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.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
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.
Monday, August 25, 2014
Thin Blue Line: America's Police Under Assualt
A 38-year old police officer was viciously gunned down last year during a bank robbery in Mississippi. A nine year veteran of the Tupelo Police Department, Kevin Stauffer left behind a young wife and two children. There were no national headlines about his death.
As the shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, demonstrates, the news media are more interested in covering racially charged events. The death of a police officer hardly rates national mention. In the last ten years, more than 1,500 police and detectives have died in the line of duty, including 568 by gunfire.
Crime fighting has taken its toll on America's police. Since the first recorded police death in 1791, there have been more than 20,000 officers killed in the line of duty. Violent crime, although down in recent years, still exceeds 1 million incidents nationwide every year.
Police not only are gunshot victims. Others die in motor vehicle accidents while chasing suspects, drownings, vehicle assaults, accidental shootings, stabbings and illnesses related to their duties. It is a hazardous profession with very little room for error.
The deadliest year since the dawn of the new century was 2001, when 71 officers were killed during the September 11 terrorist attacks alone. For that year, 140 officers were slain, including three who were ambushed by criminals.
Despite those numbers, the 1920's were far worse for law enforcement officers. That decade ended with with 2,390 police officers losing their lives in deadly shootings. The deadliest year, however, was 1930, when 297 officers were killed.
Thousands more police officers are assaulted every year in the line of duty. During the last decade, there were more than 519,000 assaults, resulting in injuries to 154,836 police officers, according to FBI statistics. The average over that period was 57,892 assaults each year.
Although shooting deaths of police are on the decline, even one fatality is too many for the thin blue line that maintains the peace in communities throughout America. The most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics estimate there are 780,000 police and detectives keeping the country safe each day.
As a result of police deaths, many departments have purchased body armor to help protect the men and women in blue. However, body armor is not a panacea. In 2012, a total of 51 police officers died while wearing body armor. But the gear has been credited with the reduction in gun deaths.
The number one killer of police officers is not gunfire. More than twice as many law enforcement officers every year die from suicide than are killed in traffic accidents or assaults, according to a 2012 national study underwritten by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).
Astonishingly, for every one suicide, the study's authors estimate there are 25 attempts. Those sobering numbers are testimony to a high risk occupation where law enforcement officers are exposed to the worst human atrocities while dealing with often potentially life threatening confrontations.
Unfortunately, the media seldom paint a fair and unbiased picture of police. Good police work goes unreported, but there is nothing like the scent of scandal or wrongdoing to get the media digging for details to expose the dirty blue laundry.
This does not mean police should not be scrutinized and held to high standards. Those officers who break the law they are sworn to uphold deserve swift and vigorous justice. What is lacking is balance in the reporting of incidents involving police.
That equilibrium has been missing in most news media coverage, particularly in reports that involve use of police force. That fact has not gone unnoticed by the chiefs of police.
"In large part, the public perception of police use of force is framed and influenced by media depictions which present unrealistic and often outlandish representations of law enforcement and the policing profession," the IACP group said in a 2012 report.
What was true then is still true today. Just look at the one-sided, incendiary media coverage coming out of Ferguson, Missouri.
As the shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, demonstrates, the news media are more interested in covering racially charged events. The death of a police officer hardly rates national mention. In the last ten years, more than 1,500 police and detectives have died in the line of duty, including 568 by gunfire.
Crime fighting has taken its toll on America's police. Since the first recorded police death in 1791, there have been more than 20,000 officers killed in the line of duty. Violent crime, although down in recent years, still exceeds 1 million incidents nationwide every year.
Police not only are gunshot victims. Others die in motor vehicle accidents while chasing suspects, drownings, vehicle assaults, accidental shootings, stabbings and illnesses related to their duties. It is a hazardous profession with very little room for error.
The deadliest year since the dawn of the new century was 2001, when 71 officers were killed during the September 11 terrorist attacks alone. For that year, 140 officers were slain, including three who were ambushed by criminals.
Despite those numbers, the 1920's were far worse for law enforcement officers. That decade ended with with 2,390 police officers losing their lives in deadly shootings. The deadliest year, however, was 1930, when 297 officers were killed.
