In these divisive times, it is virtually impossible to find public agreement on any topic. However, it turns out an overwhelming majority of Americans concur on one issue. Fully 76 percent of citizens have no confidence the next generation will have a better future.
Those are the findings of a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll of Americans from every walk of life. The depth of despair shocked many in the news media, who have tried to paint a picture of American optimism about everything from the economy to health care reform.
The results showed only 21 percent of Americans thought the future would be better. That is the worst ever recorded in the annual poll. Americans have never been this pessimistic. The responses were similar among men, women, Republicans, Democrats, rich, poor, white and Hispanic.
And that isn't the only research to shed light on the national funk. Last month a public opinion poll by The Economist found that 63 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. Most respondents agreed their government doesn't serve the country's interests any more.
This national gloominess should shock no one paying attention to what is happening in America and abroad. Americans share low opinions of Congress, the president, the Supreme Court, NSA and IRS. They are shaken by terrorist threats worldwide. They are discouraged about the economy.
But that hasn't stopped the media cheerleading. In a recent op-ed column, New York Times writer David Brooks crowed that Americans are living in a "golden age," where there "daily lives are immeasurably better." His view of the country is hopelessly skewed by his penthouse perch.
Americans have experienced feeble wage growth since 2009. Many have been forced into part-time jobs. Millions have become despondent and abandoned their search for work. Perhaps, Mr. Brooks has not scrutinized Labor Department figures because he is too busy sipping lattes at Starbucks.
But economic despair does not by itself explain the national depression. After all, the country has undergone recessions, depressions, runaway inflation and other economic maladies in the past. Yet Americans as a rule cling to their optimism. It's part of the American DNA.
However, the absence of inspirational leadership, especially in Washington, is responsible for much of the despondency. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are about as uplifting as a kidney stone. President Obama spends more time golfing than governing.
That's significant because Americans usually look to their leaders for the promise of a better tomorrow. Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan rallied Americans in the darkest of times. Where do Americans turn today for their daily dose of encouragement?
Elections, like the upcoming mid-terms, used to renew optimism for positive change. But today politicians sling mud and fill the airwaves with nasty attack ads. More people are turned off every election by the sleazy process, resulting in a shrinking turn out of voters at the polls.
So how do Americans shake their current malaise? The answer is to quit looking to the Belt Way and politicians for motivation. Stop thinking that for every problem there is a government solution. Put your faith in yourself and your neighbor and not in some out-of-touch bureaucrat.
America works best when Americans rely on themselves. They start their own businesses, build their own futures, dream big and act confidently. If Americans start behaving like Americans, then the future will appear as bright as the shiniest star in the evening sky.
National unity is within our grasp. But only if Americans stop defining their future and their country by political parties and the morass they see in Washington. This still is the greatest country on God's green Earth. Opportunity still knocks on every door. Time to answer the door America.
Monday, September 29, 2014
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Obama Phones: Poster Child For Government Waste
Millions of Americans are receiving free cell phones, free minutes and free texts, courtesy of taxpayers. It's easy to qualify for the government freebie. And best of all, this is a life time deal. All you need to do is re-qualify once a year to keep your free stuff.
The official government name of the program is Budget Mobile Lifeline Service. However, users and the community at large know it by another moniker: the Obama Phone. It acquired this sobriquet after a viral video spread the word that the Obama administration was handing out free phones to the poor.
The program, riddled with waste, fraud and abuse, has drawn new scrutiny on Capitol Hill. According to the most recent Congressional figures, the cost of providing those free phones was a staggering $2.2 billion in 2012. One report claimed there were 12.5 million subscribers to the programs.
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report in 2010 pegged the expenses at $802 million for the years 2005-2008. The costs skyrocketed to $1 billion in 2009. The number of participants had grown to 8.6 million in 2009, the GAO investigation found.
However, statistics are hard to verify because the agency in charge of the scheme, the Federal Communications Commission, has been guilty of shoddy record-keeping. In fact, the FCC only began to compile a subscriber database late last year. So far, no statistics have been released.
Meanwhile, the program costs have spiraled out of control. Just since President Obama took office, expenditures have nearly tripled from $800 million to more than $2 billion. Obama Phones are the perfect example of how government programs start small and mushroom out of control.
