Author Topic: Obama: Corruption, Deception, Dishonesty, Deceit and Promises Broken  (Read 221768 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
May 13, 2011 12:00 A.M.

The Persecution of Boeing
The NLRB’s claims are laughable on their face.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/267134/persecution-boeing-rich-lowry




H. L. Mencken defined puritanism as the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy. The National Labor Relations Board is haunted by the fear that a company somewhere might be creating jobs with a nonunionized work force.

Boeing has run afoul of that fear by investing more than $1 billion in a new plant in the right-to-work state of South Carolina. With only the flimsiest legal justification, the board wants to force Boeing to reverse course and locate the facility with its current operations in Washington State, where its workers are unionized.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ADVERTISEMENT



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

The NLRB’s claims are laughable on their face, although Boeing — trying to run a business in a highly competitive global market — can be forgiven for missing the joke. The board accuses Boeing of “interfering with, restraining, and coercing” its union employees in the exercise of their rights by making a thoroughly understandable business decision.

This is putting not a thumb, but a fist on the scale in favor of the unions. A writer at the liberal The New Republic says it “may be the most radical thing the Obama administration has done.” It’s an attempt to keep companies with the misfortune of operating in union-heavy states in perpetual thrall to organized labor.

The CEO of Boeing stands accused of saying the company could ill afford the “strikes happening every three to four years in Puget Sound.” In a memo, paraphrased in the NLRB complaint, Boeing management said it wanted “to reduce vulnerability to delivery disruptions caused by work stoppages.” What’s notable about these statements is that they are so obvious, they should go without saying.

As the NLRB itself notes, Boeing suffered strikes with some regularity, in 1977, 1989, 1995, 2005, and 2008. These job actions weren’t good for business, or the unions wouldn’t have undertaken them: Their express purpose is to inflict pain on the company. The logic of the NLRB’s position is that businesses shouldn’t notice strikes, and if they do, they should learn to like them and never factor their potential cost into investment decisions. At bottom, the executives of Boeing are guilty of a thought crime.

There are rules against “runaway shops” (i.e., picking up and moving a plant to evade a union) and against retaliating against workers for striking or organizing. Boeing’s decision to expand its business in South Carolina is manifestly none of those things. It is leaving its Washington State facility intact. In fact, Boeing has expanded it, adding 2,000 jobs. When the Charleston facility is brought online, Boeing will build ten of its 787 Dreamliners a month — seven of them still in Washington State.

If every company were abusing its workers by continuing to employ them and adding to their ranks, the unemployment rate wouldn’t be 9 percent. The NLRB can’t point to any Boeing worker in Washington who has been harmed — let alone restrained or coerced — by the company’s decision to hire additional workers in South Carolina.

If the drift of jobs to right-to-work states in the South and elsewhere is a violation of the law, the union-dominated dinosaur of Michigan is the victim of the greatest mass breach of the National Labor Relations Act of all time. Perhaps the NLRB needs to give Nissan a stern talking-to; the company has done union workers everywhere the disservice of locating its American manufacturing plants in Tennessee and Mississippi.

The desperation of Pres. Barack Obama’s NLRB is understandable. It is fighting a losing battle against the inexorable erosion of the supports of the semi-guild system of 20th-century unionization. In its overreach, though, it is creating yet another disincentive for business to locate in union-heavy blue states. What company wants to risk having to fight a union and the federal government for years in court just to defend a common-sense business decision?

Clearly, Boeing made a grave mistake in its labor relations. It should have located its production in South Carolina from the beginning.

— Rich Lowry is editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail, comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2011 by King Features Syndicate.
 

Log In to Post a Comment

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.


 



HHS approves 200 more new healthcare reform waivers
By Julian Pecquet    - 05/13/11 04:52 PM ET
The Obama administration approved 204 new waivers to Democrats' healthcare reform law over the past month, bringing the total to 1,372.

The waivers are temporary and only apply to one provision of the law, which requires health plans to offer at least $750,000 worth of annual medical benefits before leaving patients to fend for themselves. Still, Republicans have assailed the waivers as a sign of both favoritism and of major problems with the law.

"The fact that over 1,000 waivers have been granted is a tacit admission that the healthcare law is fundamentally flawed," Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said in March. Upton is one of three House committee chairmen who has used new oversight powers to investigate the annual limit waivers. 
Administration officials say the law allows the Health and Human Services Department to grant the waivers to avoid disrupting the insurance market before the law overhauls the insurance system in 2014. They say the waivers are granted through a transparent process.


