GOP deceptive tweet reminds us that they are the stupid party

Speaker Boehner's tweet

Today, House Speaker John Boehner found a new opportunity to demonize the Affordable Care Act and mislead his constituents.  His tweets proclaim that "Obama administration says 11 million will pay higher premium costs for their health care under ObamaCare."

Boehner's tweet derives its conclusion from a GOP  requested study from the Office of the Actuary, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which was released last Friday, the 21st of February.

The first thing that I should mention is that the population of people considered by the study is individuals who receive their health insurance through their small business employer and not through the ACA state health insurance exchanges.  So this is not about ObamaCare causing people financial harm even though Boehner interpreted it that way.

When the Affordable Care Act was created, it added requirements known as sections 2701, 2702 and 2703 to the Public Health Services Act.  These sections are intended to end discrimination by insurers on the patient population.

Section 2701 is titled "Fair Health Insurance Premium" and changes a practice called "community rating" where insurance companies used to be able to discriminate by charging higher prices for women of child bearing age; those having more health claims; or the elderly.  Now premium prices can only vary between individuals because of individual versus family enrollment; geographic area; age (but the ratio of higher premiums for the elderly is reduced from 5:1 down to 3:1); and tobacco use.

Section 2702 requires insurers to accept all applicants and is designed to prevent insurance company discrimination due to pre-existing conditions.

Section 2703 requires that group and individual health insurance must be renewable.

So, Boehner's tweet is actually attacking that part of the ACA that protects consumers from discrimination, probably because he didn't read it or perhaps because he didn't understand it.  The obvious fact is that he just read the lines in the study that supported his unreasonable view that "ObamaCare is bad" and tweeted.  This is unfortunate because there are important aspects of the study that place their own conclusions into serious doubt.  Some of this is self revealed, such as the admission that there are other studies that have found insignificant change in premiums.  Also, some parts of the study text indicate that the results are highly suspect and subject to large variations.

The study also found that the employer sponsored health insurance premium price changes would only affect small employers (100 employees or less) and the premium changes would only come from section 2701 requirements.  This is because they speculate that smaller and younger companies have younger employees who have been able to take advantage of the greater old to young ratio in premium prices allowed before ObamaCare and section 2701 requirements.  This would make those employers (only if they provide insurance for their employees) more likely to have increased premium prices after January 1, 2014.  The study also only speculates that any increase in the employers insurance costs would be passed on to their employees.

Additionally, these new requirements are only effective for employer health policies that are not grandfathered.  Grandfathered policies are any that existed on or before March 23, 2010.  So only new small businesses who provide employer sponsored health insurance and were created after March 23, 2010 should have been considered in the study.

However, the study indicates that 17 million individuals would be in this population.  This can be shown to be inaccurate by using the Business Dynamics Statistics data from the census.gov website.  One can see there that the maximum number of employees in new small businesses, using the largest employee population cited in a range for the category of small business created through all of 2010 and 2011 is about 2.3 million each year.  This calculates to 4.6 million employees.  Estimating a 20% increase year over year through 2013 adds another 6.2 million employees for a total population of 10.8 million.  This is a very high estimate since it would mean that nearly all of the increase in employment in the USA since 2010 has been from small business.   Prior government estimates of jobs created by small business is closer to 45% of the total.   A more reasonable population would be 5 million affected.  Still not a small number, but much smaller than the estimate of 17 million cited in the study.  (Even less than GOP led states have refused to provide expanded medicaid for.)

The study also speculates that about 35% of the population would receive reductions from their pre-ACA insurance premium costs.  The other 65% would receive increases that would put their 2014 premiums at about the average cost for health insurance prior to the ACA.

Additionally, the number affected is further trimmed down by the number of individuals who purchase health insurance from the ACA exchanges in their state.  The benefit is that many who earn less than 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal tax reductions.  Hopefully, many of those people will take advantage of that and stop listening to misleading GOP rhetoric instructing them to avoid buying from the insurance exchanges.

Further the study stipulates that small businesses who currently provide health insurance may find it more advantageous for themselves and their employees to discontinue providing insurance and telling their employees to get their health insurance from the ACA state exchanges.  Again, Republican deception has made a large portion of America uncomfortable with ObamaCare, so it is not clear that employees would readily accept this idea.

The small business employer also has the option to utilize the small business health insurance exchange established by ObamaCare.  This option would allow the employer to continue providing insurance to its employees and be exempt from the section 2701 requirements.

Another option for the small business employer would be to self insure.  This would also allow them to provide insurance to their employees and be exempt from the section 2701 requirements.

The total number of employees affected by minor premium increases is likely to be less than 3 million and even that number depends on a lot of the variables mentioned which could make the number much smaller.  My suggestion for small business employees is to get your health insurance from the state exchanges.

Ultimately, if our Republican leaders would stop spreading misinformation and start to support ObamaCare, more people would benefit.  The federal government can be a valuable partner to business and individuals despite what radical GOP-ers want you to believe.

The CBO explanation of ACA effects screams for single-payer

Congressional Budget Office

To many Republicans in Congress the CBO's recent comments on the effects of the Affordable Care Law on labor markets appear to be the proof they need to continue attacking the law.  That's because they are Republicans who welcome the opportunity to mistakenly interpret and then mislead Americans into thinking badly about the health care law. 

The CBO's explanation is not about a bad health care law forcing business to take jobs away from Americans. It is mainly about Americans who may make a personal choice to leave the labor market or change their jobs because of some amount of financial benefit the health care law subsidies may give them.  

Whether this conclusion will ever be realized is questionable since many of the CBO's premises are purely conjecture and have no means to substantiate them.  The affordable care act law has not been in effect long enough to have shown any historical data to even hint that the conclusions drawn by the CBO are accurate.  Throughout the CBO's report, which can be found on the web at http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf , the CBO itself has warned that the comments are subject to substantial uncertainty.

There are four areas where the CBO believes the ACA will have an impact on reducing labor supply, but major among them is the subsidies for health insurance purchased through the exchanges.  These subsidies are largest for individuals whose income is near the federal poverty level.  In many cases these people are working at the lowest level of low paying jobs and some may be working two or more jobs depending on their family situation, just to earn enough to pay their bills.  In such cases, a worker may find that the health insurance subsidy reduces their family expenses enough to allow them to spend more time caring for their family at home and less time trying to earn the money to feed, clothe and shelter them.

