Although nothing about the law is working as advertised, open enrollment for Obamacare will kickoff tomorrow. Starting October 1, Americans will be able to sign up for private health coverage through exchanges, the majority operated all or in part by federal government bureaucrats.
The health insurance plans sold through the exchanges will take effect January 1, 2014. Americans who fail to obtain health care insurance next year will be forced to pay a tax (penalty) to the Internal Revenue Service, those lovable, cuddly folks who routinely bully taxpayers.
Experts expect major problems as the roll out begins. Software glitches have already been identified, insurance pricing quirks threaten to spook consumers, the government website designed to help Americans navigate the plans is replete with errors, according to health care industry leaders.
In recognition of the impending train wreck, the Obama Administration months ago delayed the employer mandate, which required businesses to provide workers with health insurance this year. The requirement was shoved to 2015, after the 2014 mid-term elections.
In another concession, the Obama Administration decided on its own to reduce the tax for those who opt to remain uninsured. They have to cough up $95 per adult in the household, plus $47.50 per child. That is a far cry from the $2,000 penalty the administration originally included in the law.
Despite these stumbles, President Obama continues to flog his healthcare reform, holding campaign-style, carefully staged events with hand-picked crowds. However, the president is hedging his bet, admitting there may be some hitches in the introduction.
Obama and his Democrat disciples have reason to be wary. If Americans encounter delays, errors and sticker-shock, it will hand Republicans a red-hot issue to hammer the party of donkeys during the upcoming elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate.
It is not inconceivable that a poorly executed start could spell doom for Obamacare. The roll out comes 11 days after the House of Representatives voted along party lines to de-fund Obamacare. As expected, the Senate reversed the decision, but the final outcome seems far from settled.
Against this backdrop, Americans are struggling to make sense of the new law. Polls show many do not have the foggiest notion about the enrollment process, coverage or costs. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found nearly 70 percent of the uninsured don't understand the new law.
More than 40 percent of the uninsured do not even realize they have to buy insurance, according to a recent USA Today/Pew Research poll. This people are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the law which extends health coverage to every American.
Worse for Democrats, their reliable dupes in the unions have recently broken ranks. The powerful Teamsters, AFL-CIO, United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) and others have demanded Democrats make changes in the law that negatively impact unions.
Already unpopular with a majority (54%) of Americans, a false start for Obamacare would impact the implementation of the remainder of the law. Enough pressure could force Democrats to gut major portions of the reform to save face with their uniformed, lemming-like base.
The first major hurdle for Obamacare is to enroll seven million Americans by March 31. For the system to work, nearly half of those enrollees (2.7 million) need to be healthy young adults between the ages of 18 and 35 to make it feasible for private insurers to assume the additional risks.
If the governments fails to reach that goal, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warns that insurance costs could spike. There is no gloomier scenario for President Obama, who repeatedly has assured Americans their insurance rates would fall with his health law.
Meanwhile, there has been no delay in unfurling new taxes. The majority of the taxes won't take affect until next year, including a hefty new levy on the purchase of health insurance, aimed at raising $8 billion in 2014 and mushrooming to $14.3 billion in 2018.
The more Americans experience Obamacare, the more likely the uproar will grow. As word-of-mouth spreads, many of the uninsured may simply choose to pay the tax (penalty) rather than endure the aggravation. That may lead well intentioned Americans to wonder why the law was enacted.
The president and Democrats have bet the farm on Obamacare. They may find out they are left with the barnyard stench of a failed program that will cling to them for not just one election, but for decades.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Monday, September 23, 2013
The Untold Story of Fracking
As if President Obama hasn't already done enough to stymie the American economy, the administration has unleashed its federal regulatory Rottweilers to hound the oil industry over its use of fracking to tap oil and gas reserves.
Both the U.S Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are nosing around, sniffing for ways to restrict the process that has fueled the nation's biggest energy bonanza in nearly 60 years.
Fracking has been tainted in the realm of public opinion, thanks to shoddy science, made-for-television pseudo documentaries and a movie that has been thoroughly discredited. But like the debate over global warming, emotion has trumped the facts in the war of words over fracking.
Hydraulic fracking, a process that has been around for decades, involves extracting natural gas and oil from dense deposits of shale deep underneath the earth where sea basins once existed. Highly-pressurized fluids are pumped into shale, unlocking deposits of oil and natural gas.