Www.thehill.com



Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Nursing Homes Seek Exemptions From Health Law
Rick Scibelli Jr. for The New York Times
Joanna D. Knox says her New Mexico nursing home cannot pay more for employee coverage.
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: May 15, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/16/us/16nursing.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all
   


WASHINGTON — It is an oddity of American health care: Many nursing homes and home care agencies do not provide health insurance to their workers, or they pay wages so low that employees cannot afford the coverage that is offered.

Vanessa Valerio, a nursing assistant, says she cannot afford the $25 monthly payment toward insurance at Ms. Knox's facility.

The numbers are stark. Among workers who provide hands-on care to nursing home residents, one in four has no health insurance. Among those who provide care to people living at home, one in three is uninsured.

The new health care law is supposed to fix the problem by guaranteeing access to affordable coverage for all. But many nursing homes and home care agencies, alarmed at the cost of providing health insurance to hundreds of thousands of health care workers, have started a lobbying effort seeking some kind of exemption or special treatment.

Mark Parkinson, president of the American Health Care Association, the largest trade group for nursing homes, says the problem is that reimbursement rates for Medicaid and Medicare, set by government agencies, do not pay them enough to offer their employees medical coverage. “We do not have much ability to increase prices because we are so dependent on Medicaid and Medicare” for revenue, he said.

Mr. Parkinson acknowledged that when nursing homes do offer health insurance to employees, the benefits are often limited. The coverage “is probably not up to what will be required” by the federal law, he said.

Medicaid covers about two-thirds of nursing home residents. States set Medicaid rates, and many states, facing severe budget problems, have reduced payments for nursing homes.

Starting in 2014, the law will require employers with 50 or more full-time employees to offer affordable coverage or risk paying a penalty. For a midsize nursing home, that penalty could easily exceed $200,000 a year. Nursing home executives are urging Congress and the Obama administration to spare them from the penalties.

Vanessa Valerio, 25, a certified nursing assistant who earns $10 an hour at Lakeview Christian Home in Carlsbad, N.M., said she was uninsured because she could not afford the coverage offered by her employer.

The chief executive of the Lakeview nursing home, Joanna D. Knox, said the company used to pay the entire premium for employees. It now requires workers to pay $25 of the $585 monthly premium for individual coverage.

“When we started charging $25 a month,” Ms. Knox said, “many employees dropped coverage.” Of the home’s 200 employees, only 87 have elected it, she said, adding, “I don’t know how we could possibly absorb the additional cost of providing coverage for the other employees.”

Charlene A. Harrington, a professor at the School of Nursing at the University of California, San Francisco, said it would be a mistake for Congress or the administration to relieve nursing homes of the obligation to provide coverage to employees.

“It’s scandalous to have nursing home employees taking care of people when they themselves lack coverage and go without care,” Ms. Harrington said. “If employees have health insurance, they are more likely to be treated for illnesses, less likely to pass on infections to nursing home residents and more likely to get early treatment for occupational injuries.”

The rate of injuries in nursing homes is about twice the rate for all occupations, according to the Labor Department. Back injuries are common among those who lift patients and help them get in and out of bed.

Since the law was signed 14 months ago, the focus of lobbying has shifted. A tumultuous battle over the future of the health care system has given way to more concentrated efforts to undo or rewrite particular provisions.

Mr. Parkinson, a former Democratic governor of Kansas who is now the top Washington lobbyist for nursing homes, is pushing several ideas.

One option would give nursing homes more time to comply with the requirement to offer coverage. Another proposal, according to a list of options prepared by lobbyists for the industry, would waive or reduce the penalties for nursing homes “placed in financial distress as a result of the new mandates and fines.” Alternatively, Mr. Parkinson said, Congress could allow nursing homes to take tax deductions for the penalties, which under the 2010 law are nondeductible.

Home care agencies, which are even less likely than nursing homes to offer coverage to employees, are also seeking an exemption or financial assistance, contending that they would otherwise have to increase charges to their clients, older Americans and people with disabilities.

William A. Dombi, vice president of the National Association for Home Care, said the new law would impose “huge costs” on some of his members, who provide medical and social services to people living at home. In its legislative agenda for 2011, the association recommends that Congress “exempt home care providers from the employer responsibilities” or require Medicaid and Medicare to help defray the costs.