Quoting from the CBO study,

The CBO's estimate of the response of labor supply to the subsidies is based on research concerning the way changes in marginal tax rates affect labor supply and on studies analyzing how labor supply responds to changes in after-tax income.

However, the study cited does not consider a family's real expenses.  It only looks at a static response by all such families to an increase in taxes with the expected result of reducing their working hours to avoid paying higher taxes.  It is not a convincing argument of real-life and is most likely another flaw in their analysis.

The expansion of Medicaid is a second area which the CBO believes can impact certain parties in the workforce to reduce their personal working hours, since a person who is at 100-138% of the poverty level in states that have not enacted Medicaid expansion are eligible for health insurance subsidies through the exchanges.  Apparently the CBO believes that once people get subsidies they no longer want to contribute to society. 

Penalties on employers that decline to offer insurance is a third area that the CBO believes will reduce workers personal preference to work.  The CBO believes that business owners will transfer the costs of these penalties to their workers, thereby effectively reducing their wages or by removing other employee benefits.  Again, the CBO believes that the effective reduction in wages will cause some employees to reduce their working hours.  The CBO believes that although there is only currently anecdotal evidence that employers will reduce their employees working hours to side-step the health care law, it states that they may do it in the future. 

The CBO also expects that new taxes imposed on labor income will reduce the time some workers  will want to work.  Again implying that a worker's actions towards increases in taxes is to reduce his working time.  Not very realistic in my opinion. 

So, although most liberal media outlets are claiming that the CBO is only suggesting that workers themselves will make the decision to leave work early or reduce their hours, I believe the study causes more confusion than it is worth. 

It's conclusions are suspect based on it's inability to derive future events from historical facts, largely because the health care law has only just begun to have an effect on people.  It draws conclusions about worker actions in response to increases in taxes or reduction in wages without consideration for the real-life situation every person is in;  to survive at a reasonable level of comfort;  to contribute to society and feel valued.

Although business owners may take the unethical steps to circumvent the law by reducing employees wages or benefits, they can do that to others and the outcome for the business is positive insomuch as profit margin.  A worker cannot simply reduce his work without changing some other aspect of his life and a health care subsidy is simply not enough of a change to result in the kinds of actions the CBO expects.

The CBO's explanation of the behavior of workers because of a subsidy may be worthless, but one aspect of the study does have some merit.  That would be the possibility that when business is involved in providing insurance, they may transfer costs that are intended for them to their employees.  Although I don't completely agree with the CBO's estimation that some workers may leave work because of this, where it occurs, it does still have a negative impact on workers.  Because of this, an improvement in the ACA that the CBO study seems to be inadvertently advocating is to remove businesses from the equation altogether.  This would make health insurance a single payer national program where the government is responsible for providing all health insurance.

Single payer health insurance was discussed in the United States legislature before but never got more than 20% support from Congress.  It has been favorably evaluated by the CBO many times since 1993.  Since it would be a government program, it's cost would need to be offset by new tax revenue, such as would be obtained from eliminating tax loopholes for the wealthy and minimizing government subsidies for big corporations.

Republicans would never allow their constituents to pay their fair share of taxes, so we are pretty much assured that single payer would never be a program while they control the House, which is another good reason to vote them out of office.

GOP austerity program for the unemployed

In 1995 I lost my managerial level job after loyally working for the same company for twenty-one years.  At the time, the unemployment rate was about 5.6%.  It took me eleven months to find a new job that paid about twenty percent less.  I was lucky because I did not need unemployment assistance to survive during that time.  My former employer maintained our then current pay rate during our termination for a time derived from the number of years we were employed.  Many of us were long time employees and like myself found work before our termination salaries ran out.

Today, the unemployment rate is closer to 8% and unemployed people looking for new jobs have a number of new  obstacles in their way.  Most current-day companies would never continue to pay a person after they are terminated.  Many manufacturing and technical jobs have been moved to China or India and other American jobs are being given daily to lower paid foreigners working in America.  Federal Republicans are calling for more American jobs to be given to foreigners as they legislate for large increases in the number of H1-B visas offered annually.  The job market is diminished since 1995, competition for jobs is greater and now unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed, who have been out of work for twenty-seven or more weeks is ended.

President Obama has called for Congress to extend long term unemployed benefits as a priority when they return from holiday break and Senator Reid has indicated he will put it on the Senate docket as a priority, but federal Republicans appear to be characteristically nonchalant about unemployment.

Contrary to the number one Republican concern spoken about by John Boehner of "jobs, jobs, jobs", federal Republicans are  insisting that extending unemployment benefits be either tied to big Democrat social program cuts or, as Eric Cantor has indicated, just won't be an issue of concern when the GOP House returns in January.

With Cantor's voting record against extending unemployment benefits in the past, it seems likely that the House will not even bring the Senate bill up for a vote.

It was laughable to hear the absurd explanation by the Republican's most promising future nominee for President, Rand Paul, that he was against extending unemployment benefits because "it does a disservice to these workers."  Paul believes that receiving unemployment insurance benefits makes a person less likely to look for a job and therefore perpetuates the time he or she is unemployed.  How likely is this to be true?

The unemployment insurance program does not provide unemployed workers with a full paycheck. The weekly amount varies by the state's insurance program rules but one estimate is about 25 percent of the weekly take-home pay.  How can a family who has a life-style that is adjusted to a home budget based on full wages be comfortable to continue to exist on 25% of that amount?  They can't.  Paul's explanation is a ruse.

With about 1.4 million unemployed about to lose financial assistance, Rand Paul explains that he would rather find a way to create jobs first, which is why the idiom "putting the cart before the horse" was invented.  Republican logic simply defies logic.

Analysts have estimated that it would cost about twenty-six billion dollars to extend unemployment insurance benefits.  Ironically, it cost about that same amount when Republicans forced the shut-down of the government last year.  If nothing else, that should make you angry.