Under President Reagan, the federal government decided to provide a subsidy for so-called Lifeline telephone service to the poor in 1985. It was designed to give low income individuals the opportunity to call 911, an ambulance or for other emergency use. It applied only to landline telephones.
To pay for the program, the federal government tacked on fees to the phone bills of most customers. Although it is called a fee, wireline subscribers are being forced to pay what amounts to a tax for the privilege of having a telephone.
The program was expanded under President George W. Bush to include cell phone service. The rationale was that most poor people had disconnected their landline phones and opted for wireless devices. The problem is the original intent was lost in the expansion.
Now low income people get a free cell phone, 250 free minutes of usage and 250 free texts each month. Everyone who receives almost any type of government assistance qualifies. That includes people who get food stamps, energy assistance, Medicaid or housing assistance, to name just a few.
Once an individual qualifies, the service is provided for 12 months. After that, recipients can re-qualify every year. The government will even contact the user to make it easy to renew the free service annually. However, the program is replete with fraud because of slipshod administration.
This year the Justice Department charged three men with defrauding the program of $32 million after an investigation uncovered their scheme to bilk the government to finance a well-heeled lifestyle. It was unclear how the trio was able to pull off the elaborate con.
Last year the FCC filed two separate actions against eight firms who swindled the Obama Phone program of a total of $47.4 million. The companies were accused of such chicanery as receiving duplicate payments for consumers who already had the free cell service from their firm.
Meanwhile, the promotion of the program continues unabated. Google "Obama Phone" and up pops a smiling picture of the president talking on a landline phone. Underneath, the caption screams: "Get Your Free Obama Phone."
Scores of firms are peddling the phones because they collect a bounty from the government. The FCC pays $10 to the companies for every new subscriber. There is no incentive for these companies to verify eligibility and the FCC has failed to do an adequate job of policing the program.
Republicans have introduced legislation to pull the plug on the cell phone program. Of course, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid will never allow a vote on such a bill. That means the scam will continue unchecked costing Americans billions of dollars. Only in Washington is this deemed acceptable.
The official government name of the program is Budget Mobile Lifeline Service. However, users and the community at large know it by another moniker: the Obama Phone. It acquired this sobriquet after a viral video spread the word that the Obama administration was handing out free phones to the poor.
The program, riddled with waste, fraud and abuse, has drawn new scrutiny on Capitol Hill. According to the most recent Congressional figures, the cost of providing those free phones was a staggering $2.2 billion in 2012. One report claimed there were 12.5 million subscribers to the programs.
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report in 2010 pegged the expenses at $802 million for the years 2005-2008. The costs skyrocketed to $1 billion in 2009. The number of participants had grown to 8.6 million in 2009, the GAO investigation found.
However, statistics are hard to verify because the agency in charge of the scheme, the Federal Communications Commission, has been guilty of shoddy record-keeping. In fact, the FCC only began to compile a subscriber database late last year. So far, no statistics have been released.
Meanwhile, the program costs have spiraled out of control. Just since President Obama took office, expenditures have nearly tripled from $800 million to more than $2 billion. Obama Phones are the perfect example of how government programs start small and mushroom out of control.
Under President Reagan, the federal government decided to provide a subsidy for so-called Lifeline telephone service to the poor in 1985. It was designed to give low income individuals the opportunity to call 911, an ambulance or for other emergency use. It applied only to landline telephones.
To pay for the program, the federal government tacked on fees to the phone bills of most customers. Although it is called a fee, wireline subscribers are being forced to pay what amounts to a tax for the privilege of having a telephone.
The program was expanded under President George W. Bush to include cell phone service. The rationale was that most poor people had disconnected their landline phones and opted for wireless devices. The problem is the original intent was lost in the expansion.
Now low income people get a free cell phone, 250 free minutes of usage and 250 free texts each month. Everyone who receives almost any type of government assistance qualifies. That includes people who get food stamps, energy assistance, Medicaid or housing assistance, to name just a few.
Once an individual qualifies, the service is provided for 12 months. After that, recipients can re-qualify every year. The government will even contact the user to make it easy to renew the free service annually. However, the program is replete with fraud because of slipshod administration.
This year the Justice Department charged three men with defrauding the program of $32 million after an investigation uncovered their scheme to bilk the government to finance a well-heeled lifestyle. It was unclear how the trio was able to pull off the elaborate con.