Thousands more police officers are assaulted every year in the line of duty. During the last decade, there were more than 519,000 assaults, resulting in injuries to 154,836 police officers, according to FBI statistics. The average over that period was 57,892 assaults each year.
Although shooting deaths of police are on the decline, even one fatality is too many for the thin blue line that maintains the peace in communities throughout America. The most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics estimate there are 780,000 police and detectives keeping the country safe each day.
As a result of police deaths, many departments have purchased body armor to help protect the men and women in blue. However, body armor is not a panacea. In 2012, a total of 51 police officers died while wearing body armor. But the gear has been credited with the reduction in gun deaths.
The number one killer of police officers is not gunfire. More than twice as many law enforcement officers every year die from suicide than are killed in traffic accidents or assaults, according to a 2012 national study underwritten by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).
Astonishingly, for every one suicide, the study's authors estimate there are 25 attempts. Those sobering numbers are testimony to a high risk occupation where law enforcement officers are exposed to the worst human atrocities while dealing with often potentially life threatening confrontations.
Unfortunately, the media seldom paint a fair and unbiased picture of police. Good police work goes unreported, but there is nothing like the scent of scandal or wrongdoing to get the media digging for details to expose the dirty blue laundry.
This does not mean police should not be scrutinized and held to high standards. Those officers who break the law they are sworn to uphold deserve swift and vigorous justice. What is lacking is balance in the reporting of incidents involving police.
That equilibrium has been missing in most news media coverage, particularly in reports that involve use of police force. That fact has not gone unnoticed by the chiefs of police.
"In large part, the public perception of police use of force is framed and influenced by media depictions which present unrealistic and often outlandish representations of law enforcement and the policing profession," the IACP group said in a 2012 report.
What was true then is still true today. Just look at the one-sided, incendiary media coverage coming out of Ferguson, Missouri.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Memo to Jesse: Focus on the Critical Issues
MEMORANDUM: To Jesse Jackson regarding your campaign to shine attention on Silicon Valley's dismal record of hiring blacks and Latinos for high tech jobs.
Even for a man who has made a career of shaking down businesses, you have stumbled to a new low with this attempt to shame the icons of America's technology industry into adopting hiring quotas, nonsensical diversity measurements and racial sensitivity training.
Your civil rights playbook needs some serious updating. For starters, there would be more African-Americans and Hispanics in Silicon Valley if they pursued degrees in engineering, computer science and other technology fields.
The Washington-based Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies issued a recent report detailing how blacks and Latinos in particular "fall short in preparedness for jobs in the technology sector." In its report, the center called for increasing the number of minorities majoring in science and engineering in college to address the issue.
Apparently, Reverend Jackson, you must have been too busy jetting around the country to hustle a few million more dollars for your Rainbow PUSH organization to be bothered with the facts.
Frankly, African-Americans and Latinos have more pressing problems than scoring a corner office at some technology firm. It might be a more productive use of your time if you spent considerable energy tackling these urgent issues:
1. Blacks lead all ethnic groups in unemployment. According to the latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment among African-Americans is 11.4 percent. Just for the record, Hispanic occupy second place in the unemployment line. July statistics pegged the unemployment rate for Americans at 6.2 percent.
2. Blacks have the lowest high school graduation rates of all ethnic groups. Department of Education figures estimate that 66.1 percent of African-American students graduated from high school. Hispanic graduation rates were 71.4 percent. By comparison, 83 percent of whites achieved high school diplomas.
3. More than 60 percent of the people in state and federal prisons are racial and ethnic minorities. For black males in their 30's, one in ten is incarcerated in a prison on any given day. These figures are from the Sentencing Project, a research and advocacy group for imprisoned minorities. Firearm violence rates for blacks aged 12 and older were 40 percent higher than Hispanics and 200 percent more than whites, reports the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
4. More black children are raised in a single parent household than other ethnic groups. In the African-American community, 72 percent of children are raised by a single parent. For the country as a whole, 25.8 percent of children are brought up by one parent, based on studies by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
5. Blacks are more likely to receive welfare assistance than other groups. Department of Health and Human Services data confirms that 39.8 of all Americans who receive food stamps, unemployment insurance or other forms of welfare are African-Americans. White recipients comprise 38.8 percent of those collecting federal aid and Hispanics constitute 15.7 percent. In the most recent U.S. Census, 72.4 percent of Americans were white, 12.6 percent were African-American and 16.4 percent were Hispanic or Latino.
