What does the Republican Party stand for and why should voters support it?
These are important and timely questions. And this morning at George Washington University, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus sought to answer them by outlining the GOP's "Principles for American Renewal."
They are as follows:
1. CONSTITUTION: Our constitution should be preserved, valued and honored.
2. ECONOMY: We need to start growing America’s economy instead of Washington’s economy so that working Americans see better wages and more opportunity.
3. BUDGET/DEBT: We need to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, make government more efficient, and leave the next generation with opportunity, not debt.
4. HEALTHCARE: We need to start over with real healthcare reform that puts patients and their doctors in charge, not unelected bureaucrats in Washington.
5. VETERANS: Our veterans have earned our respect and gratitude, and no veteran should have to wait in line for months or years just to see a doctor.
6. SECURITY: Keeping America safe and strong requires a strong military, growing the economy, energy independence, and secure borders.
7. EDUCATION: Every child should have an equal opportunity to get a great education; no parent should be forced to send their child to a failing school.
8. POVERTY: The best anti-poverty program is a strong family and a good job, so our focus should be on getting people out of poverty by lifting up all people and helping them find work.
9. VALUES: Our country should value the traditions of family, life, religious liberty, and hard work.
10. ENERGY: We should make America energy independent by encouraging investment in domestic energy, lowering prices, and creating jobs at home.
11. IMMIGRATION: We need an immigration system that secures our borders, upholds the law, and boosts our economy.
A thriving economy, a Balanced Budget Amendment, repealing Obamacare, and reforming the VA are only some of the issues that the Republican Party stands for. Through this framework, the RNC hopes, voters will gain a deeper understanding of what principles guide the party -- and of course, what unites it.
Appearing on the Hugh Hewitt Show yesterday, Priebus added "95 percent of Republicans and conservatives and everyone in between" can support this platform. He also called the initiative "bold," but necessary:
We've been talking about this inevitability for weeks now, so the only 'newsy' item in this Buzzfeed story is the alleged timeline, which the White House is disputing. President Obama has every intention of expanding his DREAM Act-style power grab to millions of adults who entered the country illegally -- he just knows that doing so before voters go to the polls would further endanger a bunch of Democrats up for re-election. Solution: Don't rethink the unpopular idea; delay it until the opportunity for an electoral backlash passes. That political Rubicon looms in 34 days. If reporter Adrian Carrasquillo's sources are correct, Obama will drop his decision on the country less than a week later:
A source tells BuzzFeed News a much-anticipated speech at the Congressional Hispanic Institute Gala by the president will tell Latinos to wait 40 more days until after the election on long-awaited executive actions on immigration. President Obama will reaffirm his promise of administrative actions to slow record deportations before the end of the year during a high-profile speech to Latinos and Hispanic officials on Thursday, BuzzFeed News has learned. His speech at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI) gala — his first there since 2011 — comes as activists have expressed anger and frustration over repeated delays on executive actions. Obama will tell Latinos in attendance that he understands their frustration but will also call on them to stick with him and wait 40 more days, until after the election, according to a source who viewed the president’s prepared remarks.
Meanwhile, the unaccompanied minor border crisis stands unresolved. Though the flow of children across the southern border has abated somewhat, tens of thousands of these kids remain in temporary housing. The House of Representatives passed legislation to deal with the complex problem; Harry Reid's Senate has failed to act. It is an objective fact that Obama's 2012 pre-election 'amnesty' gambit for a subset of illegal immigrants brought into the country as children (which was much more politically palatable) contributed heavily to the subsequent crisis. Causes, effects, etc. What is likely to happen if the 'temporary deportation relief' regime is extended to an untold number of illegal immigrant adults? A bigger, more powerful magnet. The Washington Post reported in July that the administration was made aware of the growing border issues two years ago, but dismissed it as a "local issue." The American people strongly oppose Obama's plan, with fewer than one-quarter of respondents to a September IBD/TIPP poll endorsing the president "sidestep[ping] Congress and act[ing] on his own using executive orders” Hence the delay. I'm on the record as a supporter of immigration reform, but the White House's calculated maneuvering is disgraceful. This is terrible, harmful policy, deliberately detonated after Americans have their say in early November. Oh, and enacting it by executive fiat is beyond Barack Obama's legitimate Constitutional authority, according to...Barack Obama:
Obama may have undermined his case because he has insisted time and again that he's the president, not the king, and "can't just make the laws up by myself." In a 2012 interview with Telemundo, Obama defended his decision to defer deportations for children but said he couldn't go any bigger. "If we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option," he said then.
An official with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement revealed that about 70 percent of immigrant families the Obama administration had released into the U.S. never showed up weeks later for follow up appointments. The ICE official made the disclosure in a confidential meeting at its Washington headquarters with immigration advocates participating in a federal working group on detention and enforcement policies. The Associated Press obtained an audio recording of Wednesday’s meeting and separately interviewed participants.
Government watchdog Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security for information surrounding the release of 36,000 criminal aliens into American communities earlier this year. The lawsuit comes after DHS officials failed to respond to a May 15, 2014 FOIA request in the amount of time required by law.