Last year the FCC filed two separate actions against eight firms who swindled the Obama Phone program of a total of $47.4 million. The companies were accused of such chicanery as receiving duplicate payments for consumers who already had the free cell service from their firm.
Meanwhile, the promotion of the program continues unabated. Google "Obama Phone" and up pops a smiling picture of the president talking on a landline phone. Underneath, the caption screams: "Get Your Free Obama Phone."
Scores of firms are peddling the phones because they collect a bounty from the government. The FCC pays $10 to the companies for every new subscriber. There is no incentive for these companies to verify eligibility and the FCC has failed to do an adequate job of policing the program.
Republicans have introduced legislation to pull the plug on the cell phone program. Of course, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid will never allow a vote on such a bill. That means the scam will continue unchecked costing Americans billions of dollars. Only in Washington is this deemed acceptable.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Obamacare: Unhealthy Changes Doom Law
Obamacare, the president's eponymous health care reform, barely resembles the law passed in 2010. In the intervening months, the legislation has been changed 24 times by President Obama. On each occasion, he has acted unilaterally without Congressional consent to alter the bill.
As if the presidential tampering wasn't enough, the courts have stepped in and dealt crippling blows to the law. In the latest decision, a federal appeals court ruled the feds could not provide tax subsidies for millions of people who purchased insurance policies through the federal marketplace.
If the ruling stands, it will derail one of the law's key provisions effecting millions of health insurance purchasers. Health and Human Services (HHS) has estimated that 85 percent of those Americans who enrolled in Obamacare were promised they would receive premium subsidies.
As a result, the health care law has been left in tatters. What remains is a hodgepodge of rules and regulations that few individuals can comprehend. There is a growing awareness that Obamacare has metamorphosed into health care retrogression instead of reform.
For instance, a powerful union that first endorsed Obama for president just released a scorching report on the health care law, charging the administration with destroying insurance plans that benefited its members.
"The ACA (Affordable Care Act) threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage," the UNITE HERE union said in its report, entitled, "The Irony of Obamacare: Making Inequality Worse."
UNITE HERE has more than 265,000 active members, who predominantly work in the hotel, food service, laundry, warehouse and casino gaming industries. Its report, released in July, was not covered by a single news media outlet because most have been hushed by the Obama Administration.
Insurance companies, most of which supported the law, are in full retreat. The nation's third largest health insurance firm Aetna recently disclosed figures that cast doubt on the administration's claims that 8 million Americans signed up for Obamacare.
Aetna originally declared it signed up 720,000 people during the enrollment period. By the end of June, it had fewer than 600,000 paying customers. The company now expects the final number to be a shade over 500,000, a 30 percent drop since the sign-up figures were trumpeted by the president.
The news is worse for those who enrolled in Obamacare. Data compiled by the Health Research Institute reveals that most health insurance buyers will see their premiums rise by at least 7.5 percent next year. Some states, such as Nevada, could potentially be socked with a 36 percent hike.
In its latest forecast, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the federal government would spend an astronomical $1.032 trillion between 2015 and 2024 on subsidies for insurance premiums paid by low earners. The average subsidy is projected to be $4,250 annually per family.
However, with all the adjustments to the law, even the CBO is hedging its bets. The government agency announced earlier this year that it can no longer estimate Obamacare's total cost to taxpayers, in part, due to the "ever-changing rules in the laws implementation."
Worst of all, President Obama's promises about health care reform have all crumbled. Americans cannot keep their insurance. They cannot continue to see their same doctor. Consumers' insurance costs aren't going down.
The only change that will salvage health care reform is to dump Obamacare and start all over. That would be change most Americans would welcome as opposed to the kind the president promised in his propaganda campaign to peddle government health care.
As if the presidential tampering wasn't enough, the courts have stepped in and dealt crippling blows to the law. In the latest decision, a federal appeals court ruled the feds could not provide tax subsidies for millions of people who purchased insurance policies through the federal marketplace.
If the ruling stands, it will derail one of the law's key provisions effecting millions of health insurance purchasers. Health and Human Services (HHS) has estimated that 85 percent of those Americans who enrolled in Obamacare were promised they would receive premium subsidies.
As a result, the health care law has been left in tatters. What remains is a hodgepodge of rules and regulations that few individuals can comprehend. There is a growing awareness that Obamacare has metamorphosed into health care retrogression instead of reform.