Start with these five issues if you want to improve the plight of minorities, especially African-Americans. Stop trying to make them victims and do something that actually provides blacks and other minorities opportunities to share in America's prosperity.
Sorry, but you have no right to grumble about hiring practices in Silicon Valley until you have done more than just blame others for the serious problems that are ravaging the minority community. Just being a racial profiteer isn't enough to claim the mantle of Martin Luther King.
Even for a man who has made a career of shaking down businesses, you have stumbled to a new low with this attempt to shame the icons of America's technology industry into adopting hiring quotas, nonsensical diversity measurements and racial sensitivity training.
Your civil rights playbook needs some serious updating. For starters, there would be more African-Americans and Hispanics in Silicon Valley if they pursued degrees in engineering, computer science and other technology fields.
The Washington-based Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies issued a recent report detailing how blacks and Latinos in particular "fall short in preparedness for jobs in the technology sector." In its report, the center called for increasing the number of minorities majoring in science and engineering in college to address the issue.
Apparently, Reverend Jackson, you must have been too busy jetting around the country to hustle a few million more dollars for your Rainbow PUSH organization to be bothered with the facts.
Frankly, African-Americans and Latinos have more pressing problems than scoring a corner office at some technology firm. It might be a more productive use of your time if you spent considerable energy tackling these urgent issues:
1. Blacks lead all ethnic groups in unemployment. According to the latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment among African-Americans is 11.4 percent. Just for the record, Hispanic occupy second place in the unemployment line. July statistics pegged the unemployment rate for Americans at 6.2 percent.
2. Blacks have the lowest high school graduation rates of all ethnic groups. Department of Education figures estimate that 66.1 percent of African-American students graduated from high school. Hispanic graduation rates were 71.4 percent. By comparison, 83 percent of whites achieved high school diplomas.
3. More than 60 percent of the people in state and federal prisons are racial and ethnic minorities. For black males in their 30's, one in ten is incarcerated in a prison on any given day. These figures are from the Sentencing Project, a research and advocacy group for imprisoned minorities. Firearm violence rates for blacks aged 12 and older were 40 percent higher than Hispanics and 200 percent more than whites, reports the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
4. More black children are raised in a single parent household than other ethnic groups. In the African-American community, 72 percent of children are raised by a single parent. For the country as a whole, 25.8 percent of children are brought up by one parent, based on studies by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
5. Blacks are more likely to receive welfare assistance than other groups. Department of Health and Human Services data confirms that 39.8 of all Americans who receive food stamps, unemployment insurance or other forms of welfare are African-Americans. White recipients comprise 38.8 percent of those collecting federal aid and Hispanics constitute 15.7 percent. In the most recent U.S. Census, 72.4 percent of Americans were white, 12.6 percent were African-American and 16.4 percent were Hispanic or Latino.
Start with these five issues if you want to improve the plight of minorities, especially African-Americans. Stop trying to make them victims and do something that actually provides blacks and other minorities opportunities to share in America's prosperity.
Sorry, but you have no right to grumble about hiring practices in Silicon Valley until you have done more than just blame others for the serious problems that are ravaging the minority community. Just being a racial profiteer isn't enough to claim the mantle of Martin Luther King.
Monday, August 11, 2014
Society's Most Discriminated Against Group
They are the butt of cruel jokes. They attract unwelcome stares. They are routinely portrayed in movies and on television as boobs. They are shunned by photographers. They are often mistaken for someone else because they all look alike. They are a hair salon's worst nightmare.
They are bald men, discriminated against by a society that believes a thick head of hair is next to godliness. Lesbians, gays, native Americans, African-Americans and even dwarfs are represented by anti-discriminatory groups. Laws have been written to protect them from hate crimes.