If you are Republican and middle class or have ever lost a job due to no fault of your own, these Republican actions once again show that they are not worried about you and are not empathetic to you. They can't imagine what it is like to be living from paycheck to paycheck and what a negative impact a lay-off can have on your life.  They do not care that your children cannot eat well.  They do not even think about the family problems that develop during this stressful time.

Some GOP politicians can't think things through to their logical conclusion and can only learn from the hardships of bad personal experience.  I suggest we give them a chance to learn by personal experience and vote Democrat in all future elections.

The real reason Republican leadership hates ObamaCare

The Affordable Care Act (which is now law) provides health insurance to nearly 30 million Americans who did not previously have it.  It requires health insurance companies to treat Americans fairly.  It mandates a set of health insurance standards to ensure that Americans understand the kind of coverage they are getting.  It eliminates "junk" insurance that does not truly provide helpful coverage.  It provides Americans with a known set of insurance coverages which they have the freedom to choose from.

The law provides subsidies to those families and individuals who could not otherwise afford sensible coverage.  It prevents insurance companies from denying insurance for individuals with pre-existing conditions.  It prevents insurance companies from dropping individuals when their illness becomes too costly to the insurance company.  It provides women with free preventive care for such things as PAP smears.  It allows children to remain on their parent's insurance policy until they are 26 years old.  It eliminates lifetime caps and ensures Americans can remain insured during catastrophic illnesses.  It provides for rebates to insured Americans if their insurance company charges more than 20% of their premium price for management and administrative costs.

The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the Affordable Care Law will return money to

the economy.  They found that repealing the law would increase the deficit by 108 billion over 10 years.  It has been estimated that the increase in the number of patients will add a windfall of profits to doctors, hospitals and medical device manufacturers.  That profit is estimated to be so high, that most medical device manufacturers have agreed to pay the government back over 80 billion dollars in ten years.  The rise in the patient population is said to be good for jobs.

Where expanded medicaid is implemented in the states, it will cover the very poor and improve state economies not only by preventing costly emergency room visits by the uninsured, but also by providing states with 100% of the cost involved in implementing it in the first three years and 90% of the cost in all future years.

The well being and pursuit of happiness of Americans that is guaranteed by our constitution will improve for millions and millions of Americans because of the law.  So what is the real reason that Republican leadership hates it?

We have heard Republican complaints that people will lose their jobs, businesses will  reduce full time employees and death panels led by the Obama administration will decide who lives and dies because of the law.  Is any of it true or is it just more Republican fear mongering?  You can rest assured that none of it is true and it is just more Republican fear mongering.

Fox news has assisted in this fear mongering by inviting a few guests who have misrepresented their situations so as to appear affected by the law, but when investigated by outside impartial observers, have been found to be mistaken.  Fox news' Sean Hannity has had several staged shows where his invited "audience" of Fox news reporters make stuff up to continue the lie that ObamaCare is the worst thing ever.

We know that Republicans hate ObamaCare.  They have proven it over 40 times when they have wasted taxpayer money to try to repeal it unsuccessfully.  Ted Cruz, that Canadian born Tea Party Senator, has even given a performance in a "filibuster of nothingness" to show his determination that ObamaCare is bad.  He's made millions by conning the American public to support his efforts with contributions in television ads.

So lets get down to it.  The real reason Republican leaders hate ObamaCare has a lot to do with Republican leadership's commitment to a decision they made as a group while President Obama was being inaugurated in 2009.  They all agreed to make the President ineffective in any way they could.  During his first term, Mitch McConnell publicly announced that their most important goal was to make Obama a one term President.

Failing that, they continued to support their goal that this President's legacy will show that he accomplished nothing during his terms in office.  Republicans in Congress have used their power of filibuster, obstruction and majority rule in the House to prevent passage of everything proposed by the Democrats and the President.  The 112th and 113th Congresses, both of which have had Republicans controlling the House, have been the least effective in the history of the United States, passing no substantial legislation in either session.  But that is their goal and they are accomplishing it very effectively, regardless of the impact it has on America.

They are hopeful that when time passes and the memory of their personal acts of destruction to America are forgotten, what history will record is that the first black American President could not accomplish anything.  They are counting on the fading memories of Americans who know about their actions and the ones who don't know the difference in the legislative branch and the executive branch, to wrongly see the President as ineffective.  Their hope is to never allow a black Democrat to become elected President again.  Somehow, their perverse and some would say, bigoted ideas about this appear to them to be the thing that returns public opinion and favoritism to Republican candidates for the office.

The one thing that saves President Obama from this is ObamaCare and Republicans hate that fact.  They hate that all of their efforts may be for nothing unless this ObamaCare law is erased from history.  And so it has become the most important thing that Republicans can target in order to accomplish their goal.

Americans must begin to see the truth about ObamaCare.  They must see the lies coming from the Republican party.  Any party that is willing to take such devious actions and sacrifice Americans to carry out their partisan goals does not deserve to be in office.

Your vote is the key to returning decency to government.  I urge you to vote Democrat in all elections.  

GOP says government could open if only Dems would cave on medicare, social security, ObamaCare and social safety net

Eric Cantor

Congressional GOP leaders announced today that the government could re-open provided Democrats were willing to discuss fiscal issues important to the GOP.  Essentially, they have proposed a new fiscal super committee composed of Republicans and Democrats to discuss government funding on condition of cuts to social security funding, medicare funding and Obamacare funding.  Wait, didn't the original super-committee fail after months of such discussions?  Plain and simply this is just more fooling around  that we don't have time for.  We are headed for a financial crisis.  Why don't Republicans get it?

They are so generous!  Imagine, they are willing to discuss cutting or reducing funding not only for Obamacare, but now also social security, medicare and other social safety net programs before they
will consider opening the government.  Of course, their pre-requisite is that tax loopholes, tax subsidies and any new taxes are off the table.  What a plan!  Are you seeing the pattern here?  Republicans are the hostage takers.  All they need to do is pass a clean continuing resolution but they won't allow a vote on it.  They have to use this as a mechanism to pass their party's legislation.  Legislation which was rejected when we ended Mitt Romney's political career.

Republicans are hopeful that their simple-minded followers as well as other gullible voters might see this as a real genuine offer to get the government funded and avoid a debt ceiling crisis. Can they be so arrogant?   If any Democrats go for this idea our government is finished.  Remember, we don't negotiate with terrorists!  One outcome of this fiasco should be for the ethics committees in Washington to change their rules so that doing harm to America is not allowed as a negotiation tactic.