Before fracking and horizontal drilling, it was impossible to extract the energy using traditional methods, particularly at depths of more than a mile beneath the earth's surface. More than one million wells have been hydraulically fractured since the 1940's.
Anti-fracking activists have constructed a boogie man around allegations that harsh chemicals used in the process pollute water supplies. However, the fluids used to unlock the gas and oil are mostly water (90%) and sand (9.5%). Less than one percent of the fluids are chemicals.
The Department of Energy released a landmark study earlier this year based on 12 months of monitoring a slew of wells in Pennsylvania, where fracking was employed. The department found no traces of leakage of fracking chemicals into water supplies.
Another study measured methane levels at 489 "fracked" natural gas wells, finding "modestly low" levels of emissions, even below EPA estimates."This is good news in that it shows emissions can be controlled," said an Environmental Defense Fund executive. The fund was one of the research sponsors.
This hardly satisfied most environmentalists who are never swayed by facts unless the data supports their jaundiced viewpoint.
Yet there can be no arguing the economic benefits of fracking. A study by IHS Consulting, a global leader in data and analytics, measured the economic contribution of oil and gas production from fracking and found that more than 1.7 million new jobs have been created during the boom.
Nearly $62 billion in additional federal, state and local tax receipts were generated in a single year (2012). IHS estimates that cumulative added tax revenues from oil and gas production using fracking will top the $2.5 trillion level between 2012 and 2035.
Since 2008, the U.S. has recorded a 25 percent increase in domestic oil production, largely attributable to fracking. This represents the highest domestic growth of any country in the world. As a result, the U.S. now sends more petroleum products overseas than it imports for the first time in 60 years.
Not only has the boom helped reduce the U.S. trade deficit, but it has shored up energy security. U.S. dependence on foreign oil has fallen as the oil industry has replaced imported crude with domestic supplies from North Dakota, Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
None of this impresses the environmental extremists attached like leaches to President Obama. Their mantra is oil and gas are bad, solar and wind are good. This simplistic view of energy threatens the economic well being and security of the nation.
Some states, such as New York and California, have already erected barriers to fracking. For instance, New York, is now entering the sixth year of a fracking moratorium. Meanwhile, neighboring Pennsylvania has added an estimated 250,000 shale related jobs in recent years.
There is not likely to be a truce anytime soon in the battle over fracking. To be sure, there are legitimate concerns about safety and the environment. But the oil industry has made good faith efforts to address those, even if it has done a lousy job of public education.
Nevertheless, the debate over fracking deserves a fair public hearing unencumbered by Hollywood fables, fraudulent environmental claims, biased media coverage and a president bent on impeding growth of oil and gas exploration.
Both the U.S Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are nosing around, sniffing for ways to restrict the process that has fueled the nation's biggest energy bonanza in nearly 60 years.
Fracking has been tainted in the realm of public opinion, thanks to shoddy science, made-for-television pseudo documentaries and a movie that has been thoroughly discredited. But like the debate over global warming, emotion has trumped the facts in the war of words over fracking.
Hydraulic fracking, a process that has been around for decades, involves extracting natural gas and oil from dense deposits of shale deep underneath the earth where sea basins once existed. Highly-pressurized fluids are pumped into shale, unlocking deposits of oil and natural gas.
Before fracking and horizontal drilling, it was impossible to extract the energy using traditional methods, particularly at depths of more than a mile beneath the earth's surface. More than one million wells have been hydraulically fractured since the 1940's.
Anti-fracking activists have constructed a boogie man around allegations that harsh chemicals used in the process pollute water supplies. However, the fluids used to unlock the gas and oil are mostly water (90%) and sand (9.5%). Less than one percent of the fluids are chemicals.
The Department of Energy released a landmark study earlier this year based on 12 months of monitoring a slew of wells in Pennsylvania, where fracking was employed. The department found no traces of leakage of fracking chemicals into water supplies.
Another study measured methane levels at 489 "fracked" natural gas wells, finding "modestly low" levels of emissions, even below EPA estimates."This is good news in that it shows emissions can be controlled," said an Environmental Defense Fund executive. The fund was one of the research sponsors.
This hardly satisfied most environmentalists who are never swayed by facts unless the data supports their jaundiced viewpoint.
Yet there can be no arguing the economic benefits of fracking. A study by IHS Consulting, a global leader in data and analytics, measured the economic contribution of oil and gas production from fracking and found that more than 1.7 million new jobs have been created during the boom.