But bald men wallow in the shadows, unloved, vulnerable, indefensible and powerless. They are victims who suffer silently the barbs of the insensitive and malicious. "That glare bouncing off your head is blinding me," is the insult repeated ad nausea by amigos and antagonists alike.
Bald is not beautiful unless you are a movie star with your own yacht, a 20,000-square foot mansion and fire-engine red Maserati. Even then, you better don a hat. For every Bruce Willis, there are a 100 Tom Cruise clones on screen flaunting their flocculent follicles.
Gays, lesbians and transsexuals represent about 2.5 percent of the population according to a new study by the Center for Disease Control. Yet they have far more clout that bald males, who outnumber them by millions. By age 50, six out of every 10 men will have suffered some degree of baldness.
Just based on those figures, bald men deserve at least as much protection as gays. But they need to be better organized, more vocal and downright pushy. For starters, they need a lobby with a catchy abbreviation. How about Follicle Organization Lividly In Crisis or FOLIC?
Every special interest group needs a headquarters location. The small town (pop. 2,897) of Bald Knob, Arkansas, would nicely serve that purpose. The perfect front man for the organization would be Vin Diesel, an actor with an intimidating presence and a seriously gravelly voice.
Despite voters objections to gay marriage, the courts have struck down bans approved in most states. Surely, that precedent can be used to rule that a bald man can marry a bald woman without suffering stares, insults and society's scorn. It only seems fair.
No group needs hate crime protection more than bald men. The endless jokes are reason enough. "Bill is so bald you can see what's on his mind." "What's the difference between a prince and a bald man? A prince is an heir apparent and a bald man has no hair apparent." The gags are demeaning and hateful.
Have you ever noticed there are more gays on television shows than bald men? And, if the script calls for a bald actor, chances are he will be the show's buffoon. Meanwhile, the gay guy is smart, suave and oozes charm. The bald guy never gets the woman or the man.
Researchers in Germany and Japan found that people view bald men as being older, although socially mature. Men with a flowing locks were perceived as being more aggressive and less mature. The study, conducted in 2001, would have been produced far different results if it was done in the U.S.
In America, bald men are held in such low esteem every president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1953 has sported telegenic heads overflowing with hair. The optics of a bald man addressing the nation are just too frightening for many Americans.
But all that is about to change. Once organized, bald men will reclaim their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of Hair Club memberships.
Gays, lesbians and transsexuals represent about 2.5 percent of the population according to a new study by the Center for Disease Control. Yet they have far more clout that bald males, who outnumber them by millions. By age 50, six out of every 10 men will have suffered some degree of baldness.
Just based on those figures, bald men deserve at least as much protection as gays. But they need to be better organized, more vocal and downright pushy. For starters, they need a lobby with a catchy abbreviation. How about Follicle Organization Lividly In Crisis or FOLIC?
Every special interest group needs a headquarters location. The small town (pop. 2,897) of Bald Knob, Arkansas, would nicely serve that purpose. The perfect front man for the organization would be Vin Diesel, an actor with an intimidating presence and a seriously gravelly voice.
Despite voters objections to gay marriage, the courts have struck down bans approved in most states. Surely, that precedent can be used to rule that a bald man can marry a bald woman without suffering stares, insults and society's scorn. It only seems fair.
No group needs hate crime protection more than bald men. The endless jokes are reason enough. "Bill is so bald you can see what's on his mind." "What's the difference between a prince and a bald man? A prince is an heir apparent and a bald man has no hair apparent." The gags are demeaning and hateful.
Have you ever noticed there are more gays on television shows than bald men? And, if the script calls for a bald actor, chances are he will be the show's buffoon. Meanwhile, the gay guy is smart, suave and oozes charm. The bald guy never gets the woman or the man.
Researchers in Germany and Japan found that people view bald men as being older, although socially mature. Men with a flowing locks were perceived as being more aggressive and less mature. The study, conducted in 2001, would have been produced far different results if it was done in the U.S.
In America, bald men are held in such low esteem every president since Dwight Eisenhower in 1953 has sported telegenic heads overflowing with hair. The optics of a bald man addressing the nation are just too frightening for many Americans.