The GOP should do the right thing and pass a continuing resolution that funds the government now and immediately after, approve the debt ceiling increase.  Then there would be time to sit down and talk about fiscal issues.   However, if Republicans insist that revenue is off the table, there will be no discussions.

When did extortion become synonymous with negotiation?

In an earlier post, called "A Republican to English Dictionary" I tried to unmask the language that our Republicans leaders use in conversation so that America could know that their words are hiding ulterior motives for their actions.  You can see that blog here.

After listening to John Boehner speaking with George Stephanopoulos this morning, it has become apparent that Republicans think they are negotiating when they are actually using extortion.

Boehner insisted that the government shutdown and any damage done by defaulting on our debts would be the President's and Harry Reid's fault because they "refuse to talk."

John Boehner

Boehner explained that Republicans were united in making the decision to use the continuing resolution to force a discussion around cutting the social safety net, social security, medicare and Obamacare.  This is even more than was originally planned, since only Obamacare was used in the Republicans' original threats.  When asked if Republicans would negotiate on new revenue he emphatically refused, saying that the President already got his new revenue and there would be no new taxes.

Mr. Stephanopoulos reiterated the advice of economic experts about how economically destructive defaulting on our loans would be.  He asked Boehner if he was willing to let this happen.  Boehner used his often repeated comment during the interview, that "it would be the President's fault" if we did.  It was clear that even if the President gave in to the Republicans extortion of America and sat down to talk with them, he would have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Is this politics as usual or is something running amuck here?

If someone threatens you with global economic disaster unless you meet their demands, most people would think you are a terrorist.  Republicans think it is just everyday negotiating.  The Republican mind is a curious thing.

In the 2012 Presidential elections, Republicans campaigned on reversing all Obama-era legislation, changing medicare, revamping social security, cutting the social safety net, giving government welfare to the rich, reducing legislation on business and repealing Obamacare on the first day Romney took office.  And then they lost the election.  The majority of Americans do not support those policies but that does not stop Boehner from stating publicly that current Republican threats are just "doing what America wants", proving Republicans are stupid as well as stubborn.

In America there is a way to change laws.  It follows democratic principles; not the terrorist handbook.  Republicans have failed when using the democratic method to defund Obamacare over 40 times.  So now they seem content with using tactics that threaten the economic health of America.

Americans know that our government does not negotiate with terrorists.  Why should we stop when the terrorists are Republicans?

Reid to GOP: Give up and become reasonable...(that'll never work.)

Senator Harry Reid (D)

Democrat Senate majority leader Harry Reid sent a letter to John Boehner today asking for a reasonable end to the government closing forced by the unreasonable demands of Republicans.  You can see the entire letter here.

To paraphrase, Senator Reid explains that the actions to close the government are an undeserved consequence of Republican actions which should never have been attempted.

Senator Reid wants Mr. Boehner to become reasonable and pass the Senate version of the clean continuing resolution after which Senator Reid promises to name nominees to a budget conference which he says can start as soon as the government re-opens.

In a nutshell, Harry Reid is asking Republicans to give up their master accomplishment, shutting down the government, in order to behave as reasonable people and compromise on government funding after they wake the government "monster" back up.

There are a number of reasons why Harry Reid's request will not be successful.   However, he doesn't see it because he is a reasonable person who simply doesn't appear to understand the nature of the Republican mind.

First, the radical wing of the Republican party is instigating the government shutdown because they are

anarchists whose purpose is to eliminate government.  They are actually happy that the government is shut-down.  Because they have the ear of some simple-minded citizens and because they have tremendous amounts of cash coming in from like-minded anarchists, they control the Republican party right now.

Their plan all along has been to get the government into this precarious situation.  The first step was to obstruct all Obama era legislation.  The accomplishments of the 112th and 113th Congress since Republicans have been in control of the House are devoid of any substantial legislation.  They are the two worst in the history of the United States.

Next they planned to starve government by allowing the sequester to happen. This was a Republican tactic from the beginning.  John Boehner reminded us of how favorably Republicans see the sequester when he commented that their plan for the continuing resolution keeps the "savings brought about by the sequester."

They saw their next obstacle to government shutdown in Obamacare.  They realized that implementing this program might squash or set their agenda back.  Even their own constituents, as simple-minded as some of them are, might realize that affordable healthcare is something that they want and need from government.  So in their minds this program must be destroyed.

And that brings us to where we are today.  Republicans happy with the damage they have done to America so far, won't be completely satisfied until Obamacare is gone and they will do everything from spreading lies and rumors to creating legislation in Republican controlled states to block it,  blame it, and make it look responsible for their devious behavior.

Congressman Ryan (R)

House Speaker John Boehner (R)

Not only will Boehner not accept Harry Reid's offer, Republicans will allow the government shut down to persist until the next Republican manufactured crisis; the debt ceiling.

It was Paul Ryan who enthusiastically lectured Republicans on live TV just as the government was shutting-down, that the next hostage to use to get their way was the debt ceiling.

So expect the shut down to last at least until then and be prepared for economic melt-down if Republicans hold the debt ceiling hostage.  Economists have compared the damage done by a government shut down to the damage done by defaulting on our debts as the difference between a hand grenade and global nuclear war.

But maybe that is what Republicans want.

Ayn Rand would be proud of her Republican minions

Ayn Rand

Republicans in the House of Representatives have shown America yet again how they worship the teachings of Ayn Rand.  On Thursday this week, they introduced a bill to cut $40 billion from the food stamp program.

Although Ayn Rand is dead, her philosophies and narrow understanding of life are promoted today by organizations that target the youth of America.

Taking lessons from the Nazi party, the Ayn Rand Institute and Objective Academic Center, both mass media organizations that spread Ayn Rand's ideas, attempt to plant the seed of societal discontent into the malleable minds of children.  Their intention is to create an army of brain-washed individuals who will give credence to Ayn Rand's teachings and may one day influence American society to accept and conform to Ayn Rand's teachings.