Debbie D. Gantz, administrator of the Sunset Estates nursing home in Purcell, Okla., south of Oklahoma City, said Sunset Estates did not offer health insurance to its employees.

“If I could afford to pay for it, I would,” Ms. Gantz said. “We are a small home. We are not part of a chain. We could not provide health insurance to our employees and still be able to pay all our bills and make the payroll.”

The Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute, a nonprofit group that studies the industry, says that 26 percent of front-line workers in nursing homes and 37 percent of those employed by home care agencies are uninsured.

Under the new law, coverage is deemed unaffordable if an employee’s share of the premium exceeds 9.5 percent of his or her household income. That could often be the case for nursing assistants, who provide the bulk of direct care in nursing homes, for wages that typically range from $10 to $12 an hour. In such cases, employers would be subject to penalties.

Supporters of the law say several provisions will help low-wage workers who are uninsured or have bare-bones coverage. The law will expand Medicaid to cover people under 65 with income less than 133 percent of the federal poverty level, and it will offer subsidies to make insurance more affordable to those with incomes from 133 percent to 400 percent of the poverty level ($24,645 to $74,120 a year for a family of three).

“This assistance could significantly increase coverage among direct-care workers because 80 percent of them have income less than 400 percent of the poverty level,” said Dorie K. Seavey, director of policy research at the Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute.


________________________ ________________________ --

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Nearly 20 percent of new Obamacare waivers are gourmet restaurants, nightclubs, fancy hotels
The Daily Caller ^ | 5/16/11 | Matthew Boyle




Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.


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

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Updated: Tue., May. 17, 2011, 12:23 AM 
Obama's debt-limit truth-twisting
By STEPHEN B. MEISTER


________________________ _____________________


The battle over raising the federal debt limit is pretty confusing to most Americans -- and it doesn't help matters that the Obama administration is twisting the facts in a bid to get the public on its side against congressional budget-cutters.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, in particular, is playing the "dire warning" game. Back in April, he wrote Congress: "If the debt limit is not increased by May 16," Treasury will have to take "extraordinary measures . . . to temporarily postpone the date the United States would other wise default on its obligations."

Well, here we are on May 17, with no sign that the sky has fallen. As his deadline approached last week, Geithner issued a new doomsday alert for Aug. 2, and took the rhetoric up a notch: "Default . . . would have a catastrophic economic impact . . . [including] sharply higher interest rates . . . declining home values and . . . [and an even worse] financial crisis." At risk are "military salaries, Social Security and Medicare payments, interest on debt, unemployment benefits and tax refunds . . . "

But he also hedged: Catastrophe would only result from a default in US "legal obligations" and affected payments wouldn't necessarily be stopped, they might just be "limited or delayed."

The real issue is that Team Obama wants Congress to raise the limit on how much the federal government can borrow -- now set at $14.29 trillion -- without any strings. House Republicans and some senators in both parties want to pair any such increase with substantial spending cuts.

Here's a rundown of the myths and facts:

Myth: America will "default" if the debt ceiling isn't raised.

Truth: Treasury can still roll over debt as its bills and bonds come due -- and easily cover the interest out of its monthly receipts. It simply can't engage in new borrowing because that would raise the total amount of debt beyond the statutory limit.

Myth: The government will "shut down" if the debt ceiling is not raised.

Truth: The feds simply won't be able to spend in excess of what they take in. So they'll have to prioritize outlays -- a gov ernment cutback, not shutdown. They can delay paying some bills, or even furlough some nonessential federal employees.

The latter seems only fair -- as you may recall, US public-sector payrolls swelled by 500,000 during the Great Recession, even as the private sector suffered nearly 8 million in job losses.

(As time marches on, it's true the feds wouldn't be able to fully spend the agreed upon budget, but all that means is that the feds -- like the taxpayers -- would have to live within their means, at least for a while.)

Myth: Aug. 2 is a hard date.

Truth: The "extraordinary measures" Geithner can take, including not issuing more IOUs to Social Security and Medicare and state and local governments, will push the date out even further -- and that's just when Treasury needs to start its belt tightening. Indeed, Treasury has taken such measures time and again in past battles over raising the debt limit.

Myth: Not raising the debt ceiling will send shock waves through the debt markets, bringing a downgrading of Uncle Sam's credit rating and sending federal borrowing costs through the roof.