Nearly $62 billion in additional federal, state and local tax receipts were generated in a single year (2012). IHS estimates that cumulative added tax revenues from oil and gas production using fracking will top the $2.5 trillion level between 2012 and 2035.
Since 2008, the U.S. has recorded a 25 percent increase in domestic oil production, largely attributable to fracking. This represents the highest domestic growth of any country in the world. As a result, the U.S. now sends more petroleum products overseas than it imports for the first time in 60 years.
Not only has the boom helped reduce the U.S. trade deficit, but it has shored up energy security. U.S. dependence on foreign oil has fallen as the oil industry has replaced imported crude with domestic supplies from North Dakota, Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
None of this impresses the environmental extremists attached like leaches to President Obama. Their mantra is oil and gas are bad, solar and wind are good. This simplistic view of energy threatens the economic well being and security of the nation.
Some states, such as New York and California, have already erected barriers to fracking. For instance, New York, is now entering the sixth year of a fracking moratorium. Meanwhile, neighboring Pennsylvania has added an estimated 250,000 shale related jobs in recent years.
There is not likely to be a truce anytime soon in the battle over fracking. To be sure, there are legitimate concerns about safety and the environment. But the oil industry has made good faith efforts to address those, even if it has done a lousy job of public education.
Nevertheless, the debate over fracking deserves a fair public hearing unencumbered by Hollywood fables, fraudulent environmental claims, biased media coverage and a president bent on impeding growth of oil and gas exploration.
Monday, September 16, 2013
An Open Letter To Vladimir Putin
Dear Mr. Putin:
Your letter that appeared in the New York Times was an affront to the American people. It sounded like you were scolding a child for bad behavior rather than offering an honest attempt to broker peace. You may have fooled President Obama, but most Americans were not amused.
Your henchman in Syria, president Bashar Assad, is a despot who poisoned his own people with a deadly gas. Yet your letter blamed opposition forces for the attack, despite no evidence. That claim alone undermines the credibility of your plea for caution and diplomacy.
Your offer to mediate the Syrian crisis is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to buy time for Assad. He has enjoyed your nation's loyal support during his reign of terror. This dictator has trampled democracy and embraced thuggish behavior to save his tyrannical regime from crumbling.
You may take credit for stalling an American missile attack, but it is a rather hollow victory. Not many Americans support our president's feeble handling of the crisis and even Congress was prepared to deliver a death knell to his plans for unleashing our military's might.
Americans are not buying your offer of an olive branch in Syria. Secretary of State John Kerry may have jumped at the overture, but that is because he was desperate to cover up his own diplomatic ineptness. Americans know Russia has never been on the side of freedom at home or abroad.
That's why it was startling to read your lecture on democracy. To quote your letter: "Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy, but as relying solely on brute force..." The residents of Chechnya must have got a chuckle out of that line.
But the worse offense was thumbing your nose at the notion of "American exceptionalism." I know President Obama used that phrase in his address to the nation, but he doesn't really believe in the concept. It was a throwaway line recited from a teleprompter, not some expression of personal belief.
However, I can tell you Americans do not believe they are exceptional. But they hold dear the idea that our democratic system of government, born out of a devotion to individual liberty, is something that makes the United States unique among all nations.
In fact, they believe it is an idea worth fighting for. It is the reason Americans fought and died in World War II to save the world from Nazi Germany. You may remember it because the world, including Russia, could not have stopped Hitler and his hordes from overrunning Europe without the United States military.
Mr. Putin, my advice is for you not to mistake America's current weakness as a sign things will be this way forever. Leaders change in our country, unlike in Syria. But the American people are not like their present government. They cherish freedom and detest tyranny.
You have built an authoritarian wall to suppress freedom in your own country. It says more about your idea of democracy than a letter ghost-written by some public relations firm. Mr. Putin, tear down that wall before you lecture the world about the United States.
Thank you and God bless America!
Ronald Reagan
Monday, September 9, 2013
Obama's Milestones Are Nation's Misfortune
Most presidents spend their second terms burnishing their legacy. President Obama can stow the political polish. He already has tallied a number of achievements that no other American president will likely ever match. At least, not on purpose.
These accomplishments won't be ballyhooed in the president's memoirs. The achievements aren't likely to be enshrined in his presidential library in Chicago either. A fawning media won't be reciting these exploits when Obama evacuates the White House in 2017.