We saw an example of how effective this method is when Congressman Paul Ryan, who himself was introduced to Ayn Rand's philosophy as a child, mentioned her teachings as the guidance he used to

Paul Ryan's Budget

create the Ryan budget.  The Ryan budget strips funding for social welfare programs and instead funds  corporate welfare.  This is in line with Ayn Rand's teachings of survival of the fittest, where the rich deserve entitlements while the poor must be punished for their poverty.  

Republicans had the opportunity to introduce this food stamp bill because they separated it from the Farm Bill, which has historically been paired with the food stamp program.  The farm part of the farm bill was passed and offered $80 billion in government subsidies and insurance protections to wealthy farmers.  The food stamp program was separated from the farm bill because Republicans were not satisfied with the $4 billion in food stamp cuts the Democrats offered.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) assists people in poverty temporarily by providing food stamps which are used for groceries.  Thursday's vote, which had no Democrat supporters, would strip $40 billion over ten years from the food stamp program.  It is estimated that this would cut up to 3.8 million people from the program.    About 75% of SNAP benefits are received by families with  children.  Sixteen percent of recipients are disabled.  Nine percent of recipients are the elderly.  It is estimated that only about 67% of the people eligible for food stamps actually participate in the program, so it is possible that even more food stamps might be needed if some families were placed into a little more financial stress.  This is not the time to be reducing SNAP benefits.

Republicans only publicly admitted reason they needed this huge cut was to eliminate fraud from the

Eric Cantor

program.  The "welfare queen" concept invented by an exaggeration of Ronald Reagan over 30 years ago is still a large part of the Republican mind set.  Eric Cantor explained in typical "out-of-touch" Republican style, that no one would be denied food stamps if they got a job.  This really missed the point.  Not only is there already a work requirement to the food stamp program which most families receiving aid are already compliant with, but the largest number of food stamp recipients are children, the handicapped and the elderly.  And this doesn't even consider that there is only 1 job for every three job seekers in today's economy.

It has been estimated that there may be about $750 million or 1% of operating costs in food stamp fraud each year.  So why would Republicans want to cut $4 billion a year out of the program?   Because the poor do not vote Republican.  Why would Republicans continue to give wealthy corporate farmers government assistance when they take it away from the really needy?  My guess is because Ayn Rand taught them that people are only as valuable and deserving as they are rich.

It is remarkable how closely Republican actions mimic the teaching of Ayn Rand.  From hating government to hating the poor, it appears that the Hitler youth of the Ayn Rand generation have grown up and infiltrated American government.  Ayn Rand's socially unjust philosophies hide beneath the idea of capitalism.  She is advocating anti-Christian and hateful actions by giving permission and excuses for them if you believe in capitalism.

While there is nothing wrong with capitalism as an economic policy, there is certainly something wrong when you partner it with hate, lack of compassion, unjust rewards and unjust punishments.  That is what is wrong with Ayn Rand's teachings and appears to also be what is wrong with Republicanism today.

It is unlikely that this SNAP bill will be approved by the Senate since Democrats are in the majority there, but once again it gives evidence of the true nature of Republicans in Congress.   Hopefully you are beginning to see the sense of voting these demons out of office.

How Republicans will give Obama carte-blanche in his last two years as President

United we stand.  Divided we fall.

The absurdity that is running amuck in Congress is destined to stop soon.  This is not just wishful thinking.  I say this with  complete confidence.   Republicans in Congress will take the lead in ending their own misery with two last desperate actions to win favor with their wealthy constituents while betraying the rest of us, and this will signal the end.

Within the Republican party, members of the Tea Party caucus are deliberately choosing to end our government.  They have shown that they do not have a desire to compromise, do not want to create useful legislation and are even willing to cause an economic crisis if they don't get their way.  They have split their own party.  Tea Party leaders such as Canadian born Ted Cruz and his Cuban born father are leading simple-minded Tea Party members astray.

Ted Cruz

They claim that the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) is the single most injurious program in the history of the world and must be stopped.  They blame the actions of unethical business owners, such as reducing full time employee hiring and cutting hours to avoid having to provide insurance to their employees, on Obama.  They asked for concessions to allow one more year for business owners to conform to healthcare regulations and requested exemption from the business mandated penalties and got them from Obama.  Now they claim that Obama is helping big business but denies the same exemption for individuals.  Politics and truth seem to be unfamiliar partners in Republican circles.

The first desperate action that Republicans will take is to offer a much monetarily reduced continuing resolution to keep the government running but will attach an amendment to defund ObamaCare.  This will pass the House but fail in the Senate.  After this useless legislation delay, Republicans will allow the government to shut down long enough to make the debt ceiling the next issue they can use as leverage to defund Obama Care.  Typically, they take actions that will hurt many Americans with the

aloof disregard of sociopaths.  

When it becomes painfully obvious that Republicans are hurting their own constituents with the government shut down, they will eventually pass a continuing resolution to fund the government.  You can bet that it will continue to contain articles to attack some aspect of Obama Care which Democrats may allow in order to continue governing.  My guess is that they will first propose a year exemption from the individual mandate penalty that will not be approved.  Then they will attach a demand for reduced employer contributions to the employee insurance premium.  That or something like it will probably pass.

With the government back in operation, a week or so later, Republicans will use the threat of not passing the debt ceiling as another attack on defunding ObamaCare.  Most members of Congress know that increasing the debt ceiling is needed in order to pay for debt obligations already made by Congress.  The last time increasing the debt ceiling was rejected by Republicans, America's credit rating dropped and the interest rate charged increased.  Increasing the interest on trillions of dollars in loans makes for a huge increase in our deficit.  Republicans never seem to remember how much they are personally responsible for "Obama's" deficit.

This time there will be no compromise and America will go into default on its loans for some period of time.  Then it will be a race to see which side will give in first.  Because of our already tight monetary policy, the economic health of America is sure to be hurt.  Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke has described this as a recession inducing action.  

If it appears that there is no compromise in sight, stocks will be affected and Americans 401K's will

Crash of 2013?

lose tremendous value.  Retirees can expect that their incomes from investments will be slashed and their standard of living will be drastically reduced.  The wealthy will remove their cash from the stock market and place it into tax sheltered off-shore accounts.  This will pull the market down even more.  A middle-class financial crisis could become the most severe in history and will signal the end of the middle-class in America.  When the middle-class is gone, business will be affected and the entire economic structure of the United States could undergo the greatest depression in our history.