Truth: The debt markets fear the debt (and debt limit) going up, not the reverse. When credit rater Standard and Poor's recently lowered its "outlook" on US debt from "stable" to "negative," it did so based on its prediction that "in two years" US debt, now 99 percent of GDP, would hit 105 percent of GDP. Investors fear a lack of major spending cuts not a failure to raise the debt limit.

Myth: The United States will "default" on its "commitments to seniors" if the debt ceiling isn't raised.

Truth: Social Security checks and Medicare reimbursements will still go out unless the Obama administration decides to withhold them. Yes, both programs are headed for bankruptcy, so benefits must come down eventually -- but that's a dif ferent fight. No one's pushing major reform of either program as part of the debt-limit battle.

Myth: It would be grossly irresponsible to "close the gap" without raising taxes "on millionaires and billionaires."

Truth: According to the IRS, all income for people earning (as joint filers) more than $200,000 comes to less than $1.9 trillion. The Bush tax cuts run 4.6 percent at the highest bracket. That amounts to $87 billion for all joint returns over $200,000 -- barely a 20th of the Obama-era deficit levels. Even if the feds took every penny of that income, it wouldn't cover the gap.

Geithner's right; we're headed for financial Armageddon. He just got three things wrong: the cause, the cure and the timing. The US fiscal supernova will come in a couple of years from too much debt, so spending what we take in and no more -- starting now -- would be pretty good medicine. That's precisely what not raising the debt ceiling would ensure.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/obama_debt_limit_truth_twisting_QgMC6YT1SDi6yIf1TrHtaP#ixzz1Mc8rEc7K


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/may/17/gm-sponsors-and-celebrates-soon-be-released-chi-co

PICKET: GM sponsors and celebrates soon to be released Chi-Com propaganda film
Kerry Picket
Published on May 17, 2011

(Photo credit: China AutoWeb)

In late 2010, General Motors agreed to sponsor a propaganda film celebrating the 90th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP made film titled (translated to English) “The Birth of a Party” or “The Great Achievement of Founding the Party" is set to premiere all over the Communist nation on June 15 reported China AutoWeb last September. The auto website adds:

"According to an announcement posted on Shanghai GM’s official web site yesterday, whose title reads "joining hands with China Film Group, Cadillac whole-heartedly supports the making of the Birth of a Party..."

The report goes further:

"As the CCP marries totalitarianism with capitalism and fools the people with entertainment, only the "politically correct" or stupid–or those who pretend to be so–can get rich. And GM seems to know this very well. While Audi, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Volvo have all rushed to please China’s rich and powerful through physical enlargement (offering models of extended wheelbases), Cadillac gratifies the party orally, singing praises through a film."

According to the above report, the film will discuss events that led up to the formation of the CCP following the 1917 Russian Revolution. When the movie first went into production GM signed up Cadillac as the “chief business partner” with the Communist Party, stating: “Cadillac whole-heartedly supports the making of the Birth of a Party.”

In fact, an AP article in early May points out, "Chinese TV regulators have reportedly ordered local broadcasters to stay away from spy and crime thrillers as part of a propaganda buildup for the ruling Communist Party's 90th anniversary July 1." Stars of the film are reportedly chauffeured around China in the Cadillac SLS in an effort to promote the movie all over the Communist led country. 

The United States government currently own 33% of the GM company following the auto-bailouts of 2009, and GM CEO Daniel Akerson describes China, as the "key to [GM's] success." (h/t The Detroit Bureau)

Presently, GM's business in China is selling more autos in the Asian country than in the United States. The Washington Post noted last week that China was GM's solution to help the car-maker recover from bankruptcy, so the company "is only expected to widen as an increasing number of Chinese grow rich enough to purchase their first car.”

Along with concern over China's ownership of trillions of dollars of U.S. debt, it is truly troubling that an American company financially supported now by the U.S. taxpayer is happily promoting Communist propaganda that glosses over the atrocities of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. What's next for GM? Selling military vehicles for the Chinese to threaten their own people with?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama to offer debt relief to Egypt in Mideast speech (while putting US further in debt)
reuters ^ | 5/18/2011 | By Jeff Mason
Posted on May 18, 2011 9:44:17 PM EDT by tobyhill

President Barack Obama will unveil an economic aid program for Egypt and Tunisia on Thursday as part of a broad effort to support democratic reform in the Middle East and North Africa, U.S. officials said.

Senior advisers to Obama, previewing parts of his speech, said Wednesday the United States would offer debt relief totaling roughly $1 billion "over a few years" to Egypt through a debt swap mechanism that would invest the money to boost youth employment and support entrepreneurs.