The reason is the president's historic firsts are dubious at best. Here is just a partial list of President Obama's groundbreaking feats:
1. Obama oversaw the first downgrade of U.S. debt in history. Standard and Poor's lowered the nation's credit rating in 2011. The administration has failed to convince the rating agency to raise the nation's credit score.
2. The nation's federal debt reached 67 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the highest since World War II. This year's fiscal deficit is estimated at $642 billion, the first time since Obama assumed office that the annual figure has dipped below record-levels of $1 trillion.
3. Long-term unemployment has risen to the highest levels since the Great Depression. During Obama's first term, 45.9 percent of people unemployed had not worked in at least 27 weeks. The number of long-term unemployed has skyrocketed 257 percent since 2007. The portion of Americans working or looking for a job fell to its lowest level in 35 years in August.
4. The number of Americans dependent on the government has spiked to historic levels. Nearly one-half (47%) of the population is receiving aid or federal benefit payments. About one-third of the entire population (101 million) currently participates in at least one government food program.
5. The percentage of Americans paying federal income tax is the lowest in the modern era. Fewer than one-half (49%) are footing the bill for the unbridled growth of the federal government. A total of 46.4 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2011.
6. Federal government spending as a percent of GDP is the highest since World War II. The government accounts for 25 percent of the nation's economy. To pay for the burgeoning expenditures, federal debt has swollen to $16.7 trillion, the highest in the nation's history as a percent of GDP. Government spending has exploded 40 percent since 2002, even adjusted for inflation.
These statistics were gleaned from the Office of Management and Budget, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau, Standard And Poor's, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Department of Agriculture and the Internal Revenue Service.
The numbers paint a morose picture of a president who has dragged the nation to a tipping point in its history. Unless steps are taken to curb federal spending, curtail the debt and cultivate the economy, the United States will cease to be the world's economic leader and will face an uncertain future.
However, there is one certainty Obama's gleaming library will be built. His memoirs will be penned. His legacy will glitter with imagined strokes of genius. But Americans won't be better off after eight years littered with excuses, ineptness and wooden speeches recited from a teleprompter.
These accomplishments won't be ballyhooed in the president's memoirs. The achievements aren't likely to be enshrined in his presidential library in Chicago either. A fawning media won't be reciting these exploits when Obama evacuates the White House in 2017.
The reason is the president's historic firsts are dubious at best. Here is just a partial list of President Obama's groundbreaking feats:
1. Obama oversaw the first downgrade of U.S. debt in history. Standard and Poor's lowered the nation's credit rating in 2011. The administration has failed to convince the rating agency to raise the nation's credit score.
2. The nation's federal debt reached 67 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the highest since World War II. This year's fiscal deficit is estimated at $642 billion, the first time since Obama assumed office that the annual figure has dipped below record-levels of $1 trillion.
3. Long-term unemployment has risen to the highest levels since the Great Depression. During Obama's first term, 45.9 percent of people unemployed had not worked in at least 27 weeks. The number of long-term unemployed has skyrocketed 257 percent since 2007. The portion of Americans working or looking for a job fell to its lowest level in 35 years in August.
4. The number of Americans dependent on the government has spiked to historic levels. Nearly one-half (47%) of the population is receiving aid or federal benefit payments. About one-third of the entire population (101 million) currently participates in at least one government food program.
5. The percentage of Americans paying federal income tax is the lowest in the modern era. Fewer than one-half (49%) are footing the bill for the unbridled growth of the federal government. A total of 46.4 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2011.
6. Federal government spending as a percent of GDP is the highest since World War II. The government accounts for 25 percent of the nation's economy. To pay for the burgeoning expenditures, federal debt has swollen to $16.7 trillion, the highest in the nation's history as a percent of GDP. Government spending has exploded 40 percent since 2002, even adjusted for inflation.
These statistics were gleaned from the Office of Management and Budget, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau, Standard And Poor's, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Department of Agriculture and the Internal Revenue Service.
The numbers paint a morose picture of a president who has dragged the nation to a tipping point in its history. Unless steps are taken to curb federal spending, curtail the debt and cultivate the economy, the United States will cease to be the world's economic leader and will face an uncertain future.
However, there is one certainty Obama's gleaming library will be built. His memoirs will be penned. His legacy will glitter with imagined strokes of genius. But Americans won't be better off after eight years littered with excuses, ineptness and wooden speeches recited from a teleprompter.