Because of the potential economic damage to America and the world, I have to believe that Republicans will give up on their insistence to defund ObamaCare and pass the increase in the debt ceiling, especially when they realize that the world will see them as the cause of a world-wide depression.

But some damage will be done to the economy because Republicans won't give up their senseless acts of desperation in short order.  Because this will hurt their own wealthy Wall Street constituents, the Tea Party Republicans will be stifled and healthier Republican minds will prevail.

The future may bring civility back to governing.

Remember the next month when you are voting for your Congressmen in the 2014 mid-term elections.  Let's hope righteousness is a powerful enough ideal and pervasive enough in our voting public to overcome the evil that seems to have invaded Republican politics.

Your vote is the key.

What John Boehner did on his summer vacation

John Boehner

In a last ditch effort to scare the American public into thinking that Obamacare is the evil that will kill America as we know it, Speaker of the House, John Boehner has been very busy tweeting disparaging remarks about the Affordable Care Act law while on his summer vacation.

One of his most often repeated claims is that full time jobs are disappearing as a result of Obamacare.

The Affordable Care Act, in an effort to not financially over-burden small businesses that may not be able to afford it, originally allowed a minimum employee requirement of at least 25 full time employees before a business must provide employee healthcare.  In order to compromise with Republicans, the law was later changed to require a minimum of at least 50 full time employees before insurance coverage was required.  Full time employees are defined as workers with at least 40 hours of work per week or 2080 hours of work per year.

This requirement was intended to protect businesses that may really be endangered financially if they were forced to provide insurance to their employees.   In other words, those businesses that may be forced out of business if they had to provide health insurance and could find no other way to save costs.  The Act also attempts to protect such fragile small businesses by providing tax credits of up to 50% of the non-elective contributions the employer made on behalf of its employees.

According to Boehner, businesses which do not fit the criteria are now using these allowances to side-step providing insurance for their employees.  Boehner cites one example of a business owner of 21 (yes, that's twenty-one) Subway restaurants who decided to reduce the hours of employees so that he could use the allowance to avoid having to provide health insurance.  Another report indicates that Wal-Mart is reducing full time employees and increasing part time employees (ten times more than last year) to keep costs down.  Apparently offering insurance is going to break the bank of the wealthiest family in the retail business.  Wal-Mart employs some of the lowest paid workers in the United States and in so doing are taking advantage of taxpayers who provide supplements to Wal-Mart employees wages in such programs as supplemental nutrition, medicaid, and increased medical premiums for unpaid medical bills.

It is odd that Boehner sees this as an Obamacare caused phenomenon instead of placing the blame where it belongs, on greedy and uncaring business owners.  I was struck by the statement of the wealthy subway owner who was quoted as saying "I know the impact that I am having on some of my employees."  The article left out the remaining thought that was obviously knocking around inside the owner's head but didn't come out...the one that goes something like "but I don't care."

Now there are plenty of studies that indicate the majority of employers are not side-stepping Obamacare  by taking what most would say are unethical steps to avoid it, so this rant that Boehner is taking may just be another Republican ruse that uses fear to deceive.  Republican leadership appears adamant to fight Obamacare by any unethical means possible, just as some unethical business owners are sure to use tactics that they have always used to avoid providing benefits for their employees.

The only fault I see with the Affordable Care Act law is the fact that there was a business allowance at all.  Short of being a single payer program, it should have required all business to provide insurance and perhaps give tax breaks based on the size of the business, with smaller businesses getting more of a tax break.  The temptation was too great for dishonest business owners to use it as a loop-hole and then flaunt their arrogance by blaming the law for their unethical behavior.

So let's call it like it is Mr Speaker.  You can't blame Obamacare for the unethical actions of your constituents.

Legal action against Congressional Republicans is overdue

They wanted to make him a one term President.  In a clandestine  meeting they conspired to block every piece of legislation that supported his policies so he would be ineffective as a President.  They lied about his intentions during the 2012 Presidential campaign.  They continually lie about the Affordable Care Act and have voted to repeal it 37 times.  They have even voted against their own legislation when it is clear that Obama supports it.

The obstruction happening in Congress is solely due to Republicans who hate Obama more than they love America.  The most frustrating thing is that not all of America is as angry at Republicans as Republicans in Congress are with President Obama.

Because this Republican obstruction is a conspiracy that is intentionally designed to be destructive to America, Republicans in Congress are guilty of the crimes of "Conspiracy to Obstruct"  and "Conspiracy to Defraud."

The following is the legal explanation of "Conspiracy to Obstruct" (18 U.S.C. 371).

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

The following is the legal explanation of "Conspiracy to Defraud" 

Section 371 contains both a general conspiracy prohibition and a specific obstruction conspiracy prohibition in the form of a conspiracy to defraud proscription. The elements of conspiracy to defraud the United States are: (1) an agreement of two more individuals; (2) to defraud the United States; and (3) an overt act by one of conspirators in furtherance of the scheme.  The "fraud covered by the statute ‘reaches any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful functions of any department of Government” by “deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.” The scheme may be designed to deprive the United States of money or property, but it need not be so; a plot calculated to frustrate the functions of a governmental entity will suffice.

Debt ceiling discussions are coming up again in the fall.  Raising the debt ceiling is necessary to allow America to pay debts that Congress has already made.  Republicans have already threatened to use the debt ceiling as leverage to get the administration to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke and other financial experts have indicated to Congress, that blocking the debt ceiling increase will lead to a serious recession.

If Republicans go ahead with this threat it will do severe damage to the United States economy with their full approval.  This is more than ordinary politics.  It is akin to a terrorist threat that means to do harm to America.

If Republicans block debt ceiling increases, Attorney General Eric Holder would be correct to bring them up on criminal charges.  Republicans in Congress have so far escaped legal action for their conspiracy against the United States, but they are no longer legitimate politicians.  If they place America into default on its debts they have entered into the realm of disobedience to law and deserve to be held accountable.  

The chances of legal action against them are slim but you can do something about them.  Write them, call them and tell others how you feel about their actions.  Doing this now may help avoid disaster.  Don't wait until it's too late and you are personally affected by their actions.