Washington would also loan or guarantee loans up to a total of $1 billion through the Overseas Private Investment Corp (OPIC) for Egypt to finance infrastructure development and boost jobs, the officials told reporters on a conference call.

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

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
ICE Halts Deportation At ACLU’s Request
Judicial Watch ^ | May 19, 2011


________________________ ______________________-



In the latest collusion between the Obama Administration and the leftwing American Civil Liberties Union, Homeland Security officials have suspended the scheduled deportation of an illegal immigrant at the ACLU’s request.

The move is part of a bigger plan to perhaps eliminate the federal program (Secure Communities) that identified the illegal alien in the first place. The influential open borders movement—which includes the ACLU—has aggressively pressured the administration to nix Secure Communities, which requires local authorities to check the fingerprints of arrestees against a federal database. The idea is to deport dangerous criminals, many of whom have fallen through the cracks over the years.

But immigrant rights advocates insist the program is racist, has led to the removal of hard-working immigrants who contribute to society and has tragically separated families. They want the Obama Administration to get rid of it and that could very well happen as the president panders for votes in 2012. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General announced this week that it’s planning an investigation of Secure Communities.


The probe will determine the extent to which the program is used to identify and remove dangerous criminal aliens from the United States, according to a news report of the inspector general’s plans. The IG will also examine cost and the accuracy of the data collection and determine if Secure Communities is being applied “equitably across communities.”


Those who dare to read between the lines can probably see where this is going. The illegal immigrant whose deportation was abruptly halted by the government headlined an ACLU-sponsored press conference decrying Secure Communities. She was arrested earlier this year in Los Angeles after a domestic violence dispute and was identified as an illegal alien when the county jail forwarded her fingerprints to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).


At the ACLU’s behest ICE conducted a “comprehensive review” of the illegal immigrant’s case and determined to “terminate the removal proceedings against her,” according to an agency statement published in a local newspaper. Immigration advocates used the case as an opportunity to chastise Secure Communities as a “destructive program” that endangers public safety because immigrants won’t cooperate with police out of fear of being deported.


Interestingly, the elected sheriff who operates jails in Los Angeles and patrols a huge chunk of the sprawling county insists that Secure Communities works. In a piece published this week by the state’s largest newspaper, L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca writes that many serious criminals have been deported. Prior to implementing Secure Communities a “growing number of criminal illegal immigrants who were taken into custody” were eventually released back into the community, according to Baca who has been sheriff since 1998.


In the piece Baca offers several examples of violent illegal aliens who were removed from the U.S. thanks to Secure Communities. Among them is a felon who lived in the area despite three drug-trafficking convictions and six deportations and another who had been previously removed after getting convicted for killing a child in the late 1990s.


Back to the unscrupulous collaboration between the Obama Administration and the ACLU; earlier this year Judicial Watch uncovered documents from the Department of Justice that show the agency worked hand-in-hand with the ACLU in mounting their respective legal challenges to Arizona’s immigration control law.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Obama Adviser GE Shipping Jobs and Profits Overseas
http://nation.foxnews.com/general-electric/2011/05/23/obama-advisor-ge-shipping-jobs-and-profits-overseas ^
Posted on May 23, 2011 6:11:32 PM EDT by kcvl

Seven publicly traded U.S. corporations represented on President Barack Obama's advisory council for jobs and competitiveness -- including General Electric Co. (GE) and Intel Corp. (INTC) -- have devoted a growing pool of their non-U.S. earnings to investments in other countries.

As a group, multinational companies with current or former chief executive officers on Obama's jobs council have, over the past four years, almost doubled the cumulative amounts they've reinvested overseas, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

By doing so, companies may be able to take advantage of faster-growing markets or lower production costs, and they can defer U.S. income taxes on profits from overseas sales. Underscoring the difference between corporate interests and the national interest, they're also investing money elsewhere that could be helping the U.S. economy, said former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich.

"That's a signal that they are betting less on America," Reich said. "We've got to understand there's a fundamental difference between the competitiveness of these companies and the competitiveness of America and American workers."