Monday, September 2, 2013
Obama Humiliates U.S. Over Syrian Debacle
A unrepentant President Obama trotted out Secretary of State John Kerry over the weekend to make the case for a military strike against the Syrian regime in a desperate attempt to save face after weeks of saber rattling failed to gain domestic or international support.
Obama miscalculated Americans' unrest over involvement in another war, misunderstood the reluctance of allies to support the U.S. attack on Syria and misread the reaction of even those in his party for a "go it alone" approach without congressional approval.
The president's grand strategy for a missile strike on Syria as punishment for President Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons against his own people began to unravel after the British Parliament bucked the UK's prime minister and voted against intervention.
Parliament's decision not only robbed Obama of a staunch ally but it precluded the use of NATO forces because the United Kingdom is a member. The United Nations was not an option either because Russia would veto any resolution on the use of force.
That left Obama dangling in the political winds, especially after polls revealed only nine percent of Americans favored military intervention in Syria. Public opinion research also showed 80 percent of Americans wanted Obama to receive congressional approval before moving on Syria.
Surely, the politically savvy Obama must have known beforehand that Americans were dead set against interference in Syria? Perhaps, but the narcissistic Obama believed his own hype. He thought his soaring rhetoric and international standing would ensure smooth sailing.
When his effort fizzled, Obama panicked. And for good reason. He had already ordered the armed forces to prepare for a limited missile launch and maneuvered ships into position. He had used the world stage to announce an attack was imminent, only the date and time were to be determined.
With American prestige in tatters, the president suffered another embarrassment. He was reminded by Republicans and dovish Democrats that candidate Obama in 2007 had railed that the "president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize" a military response. Whoops!
So after arguing he clearly had the authority to order a strike, Obama flip-flopped. At the eleventh hour, he decided he wanted the Congress to weigh-in on the issue. It is clear his motivation is to help shield himself from political backlash by getting Republicans to support the strike.
The whole episode exposes Obama's naiveté when it comes to foreign affairs. The president should have secured firm allied support before announcing to the world that America would use military force. Now he realizes too late that he waded in over his head and blundered badly in diplomacy.
That's why Obama has lobbed the political hot potato to Congress. On principle, the Congress should reject Obama's request because he waited until the dye was cast to seek approval. Obama hatched this plan and he owns it. America's image cannot be repaired with the bandaid of Congressional support.
Obama miscalculated Americans' unrest over involvement in another war, misunderstood the reluctance of allies to support the U.S. attack on Syria and misread the reaction of even those in his party for a "go it alone" approach without congressional approval.
The president's grand strategy for a missile strike on Syria as punishment for President Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons against his own people began to unravel after the British Parliament bucked the UK's prime minister and voted against intervention.
Parliament's decision not only robbed Obama of a staunch ally but it precluded the use of NATO forces because the United Kingdom is a member. The United Nations was not an option either because Russia would veto any resolution on the use of force.
That left Obama dangling in the political winds, especially after polls revealed only nine percent of Americans favored military intervention in Syria. Public opinion research also showed 80 percent of Americans wanted Obama to receive congressional approval before moving on Syria.
Surely, the politically savvy Obama must have known beforehand that Americans were dead set against interference in Syria? Perhaps, but the narcissistic Obama believed his own hype. He thought his soaring rhetoric and international standing would ensure smooth sailing.
When his effort fizzled, Obama panicked. And for good reason. He had already ordered the armed forces to prepare for a limited missile launch and maneuvered ships into position. He had used the world stage to announce an attack was imminent, only the date and time were to be determined.
With American prestige in tatters, the president suffered another embarrassment. He was reminded by Republicans and dovish Democrats that candidate Obama in 2007 had railed that the "president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize" a military response. Whoops!
So after arguing he clearly had the authority to order a strike, Obama flip-flopped. At the eleventh hour, he decided he wanted the Congress to weigh-in on the issue. It is clear his motivation is to help shield himself from political backlash by getting Republicans to support the strike.
The whole episode exposes Obama's naiveté when it comes to foreign affairs. The president should have secured firm allied support before announcing to the world that America would use military force. Now he realizes too late that he waded in over his head and blundered badly in diplomacy.
That's why Obama has lobbed the political hot potato to Congress. On principle, the Congress should reject Obama's request because he waited until the dye was cast to seek approval. Obama hatched this plan and he owns it. America's image cannot be repaired with the bandaid of Congressional support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)