a model of what he wanted to achieve for the nation. Industry criticism of his administration's proposal has been building up for weeks in online forums.

"This has all the hallmarks of a party that nobody comes to, unless there is a serious rethinking," said former Medicare administrator Gail Wilensky, who ran the agency under President George H.W. Bush.

Wilensky said the idea of coordinating care isn't the problem, but "it sounds like (the administration) really overshot the mark."

The regulations are "overly prescriptive, operationally burdensome, and the incentives are too difficult to achieve to make this voluntary program attractive," the medical group association said in its letter. One of the major problems seems to be that medical groups have little experience in managing insurance risk, and the administration blueprint rapidly exposes them to potential financial losses.

Without major changes, "we fear that very few providers will enroll ... and that (Medicare) and the provider community will miss the best opportunity to inject value and accountability into the delivery system."

Private insurers are also experimenting with versions of the accountable care idea, but successful adoption by Medicare is seen as the key to spreading it across the country. The Obama administration had estimated as much as $960 million in savings from the first three years of the program, and bigger amounts thereafter.

Fisher, the medical association head, said he does not think the administration will easily back off its approach, because on paper it saves the government money.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
 

[Soul Crusher]

Obama: There Is "Nothing More Important" Than A Government Job (video)
RealClearPolitics ^ | May 12, 2011 | RealClearPolitics

________________________ ________________________ _____________________



President Obama responds to a woman who was laid off from her government job: "Let me just first of all say that workers like you, for the federal, state, and local governments, are so important for our vital services. And it frustrates me sometimes when people talk about 'government jobs' as if somehow those are worth less than private sector jobs. I think there is nothing more important than working on behalf of the American people."

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