At the very least, please vote them out of office in the 2014 mid-term elections and help get government working for all the people and not against them.

Are unions really the bad guys?

Allow no compromise!

The longer I live in America the more I realize that politicians like to take sides.  It seems the culture is one where there are winners and losers but very few opponents, at least in modern day politics, who share success.

Look at Congressional Democrats and Republicans.  They have lost the ability to compromise on most everything.  It takes extreme measures to come to agreement.  Each party is at opposite sides of the political spectrum.   There are very few moderates who can empathize with the other side.  Progress in Washington has become stuck in needless competition for the most political points at the expense of America.  Anything is possible and it seems the important thing to most politicians is to propel their party to success in upcoming elections.  Deceiving the public is no exception.

Republicans stand with the wealthy.  Democrats stand with the middle class and poor.  Republicans support management.  Democrats support workers.  Republicans support a right to life.  Democrats support freedom of choice.  Republicans stand with the NRA.  Democrats want to protect families from gun violence.  Republicans want to end the National Labor Relations Board while Democrats support it as the only means left for American worker's grievances to be heard.  Democrats introduced worker union protections with the Wagner Act.  Republicans reduced worker union protections with the Taft-Hartley Act.

Senator Rand Paul

Today I received a mailing from Rand Paul asking me to petition my Senators, Congressmen, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to support the National Right to Work Act because (and I quote) "union lobbyists, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and their allies are going to use every trick in the book to bury the National Right to Work Act."

Sounds very serious.  Why would the Democrats want to prevent someone from having a right to work?

As I read further into the mailing I soon realized that the real trickster was Rand Paul.  The name of the Act is a misnomer.  The Act deceives the American public into thinking that unions make people pay to work, when its real intention is to weaken employee protections by the further erosion of union membership.  Republicans in government hate unions and since Ronald Reagan have successfully hoodwinked the American public into believing they are the bad guys causing lots of problems with the economy.  Republicans hate of unions rises from the fact that unions protect the labor force.  Labor is a cost to business owners and Republicans in Congress represent business owners.

The Wagner Act became law in 1935.  It established the National Labor Relations Board and legally established the right to organize unions.  Unions were established by Congress as an employee protection against existing unfair practices by their employers.  These practices included such things as harsh working conditions, long hours, low pay, unsafe working conditions, workplace health risks and child labor.  These things really happened and at one time Congress sought to protect American workers from it.  In fact if you don't think it can ever happen again, just look at current working conditions in  factories in China, Bangladesh and India which are used by American manufacturers.  American CEOs are still looking for the cheapest labor and least government labor regulations in order to decrease costs so executive management can profit more.  There is no concern for the safety of employees in those countries and American CEO's know it.

Then in 1946 Republicans won both the Senate and the House.   They acted quickly to reduce employee union membership and further erode the unified voice that American workers had by passing the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 over President Truman's veto.  This act banned "closed union shops" and encouraged "right to work" laws.  The act gave management new weapons while restricting union activities.

Now just based on those two historical events, the reader should understand that Republicans support the management side of the equation and Democrats support the employee.  For Rand Paul to attempt to make people believe anything else is dishonest.  Any labor act introduced by Republicans will only reduce employee benefits in order to protect wealthy business owners.

Yet Rand Paul wants workers to believe that unions are greedy self-interested groups of mobsters and union dues bankroll tax-and-spend politicians and fund a "limousine lifestyle" for union "bigwigs."  How deceitful!

Rand Paul's Act proposes amending the NLR Act (National Labor Relations Act, a.k.a. Wagner Act)  and the Railway Labor Act in several places.  All amendments would change the current law with the major intention of reducing union membership by making it possible for non-union members to be hired in a union shop.  These non-union members would not pay union dues and still work under contracts negotiated by the existing union.  Paul's Act would allow all states to decide whether they should be pro-labor union or anti-labor union.

Senator Paul uses reverse psychology to make current law sound as though it takes something away from employees since their right to represent themselves to management is not present in current law.  This is completely opposite of the purpose of the law and unions themselves.  Employees could not protect themselves from employers in the first place and that is why unions were allowed by law.  Union negotiations and union actions are made much less successful when a large number of employees in a union shop do not belong to the union.  The protections of workers is seriously reduced as a result.

Senator Paul also believes that most workers would be better off if they do not have to pay union dues.  As he puts it workers are forced to pay union dues to keep their jobs.  Apparently he believes having the few dollars more in a paycheck that union dues would represent is better than having union protections for the average worker.

So what evidence do we have that workers in anti-labor union states are better off than pro-labor union states?   How do the anti-labor union "right to work" (RTW) states fair in comparison to pro-labor union states?

Anti-labor union states

The states where Republican legislatures have passed RTW laws is shown in the map and are shaded with greenish color.

RTW anti-labor union states on average have a 3.2% lower wage than pro-labor union states.  Because wages are lower, some manufacturers are moving their operations to the RTW anti-labor union states and so the statistic sometimes quoted by RTW states is that business is increasing its presence in their states.  Do you think the move to RTW states by business is due to more protections for that state's workers?  Or could it be some other reason, like reduced labor costs?  The AFL-CIO says that wages in RTW states are about $5600/year less than pro-labor union states.

Employers that have health insurance plans is about 2.6% lower in the RTW states and amounts to about two million less workers covered by health insurance nationally.  Employer sponsored pensions are about 4.8% lower in RTW states.  If workers in pro-labor union states were to receive pensions at this lower rate, 3.8 million fewer workers nationally would have pensions.

Republicans have been working for decades to erode labor laws so that their constituents, big business executives, can increase their share of the wealth in the United States.  They are not doing it for the protection of the labor force and don't let them tell you differently.

UPDATE: As with a lot of their policies, despite their phony rhetoric about saving America, there is an ulterior motive for Republicans desire to remove Unions from America.  Unions are the greatest political lobbying groups that working class Americans have against the vast array of conservative lobbyist groups.  Unions represent working class Americans.  By removing Unions, Republicans are removing all of their competition from the political money arena.   Especially with the Citizens United decision that gave big money the ability to buy politicians, this makes a huge difference in elections and increases the chances that Republicans will get elected.  This is not a coincidence.