For instance, a powerful union that first endorsed Obama for president just released a scorching report on the health care law, charging the administration with destroying insurance plans that benefited its members.
"The ACA (Affordable Care Act) threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage," the UNITE HERE union said in its report, entitled, "The Irony of Obamacare: Making Inequality Worse."
UNITE HERE has more than 265,000 active members, who predominantly work in the hotel, food service, laundry, warehouse and casino gaming industries. Its report, released in July, was not covered by a single news media outlet because most have been hushed by the Obama Administration.
Insurance companies, most of which supported the law, are in full retreat. The nation's third largest health insurance firm Aetna recently disclosed figures that cast doubt on the administration's claims that 8 million Americans signed up for Obamacare.
Aetna originally declared it signed up 720,000 people during the enrollment period. By the end of June, it had fewer than 600,000 paying customers. The company now expects the final number to be a shade over 500,000, a 30 percent drop since the sign-up figures were trumpeted by the president.
The news is worse for those who enrolled in Obamacare. Data compiled by the Health Research Institute reveals that most health insurance buyers will see their premiums rise by at least 7.5 percent next year. Some states, such as Nevada, could potentially be socked with a 36 percent hike.
In its latest forecast, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the federal government would spend an astronomical $1.032 trillion between 2015 and 2024 on subsidies for insurance premiums paid by low earners. The average subsidy is projected to be $4,250 annually per family.
However, with all the adjustments to the law, even the CBO is hedging its bets. The government agency announced earlier this year that it can no longer estimate Obamacare's total cost to taxpayers, in part, due to the "ever-changing rules in the laws implementation."
Worst of all, President Obama's promises about health care reform have all crumbled. Americans cannot keep their insurance. They cannot continue to see their same doctor. Consumers' insurance costs aren't going down.
The only change that will salvage health care reform is to dump Obamacare and start all over. That would be change most Americans would welcome as opposed to the kind the president promised in his propaganda campaign to peddle government health care.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
It's Official: Obama Administration Broke the Law
An agency of the government headed by Barrack Obama has slapped his wrist for violating a law passed by Congress. Despite the unprecedented finding, the president and his jelly spine allies in the media have acted as if it was a joke, brushing aside the charges like a cow swatting flies with its tail.
However, it is no laughing matter when the administration is caught red-handed operating outside the law. If this had happened on George W. Bush's watch, the media would have been apoplectic. But this president is the media's anointed one. Obama got off with a few stories buried in the media clutter.
The agency at the epicenter of the controversy was the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a non-partisan group that serves as a Congressional watchdog. As its name implies, the agency is supposed to insure the accountability of the federal government to the American people.
Earlier this year, a group of Senate Republicans, including many who serve on key committees, requested a GAO review of the actions by the Department of Defense in its handling of a prisoner exchange involving five Taliban leaders held at Guantanamo Bay and Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
Under the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2014, section 8111 required the administration to give at least 30 days notice before the transfer of any Guantanamo Bay prisoners and prohibited the use of government funds to relocate the detainees without advance notice to congressional committees.
Before issuing its opinion, the GAO asked the Department of Defense to provide the relevant facts and its legal view on the matter. The department tried to justify its action by asserting the transfer was lawful, even while admitting that it failed to meet the requirement for notification.
Susan A. Poling, the GAO's general counsel, wasn't buying what defense officials were selling, despite obvious pressure to support the administration. In her tersely worded verdict, she concluded that the defense department violated the law as approved by Congress and signed by President Obama.
When the announcement was made, government officials ran for cover. They did what guilty parties always do--they attempted to skirt the issue. Instead of addressing the actual violation, the White House trotted out spokespersons to opine on the constitutionality of the administration's actions.
White House mouthpiece Eric Schultz led the verbal assault complaining the "GAO report does not address the lawfulness of the administration's actions as a matter of Constitutional law." But the GAO's counsel wrote in her opinion that her responsibility was not to consider the law's constitutionality.
After the initial flurry of denials, the administration slunk back into the shadows. They figured most Americans weren't paying attention to some arcane defense appropriation law. Even if they were, the reliably compliant media would hide the details from the public.
Of course, this is not the first time the administration and its titular leader President Obama have shown disdain for the law. The prisoner exchange is just the latest example. If President Obama didn't like the defense appropriations language, he could have vetoed the measure when it reached his desk.