(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama skirts rule of law to reward pals, punish foes
Share Print By: Michael Barone 05/24/11 8:05 PM
Senior Political Analyst Follow Him @MichaelBarone



 
If Obamacare is so great, why do so many people want to get out from under it?-J. Scott Applewhite/AP FileQuestion: What do the following have in common? Eckert Cold Storage Co., Kerly Homes of Yuma, Classic Party Rentals, West Coast Turf Inc., Ellenbecker Investment Group Inc., Only in San Francisco, Hotel Nikko, International Pacific Halibut Commission, City of Puyallup, Local 485 Health and Welfare Fund, Chicago Plastering Institute Health & Welfare Fund, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, Teamsters Local 522 Fund Welfare Fund Roofers Division, StayWell Saipan Basic Plan, CIGNA, Caribbean Workers' Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Health and Welfare Plan.


Answer: They are all among the 1,372 businesses, state and local governments, labor unions and insurers, covering 3,095,593 individuals or families, that have been granted a waiver from Obamacare by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

All of which raises another question: If Obamacare is so great, why do so many people want to get out from under it?

More specifically, why are more than half of those 3,095,593 in plans run by labor unions, which were among Obamacare's biggest political supporters? Union members are only 12 percent of all employees but have gotten 50.3 percent of Obamacare waivers.

Just in April, Sebelius granted 38 waivers to restaurants, nightclubs, spas and hotels in former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco congressional district. Pelosi's office said she had nothing to do with it.

On its website HHS pledges that the waiver process will be transparent. But it doesn't list those whose requests for waivers have been denied.

It does say that requests are "reviewed on a case by case basis by Department officials who look at a series of factors including" -- and then lists two factors. And it refers you to another website that says that "several factors . . . may be considered" -- and then lists six factors.

What other factors may be considered? Political contributions or connections? (Unions contributed $400 million to Democrats in the 2008 campaign cycle.) The websites don't say.

In his new book "The Origins of Political Order," Francis Fukuyama identifies the chief building blocks of liberal democracy as a strong central state, a society strong enough to hold the state accountable and -- equally crucial -- the rule of law.

One basic principle of the rule of law is that laws apply to everybody. If the sign says "No Parking," you're not supposed to park there even if you're a pal of the alderman.

Another principle of the rule of law is that government can't make up new rules to help its cronies and hurt its adversaries except through due process, such as getting a legislature to pass a new law.

The Obamacare waiver process appears to violate that first rule. Two other recent Obama administration actions appear to violate the second.

One example is the National Labor Relations Board general counsel's action to prevent Boeing from building a $2 billion assembly plant for the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina, which has a right-to-work law barring compulsory union membership. The NLRB says Boeing has to assemble the planes in non-right-to-work Washington state.

"I don't agree," says William Gould IV, NLRB chairman during the Clinton years. "The Boeing case is unprecedented."

The other example is the Internal Revenue Service's attempt to levy a gift tax on donors to certain 501(c)(4) organizations that just happen to have spent money to elect Republicans.

A gift tax is normally assessed on transfers to children and other heirs that are designed to avoid estate taxes. It has been applied to political donations "rarely, if ever," according to New York Times reporter Stephanie Strom.

"The timing of the agency's moves, as the 2012 election cycle gets under way," continues Strom, "is prompting some tax law and campaign finance experts to question whether the IRS could be sending a signal in an effort to curtail big donations."

In a Univision radio interview during the 2010 election cycle, Barack Obama urged Latinos not "to sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're going to punish our enemies and we're going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.' "

Punishing enemies and rewarding friends -- politics Chicago style -- seems to be the unifying principle that helps explain the Obamacare waivers, the NLRB action against Boeing and the IRS' gift-tax assault on 501(c)(4) donors.

They look like examples of crony capitalism, bailout favoritism and gangster government.

One thing they don't look like is the rule of law.

Michael Barone, The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Issa Report: Obama Deliberately Driving Up Fuel Prices (Energy agenda Manipulates gas price)
Fox ^ | May 25,2011 | Amanda Carey




Rep. Darrell Issa of California, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, has found another target in the Obama administration’s policy agenda: energy. Late Monday, Issa released a scathing report accusing the White House of being complicit in driving up oil prices to push a move to alternative energy sources.


Among other things, the report — “Rising Energy Costs: An Intentional Result of Government Action” — accused the administration of restricting access to domestic energy sources, hindering “fracking” technology and hampering the economic recovery by proposing new taxes on the energy industry.