The real scandal isn't at the IRS

The IRS is tasked with the responsibility to review applications for tax exemption.  In what is known as the 501(c) process, organizations can apply for tax exemption by providing information which proves to the satisfaction of the IRS, that they are non-political, social welfare type organizations whose primary function is not to advance a political agenda.

The IRS has recently come under attack by Republicans in Congress who claim that the IRS over-stepped their authority when it came to reviewing tax exemption applications from Tea Party type organizations.  The outrage of Republicans is evident  in the chambers of Congress where Republicans led by Darrel Issa, chair of the special investigative committee, have sworn to get to the bottom of the connection of IRS wrong-doing with the White House and more importantly with President Obama.

Perhaps because Republicans are blinded by the rush that getting a chance to implicate the President of wrong-doing elicits, they are missing some of the important facts which could, and by all rights should, turn the tide of wrong-doing onto their constituents.

First, to even refer to an organization as a Republican group implicates them as being political.  This violates the meaning of a 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 and should not entitle them to tax exemption.  Even so, the IRS approved applications for many obviously Republican political groups such as the "Tea Party Patriots" the "American Patriots Against Government Excess", "National Tea Party Group" and "Tea Party Radio."  If you have any doubt that these organizations are primarily politically focused, all you have to do is go to their web sites to see it for yourself.

So why did the IRS approve these applications?  If they followed their own guidelines, they should have known that these organizations were primarily involved in politics.  So what did they base their  decisions on?  Despite what the right wing media and Republicans in Congress are attempting to convey, the IRS did not make their decisions based on the names representing these organizations.  They could not have, otherwise they would not have approved the applications.  They made their decisions based on the information that the organizations provided.  

It appears a safe bet that the information provided to the IRS by the applicants was insufficient to implicate the organizations as political action committees.  If this was done by the applicants to  intentionally mislead the IRS review, then it is a crime which is punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.  That is the real scandal here.  These organizations might have knowingly hidden information from the IRS in order to get unfair and undeserved tax advantages.  That sounds familiar.  Where have we seen this before?  Oh yeah, Romney was pretty good at that.

Lindsey Graham

Now in a relentless pursuit to find something bad to pin on the President, Senator Lindsey Graham (R- SC) is calling for a special prosecutor to investigate the entire IRS "scandal".  This could be the best thing that ever happened for the IRS and the worst thing for the Tea Party Patriots and their Republican leadership.

If a special prosecutor is called who is impartial, then I predict that the IRS and the President will be cleared of any wrong-doing.  Furthermore, some unhappy Tea Party organizations will be paying for their arrogance and deception when the real scandal is revealed.  Perhaps clearer Republican heads will prevail and convince Graham to drop the idea before the truth can be known.

That would be a pity.

A Republican to English dictionary

Although born and raised in the United States, my father, who passed away in his old age a few years ago, was not really good with the English language.  Sometimes he used words that he made up in conversation that sounded like words that they really weren't.  My kids were often confused by their "Papa", as they used to call him, and I would joke with them that maybe we needed to get a Papa- to-English dictionary.

Because of their support for policies which Republicans stand for, most of which go against their best interest, middle-class Republicans may be well served if they had a Republican-to-English dictionary.  Perhaps that way they could better understand that their welfare is not of concern when it comes to modern Republican politics.

Here are a few examples of statements we have heard our Republican leaders talk about.  I have given some assistance to the American voter by attempting to identify the true meaning of these words in plain English.

"Jobs, Jobs Jobs": Cheap foreign labor for America's Corporations.  

"Support for our troops": Increasing government funding of defense contractors.

"Reducing the deficit":  Protecting the 1% by taking revenue off the table, increasing military budgets to protect defense contractors and only calling for government spending reductions in programs for the poor, women, children, the elderly, students, the handicapped, military veterans and the unemployed.

"Smaller Government": 1. Eliminating government protections of it citizens in regards to regulations on business so that big business can operate with a free hand to decrease costs involved with making a safe product, protecting the environment, giving fair wages, creating a safe work environment, treating workers fairly and otherwise operating responsibly.  2. Reducing government spending by eliminating public service jobs such as teachers, police, fire-fighters and government workers and rejecting the American Jobs Act that would have improved the infrastructure of roads, bridges, schools, etc. 

"2nd Amendment rights": Returning the favor for NRA lobbyist money and preserving the market and demand for weapon manufacturers regardless of the wishes of the majority of Americans for stronger gun laws.

"Obama-Care": Originally a Republican introduced derogatory term for the Affordable Care Act which later became adopted as a catch-phrase by President Obama.  Republican intent is to put fear into American citizens and protect big insurance corporations from the effects of treating American citizens with fairer insurance rules and charging costs that would benefit the citizen.  Most of the effort of the Republicans in the 113th Congress has been in attempting to repeal Obama-Care law 37 times as of this date.

"Sequester": A Republican plan since 2010 to reduce the size of government in a way that would protect the wealthy and would otherwise never be possible by normal legislative proceedings.

"Filibuster": The cornerstone of Republican obstructionism used to prevent problem resolution, slow down progress on legislation and block President Obama's appointees and ideas that support middle-class Americans.

"Balanced Budget": A financial plan that reduces spending on useful government programs such as medicare, medicaid, the social safety net and social security which must not be balanced by any increase in revenue, especially by increased taxes on the wealthy or corporations. 

"501(c)4": Republican worked loophole in the IRS regulations that permits a political action committee to receive donations that are exempt from federal taxes and then to complain when the IRS workers request information that may prove they are political action committees.  The 501(c)4 is supposed to be for non-political social organizations.

"Stimulus package": Another name for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  An act carried out by the Democrats and President Obama that saved the country from financial collapse.  Republicans voted against the stimulus package.

"Voter ID": An attempt to reduce access to voting by members of the citizenry who would not vote Republican in elections.  This action as well as closing down voting precincts and voting hours were used by Republican state legislatures as a strategy in the 2012 elections.

Republicans have proven that they do not represent the middle-class or the poor.  If you are in one of these groups and you vote Republican, I would be interested in knowing why you would vote that way.

If you have any other definitions, please feel free to add a comment.  I'll add the best one's to my collection.