Instead, Obama chose to ignore the law he signed. No amount of excuses and sleights of hand will change that fact. But in today's America there is no penalty for the nation's chief executive to violate the law. Is it any wonder the president's polling numbers are lower than the ocean floor?
Congress and the American people must demand more accountability from the executive branch of government. If law-breaking is allowed to continue unabated, even Democrats may rue the day when they sat idly by as their president made a mockery of duly approved and signed legislation.
After all, the next president may be a Republican. Then we'll see if Democrats adhere to the same cavalier attitude about following the law.
However, it is no laughing matter when the administration is caught red-handed operating outside the law. If this had happened on George W. Bush's watch, the media would have been apoplectic. But this president is the media's anointed one. Obama got off with a few stories buried in the media clutter.
The agency at the epicenter of the controversy was the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a non-partisan group that serves as a Congressional watchdog. As its name implies, the agency is supposed to insure the accountability of the federal government to the American people.
Earlier this year, a group of Senate Republicans, including many who serve on key committees, requested a GAO review of the actions by the Department of Defense in its handling of a prisoner exchange involving five Taliban leaders held at Guantanamo Bay and Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
Under the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2014, section 8111 required the administration to give at least 30 days notice before the transfer of any Guantanamo Bay prisoners and prohibited the use of government funds to relocate the detainees without advance notice to congressional committees.
Before issuing its opinion, the GAO asked the Department of Defense to provide the relevant facts and its legal view on the matter. The department tried to justify its action by asserting the transfer was lawful, even while admitting that it failed to meet the requirement for notification.
Susan A. Poling, the GAO's general counsel, wasn't buying what defense officials were selling, despite obvious pressure to support the administration. In her tersely worded verdict, she concluded that the defense department violated the law as approved by Congress and signed by President Obama.
When the announcement was made, government officials ran for cover. They did what guilty parties always do--they attempted to skirt the issue. Instead of addressing the actual violation, the White House trotted out spokespersons to opine on the constitutionality of the administration's actions.
White House mouthpiece Eric Schultz led the verbal assault complaining the "GAO report does not address the lawfulness of the administration's actions as a matter of Constitutional law." But the GAO's counsel wrote in her opinion that her responsibility was not to consider the law's constitutionality.
After the initial flurry of denials, the administration slunk back into the shadows. They figured most Americans weren't paying attention to some arcane defense appropriation law. Even if they were, the reliably compliant media would hide the details from the public.
Of course, this is not the first time the administration and its titular leader President Obama have shown disdain for the law. The prisoner exchange is just the latest example. If President Obama didn't like the defense appropriations language, he could have vetoed the measure when it reached his desk.
Instead, Obama chose to ignore the law he signed. No amount of excuses and sleights of hand will change that fact. But in today's America there is no penalty for the nation's chief executive to violate the law. Is it any wonder the president's polling numbers are lower than the ocean floor?
Congress and the American people must demand more accountability from the executive branch of government. If law-breaking is allowed to continue unabated, even Democrats may rue the day when they sat idly by as their president made a mockery of duly approved and signed legislation.
After all, the next president may be a Republican. Then we'll see if Democrats adhere to the same cavalier attitude about following the law.
Monday, September 1, 2014
Part-Time America: The New Workforce Normal
This Labor Day millions of American workers have nothing to celebrate. Their hours have been sliced, their wages have been chopped and their full time jobs have vanished. They are the victims of the nation's weakest recovery from a recession in U.S. history.
At the end of July, more than 18.1 million Americans were saddled with part-time jobs, representing an estimated 16.5 percent of the work force. Many of these workers have been forced to accept part-time employment while they pursue full-time opportunities.
President Obama has tried to sweep the issue under the Oval Office rug by focusing the media's attention on the low unemployment figures. But the problem has been on the radar of Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, an Obama appointee as the nation's top banker.
"The unemployment rate is down, but not included in the rate are more than 7 million people who are working part-time but want a full-time job," Yellen pointed out at a news conference in March. She lamented that some workers may be "stuck" in part-time jobs for the foreseeable future.
For some perspective, individuals working part-time comprised about 17 percent of total work force in 2007. That figure ticked up to 20 percent in 2009 and remained near that level through the middle of last year before trickling downward to the current level of 16.5 percent.