The report also says the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) coordinated with environmental groups to target energy producers with environmental concerns.

read full report at: http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/24/new-issa-report-goes-after-obama-administrations-energy-agenda




(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Issa Report: Obama Deliberately Driving Up Fuel Prices (Energy agenda Manipulates gas price)
Fox ^ | May 25,2011 | Amanda Carey




Rep. Darrell Issa of California, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, has found another target in the Obama administration’s policy agenda: energy. Late Monday, Issa released a scathing report accusing the White House of being complicit in driving up oil prices to push a move to alternative energy sources.


Among other things, the report — “Rising Energy Costs: An Intentional Result of Government Action” — accused the administration of restricting access to domestic energy sources, hindering “fracking” technology and hampering the economic recovery by proposing new taxes on the energy industry.


The report also says the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) coordinated with environmental groups to target energy producers with environmental concerns.

read full report at: http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/24/new-issa-report-goes-after-obama-administrations-energy-agenda




(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...


is gas not down from a month ago?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Audit Report: Obama Administration Handed Out $24 Billion in Stimulus Money to Tax Cheats
CNSNews ^


Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2011

Audit Report: Obama Administration Handed Out $24 Billion in Stimulus Money to Tax Cheats Wednesday, May 25, 2011
By Fred Lucas





(CNSNews.com) - Lawmakers from both parties are calling for a fix to prevent tax cheating companies from getting federal contracts in light of a government investigation that found $24 billion in stimulus act funds went to companies owing $757 million in unpaid taxes.

“Average Americans are likely wondering why we gave such a huge amount of federal money to tax cheats when our national debt is more than $14 trillion,” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said in a statement. “That $24 billion went to such people looks like we are rewarding people for potentially criminal behavior.”

The report by the Government Accountability Office on money from the $800 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act going to tax delinquent firms did not name any specific companies, but it gave general examples of firms with delinquent taxes receiving tax dollars.

One example was a construction company that owed $700,000 in back taxes getting $1 million in stimulus contracts. In another example, a security firm with $9 million in unpaid taxes got $100,000 in stimulus funds. A technical services company got $100,000 in stimulus funds despite owing $4 million in taxes, was also found to own $4 million in real estate and earned hundreds of thousands of dollars in adjusted gross income in a recent tax return.


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


________________________ ________________________ ______________-


Hey obamadouches - want to talk about those supposed oil breaks oil companies get?

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
is gas not down from a month ago?

so is that a no?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
so is that a no?

Oil is back over $100 a barrell.  and gas is still more than double since your messiah came in to office.   

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Oil is back over $100 a barrell.  and gas is still more than double since your messiah came in to office.   

and its obamas fault is what youre saying..

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
No. He couldn't affect them if he wanted to.

Blaming the president for rising gas prices is nothing new, and it’s a bipartisan tactic. In 2004, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) blamed President George W. Bush for higher gas prices and for continuing to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as oil prices climbed.

Just one problem: Even if domestic supplies were developed, American presidents couldn’t really control oil prices. The U.S. government has estimated that there are 18 billion barrels of oil in the outer continental shelf of the lower 48 states that are off limits to development. That may sound like a lot, but it is only about 2 1/ 2 years of supply for the United States, and it would take several years to allocate leases and drill exploratory wells. Even if the estimated 10 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were available for development, today’s policy decisions would have no impact on gasoline supplies for as much as a decade. Obama can’t dictate what you’ll pay for premium tomorrow.

And the war on Libya is also not causing the increase. We import less than 50,000 barrels per day from Libya — a tiny fraction of the 9.2 million barrels per day the United States imported in 2010. Worldwide, the story is no different: Of the 86 million barrels consumed globally each day, less than 2 percent come from Moammar Gaddafi’s regime.
Source(s):
Five myths about gas prices:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/f

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Oil is back over $100 a barrell.  and gas is still more than double since your messiah came in to office.   

you're saying gas was $2 a gallon in January 2009?

I don't remember that

I do remember $4.50 a gallon (higher than it is now) in the summer of 2008 when Bush was POTUS

I guess that was also somehow Obama's fault

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
is gas not down from a month ago?

5-10 cents per gallon in Cali.  Down, but not much  >:(

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
5-10 cents per gallon in Cali.  Down, but not much  >:(

Im in Cali. It was 4.29 . now its 3.97


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
4 17 here.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
4 17 here.

and what was it when Obama took office in January 2009?

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
4 17 here.
[/quote

and please tell me that was obamas fault

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
4 17 here.
[/quote

and please tell me that was obamas fault

most   

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
most   

lmao...most....

225 for 70 has a pretty good thread going