But all that is about to change. Once organized, bald men will reclaim their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of Hair Club memberships.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Exposing IRS Lies About Lost Emails
Congressional investigators have been stonewalled, stiff-armed and stalled at every turn in their efforts to get to the bottom of the IRS scandal. As a result, the probe has dragged on as precious little details have dribbled out of the agency at the heart of the controversy.
Just when investigators thought things couldn't get worse, Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen dropped a bombshell. Thousands of potentially incriminating emails from former IRS official Lois Lerner disappeared into thin air after a computer crash, he informed Congress.
Lerner, who directed the IRS targeting of conservative groups, was not the only agency employee whose emails dropped from sight. Five more IRS employees also claimed their email correspondence had gone missing. Koskinen contended none of the emails could be recovered.
This is worse than sheer nonsense. It is a damnable lie. Koskinen and the Obama Administration are depending on Americans' unfamiliarity with technology to perpetuate the deceit. Republican committee members could have easily exposed the fabrication if they had been better prepared.
Ed Glotzbach, former vice chairman of Information Services Group, Inc., reviewed Koskinen's testimony and charitably called the commissioner's explanation "not credible." Glotzbach's view carries weight because of his information technology experience.
He is the former chief executive officer of TPI, Inc., a Houston based firm that is a leading sourcing advisory firm in the U.S. Prior to that, Glotzbach served five years as the chief information officer for SBC Communications. His duties included overseeing data center operations for the telecom firm.
He is the former chief executive officer of TPI, Inc., a Houston based firm that is a leading sourcing advisory firm in the U.S. Prior to that, Glotzbach served five years as the chief information officer for SBC Communications. His duties included overseeing data center operations for the telecom firm.
"The fact that Lois Lerner's hard drive crashed is irrelevant," Glotzbach explains. "Today virtually every large organization backs up every email on file servers. Almost always, those servers have back-ups that shadow them. Those emails never leave the servers."
In layman's terms, servers are like super-sized computers. Every user's computer in the organization is linked to file servers, which store and retrieve files. Every document and email created is stored on the server. Most large businesses are required by federal regulations to archive correspondence for at least five years.
Federal government agencies, including the IRS, have similar document retention policies. An examination of the IRS guidelines confirms that the agency is supposed to provide for "backup and recovery of records to protect information against loss and corruption."
The IRS even employs a chief technology officer (CTO) who is responsible for the 400 systems operated by the agency. Inconceivably, Republicans have never called the CTO on the carpet to testify before the Congressional committee.
That has left the pedestrian Koskinen to justify why Lois Lerner's emails cannot be retrieved. His explanations, frankly, are dubious. "Her hard drive could be wrecked or her computer disc scratched. It doesn't matter. Those emails exist on the file server," Glotzbach asserts.
The emails could be easily reclaimed, Glotzbach maintains. Businesses and federal agencies are required often to produce emails and documents created by their employees as part of regulatory proceedings, lawsuits and law enforcement inquiries.
Could IRS officials have erased the emails from the servers? Not likely, Glotzbach explains. "It would require more than a handful of people and there would be a trail of mechanized process control steps," Glotzbach says. "The trail would consist of authorizations to make changes."
If Lerner's emails were not backed up on a server, then the IRS has an ever larger problem, according to Glotzbach. "It is unfathomable that an agency with such voluminous and essential data did not regularly conduct disaster recovery exercises and evaluate the outcome," he says.
In other words, the IRS has to employ a back-up system or it could lose all taxpayer data if its computers crashed. No business, let alone an agency dependent on records like the IRS, could risk losing all its data in the event a fire, earthquake or other disaster destroyed its computers or servers.
Despite the obvious lies, Democrats call the Congressional inquiry a political stunt. The lemmings in the news media have refused to lift a finger to investigate the IRS commissioner's claims. However, their efforts to squelch the Congressional investigation may have backfired.
Now the courts are involved. Cases have been filed with two federal district courts over the lost email issue. In at least one instance, the judge has already demanded an explanation from the IRS. Koskinen's coverup may about to be exposed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)