Some economists suggest the expansion in part-time employment may just be an echo caused by the recession. Indeed, part-time job growth spiked during the economic downturn, but it has remained stubbornly high, raising the specter of a new normal in the labor market.
That hypothesis was pooh-poohed last year by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. In a lengthly report, the fed flatly declared the high incidence of part-time employment "does not portend permanent changes" in the economy.
However, recent Labor Department household surveys call into question the Fed's assumption. In June, for example, the department estimated the economy lost 523,000 full-time jobs. That same month it reported part-time jobs skyrocketed by 799,000. It was the largest monthly spike in two decades.
At the end of July, there were 7.6 million Americans employed part-time for what the Labor Department euphemistically calls "economic" or "involuntary"reasons. That means workers' hours were reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. Part-timers work less than 35 hours per week.
Although the White House and its economists dispute it, there is a growing suspicion that Obamacare's implementation may be at least partly to blame for the part-time job growth. The law requires all but the smallest businesses provide health insurance for full-time employees next year.
Recent surveys by the Federal Reserve Banks in Philadelphia, New York and Atlanta documented evidence of the impact of the president's health care plan on employment. Their research found manufacturers and businesses projected increases in the portion of part-timers in their workforces.
For example 19.3 percent of manufacturers in New York said they were raising the number of part-time workers, while in the Atlanta region, 34 percent of businesses plan to hire more time-time employees than in the past. In Philadelphia, 13.7 percent of firms intend to outsource jobs because of Obamacare.
Up to now, the changing characteristics of America's workforce have escaped national attention, especially in the nation's capitol. Unless the issue is addressed soon, high-paying full-time jobs will continue to disappear along with the American dream.
Labor Day may soon become a date of mourning for American workers.
At the end of July, more than 18.1 million Americans were saddled with part-time jobs, representing an estimated 16.5 percent of the work force. Many of these workers have been forced to accept part-time employment while they pursue full-time opportunities.
President Obama has tried to sweep the issue under the Oval Office rug by focusing the media's attention on the low unemployment figures. But the problem has been on the radar of Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, an Obama appointee as the nation's top banker.
"The unemployment rate is down, but not included in the rate are more than 7 million people who are working part-time but want a full-time job," Yellen pointed out at a news conference in March. She lamented that some workers may be "stuck" in part-time jobs for the foreseeable future.
For some perspective, individuals working part-time comprised about 17 percent of total work force in 2007. That figure ticked up to 20 percent in 2009 and remained near that level through the middle of last year before trickling downward to the current level of 16.5 percent.
Some economists suggest the expansion in part-time employment may just be an echo caused by the recession. Indeed, part-time job growth spiked during the economic downturn, but it has remained stubbornly high, raising the specter of a new normal in the labor market.
That hypothesis was pooh-poohed last year by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. In a lengthly report, the fed flatly declared the high incidence of part-time employment "does not portend permanent changes" in the economy.
However, recent Labor Department household surveys call into question the Fed's assumption. In June, for example, the department estimated the economy lost 523,000 full-time jobs. That same month it reported part-time jobs skyrocketed by 799,000. It was the largest monthly spike in two decades.
At the end of July, there were 7.6 million Americans employed part-time for what the Labor Department euphemistically calls "economic" or "involuntary"reasons. That means workers' hours were reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. Part-timers work less than 35 hours per week.
Although the White House and its economists dispute it, there is a growing suspicion that Obamacare's implementation may be at least partly to blame for the part-time job growth. The law requires all but the smallest businesses provide health insurance for full-time employees next year.
Recent surveys by the Federal Reserve Banks in Philadelphia, New York and Atlanta documented evidence of the impact of the president's health care plan on employment. Their research found manufacturers and businesses projected increases in the portion of part-timers in their workforces.
For example 19.3 percent of manufacturers in New York said they were raising the number of part-time workers, while in the Atlanta region, 34 percent of businesses plan to hire more time-time employees than in the past. In Philadelphia, 13.7 percent of firms intend to outsource jobs because of Obamacare.
Up to now, the changing characteristics of America's workforce have escaped national attention, especially in the nation's capitol. Unless the issue is addressed soon, high-paying full-time jobs will continue to disappear along with the American dream.
Labor Day may soon become a date of mourning for American workers.