In the lawsuit, Judicial Watch is seeking "Any and all records of communications including, but not limited to, emails and memoranda, to or from personnel in the office of the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (including its component offices, such as the Office of Public Affairs), from May 1 to May 15, 2014, concerning, regarding, or related to the report published by the Center for Immigrations Studies concerning the release of 36,000 criminal aliens."
The initial FOIA request came after a report from the Center for Immigration Studies showed tens-of-thousands of violent criminal aliens, including those with convictions of rape, murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault, drunk driving, vehicle theft and more, were set free.
“How many Americans will be killed, maimed, or victimized by the Obama administration’s release of aliens convicted of violent crimes?” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement about the lawsuit. “Under President Obama, the Department of Homeland Security has turned from a law enforcement agency into one that undermines and violates our nation’s immigration laws in a way that threatens the public safety. And now Homeland Security is in cover-up mode and violating federal law to keep documents about its mass release of criminals away from the American people.”
Earlier this year, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he was aware of reports about the release of criminal aliens and was looking into the details about what exactly happened. Those details have still not been provided.
A new campaign ad for Kentucky Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes featuring former President Bill Clinton is set to begin airing today, reports WHAS11. This is the first Senate campaign ad to feature Clinton in 2014.
The advertisement touts, among other things, Grimes' commitment to the middle class and jobs, while subtly bashing incumbent Senator Mitch McConnell.
While Grimes' use of Clinton may on the surface appear odd, the former president is viewed much more favorably among Kentucky residents than President Obama. Obama currently has a minus 28 approval rating in the state, whereas 53 percent of Kentuckians have a favorable view of Clinton. Clinton and Grimes are longtime family friends.
"I am a Clinton Democrat!" Grimes shouted at Clinton's appearance with her in Lexington in August.
Last month, Grimes released an ad distancing herself from Obama.
Polls show McConnell with a four-point lead.
The Republican National Committee released their new ad for North Carolina’s Senate race in their “Road To Six” campaign. The spot slams Sen. Kay Hagan as nothing more than a vote for the Obama agenda. It cited how she votes with the president 95 percent of the time, despite slamming her predecessor Sen. Elizabeth Dole for voting with then-President Bush 92 percent of the time. She remarked that Dole hasn’t done much in the Senate, but in six years; the RNC claims she has yet to introduce a bill that has become law.
The RNC Chairman said:
I find it ironic that in 2008 Kay Hagan campaigned on the idea that North Carolinians don’t approve of voting with the president all of the time. Clearly, Senator Hagan does not practice what she preaches: she has voted with President Obama 95 percent of the time…Kay Hagan has never introduced a bill that became law and does not chair any of the Senate full committees. In other words, she’s just a rubber stamp for the Obama agenda. For these reasons, and many more, North Carolina can’t afford to have Kay Hagan in the Senate for six more years, and that is why come November, North Carolina will ‘Stop Obama, Fire Reid, and Defeat Hagan.’”
At the same time, the National Republican Senatorial Committee released this ad, which cited the ineffectiveness of Hagan as a senator and her lack of accomplishments. As a result, she has not earned re-election.
Meanwhile, former President Bill Clinton stopped by North Carolina last Tuesday to attend a fundraiser for Sen. Hagan. Last week, the Democratic senator, who is leading in the polls, told a group of supporters that they will be “kicking Tillis out,” but that may be a bit premature.
As the 2014 election cycle has become more concerned about ISIS and terrorism, the focus of the debate leans in the Republicans’ court; the GOP is way ahead of Democrats concerning who voters trust on national security. The Tillis campaign has already hit Hagan for missing classified ISIS hearings last February.
Tillis has a major deficit with women voters–and was getting hammered for reportedly overseeing $500 million in cuts to education in the state legislature. It’s a claim that’s been labeled as half true.
The shift in national security matters gives Tillis, who still has room to grow, a buffer from the onslaught in ads from Democrats over education and opens a new GOP-friendly front in this highly contested senate race. Also, harping on his working class family upbringing helps tap into the neo-populist sentiment that's starting to gain traction with voters; they like candidates who are authentic, seen as approachable, and have experienced and triumphed over financial struggle.
Hagan’s campaign narrative also could be in peril. I’ve mentioned in previous posts about Hagan’s “sins of Raleigh” strategy, which was aptly noted by a North Carolina GOP strategist; and try to make those greater than the ones coming out of Washington. After all, Tillis is unpopular, right?
The truth is there are very few polls that asked about Mr. Tillis directly. The CNN poll did, as did the Civitas Institute. While a previous Civitas Institute poll had Tillis coming in with poor favorable/unfavorable numbers, there was also a substantial amount of voters who didn’t have an opinion. The CNN poll found that he has made considerable improvements, with 47 percent of North Carolina voters viewing him favorably and 47 to 40 unfavorably. Here’s the "nugget" (via NYT):
If there were more surveys showing Mr. Tillis as unpopular as the conventional view, then perhaps we could discount the CNN/ORC poll as an outlier. But in the absence of more evidence to the contrary, one should at least be open to the possibility that Mr. Tillis is more popular than was thought.
That opens the door to a different view of the race: that Mr. Tillis is poised to narrow or eliminate Ms. Hagan’s lead behind undecided voters who view him favorably and who view Ms. Hagan and President Obama unfavorably.
Mr. Tillis might also benefit from the inevitable decline in the support of Sean Haugh, a libertarian candidate who attracted 7 percent of the vote in the CNN/ORC poll.
David Freddoso also wrote that:
In RCP’s poll average, Hagan has dropped from a 4-point lead to 3 points in just one week. And while that a small drop, it demonstrates that despite that $27 million has already been in the race, she has been unable to extend the lead beyond the margin of error.
As many analysts have predicted as well, should the turnout among Republican voters be as high as expected, Hagan could be defeated anyway.
Finally, we have NC Spin, which describes itself as “balanced debate in the Old North State,” posting this post from John Davis, a 20+ year veteran in North Carolina politics, who lists his reasons why Tillis is poised to upset Hagan:
MIDTERM TURNOUT: Since 1992, the average midterm election year turnout is about 22 points lower than presidential election years. In 2008, statewide turnout in the North Carolina General Election was 70%. In 2010, statewide General Election turnout was 43.8%.
EARLY VOTING TURNOUT: When you take a look at the early voting turnout in 2008, the presidential election year in which Hagan won, as compared to the 2010 midterm election year, you can readily see that Hagan’s biggest challenge is yet to come.
In 2008, when Hagan won, 48% of all registered Democrats voted early; 52% of all registered African-American voters voted early
In 2010, a midterm election year, only 16.1% of all registered Democrats voted early; only 14.9% of all registered African-Americans voted early
STRAIGHT PARTY VOTERS: You see a similar shift in the partisan advantage of straight party voters from presidential election years to midterm election years.
In 2008, 1,283,486. Democrats voted straight party; 59% of all straight party voters
In 2010, 599,985, Democrats voted straight party; 51% of all straight party voters
NEW ELECTION LAWS: The elimination of straight party voting is one of the new election laws passed by the Republican General Assembly scheduled to take effect this fall. Today, September 25, 2014, a three-judge federal panel is convening in Charlotte to hear arguments on whether enforcement of the new election laws should be delayed.
If the three-judge panel rules next week that the new election laws can stand, Democrats will face an even tougher turnout challenge. Under the new rules, early voting days are reduced from 17 to 10. There will be no same-day registrations and no straight party voting.
TURNOUT OPERATIONS: In 2012, the Obama camp in Chicago invested $100 million during the 18 months before Election Day in a digital voter contact and turnout operation called Narwhal. They defied the odds and turned out African-Americans and young voters in key swing states in numbers even higher than their historic 2008 accomplishments. That’s why Obama won.
Meanwhile, in Boston, the Romney camp invested an inadequate amount of resources in a digital voter contact and turnout operation called Orca. Orca crashed on Election Day.
Following the loss of the presidential race of 2012, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus directed a self-assessment that became a scathing critique titled the Growth & Opportunity Project. Republicans were their own worst critics on matters like communications with minorities and women and mobilizing voters through digital communications. They were determined to improve.
Democrats laughed at Republicans for admitting their weaknesses in their communication with women and minorities. If my January 10 conclusions are on target, and if Republicans do neutralize the Democrats’ digital voter turnout advantage, then Democrats won’t be laughing on Election Day.
There is a little bit of a wrinkle about the election law; parts of it have been blocked (via Time):
A federal appeals court on Wednesday blocked parts of a sweeping North Carolina voting law from taking hold ahead of this year’s midterm elections.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s decision to allow provisions of the law that eliminate same-day-registration and the casting of out-of-precinct ballots. The appeals court on Wednesday still allowed other portions of the law to stand, including the cut of seven early voting days. But in a 69-page opinion Wednesday, the appeals court said an August decision by the lower district court to allow the full law was flawed.
The decision comes just weeks before the early voting period is set to begin in the Tar Heel State on Oct. 23. “The right to vote is fundamental,” Judge James Wynn wrote in the majority opinion. “And a tight timeframe before an election does not diminish that right.”
After eight years of constant government stonewalling and mistreatment, including an unexplained firing in a Denny's parking lot, Special Agent and whistleblower Vince Cefalu's trial against the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives for retaliation and unlawful termination is set to start Monday.
In 2005, Cefalu exposed ATF corruption and illegal wiretapping. Prior to becoming a whistleblower, he put dozens of hard criminals in prison and received promotions in addition to consistently positive evaluations. In 2009, he launched the website CleanUpATF.org in order for agents within ATF to blow the whistle on corrupt behavior anonymously due to the agency's history of retaliation against those who "jump their chain of command." His website is where bloggers and news reporters first saw allegations of gunwalking in Operation Fast and Furious. The site is heavily monitored by the Department of Justice.
In the February 2012 issue of Townhall Magazine, Cefalu detailed the ATF corruption leading up to Fast and Furious and his retaliation case from inside the bureau. When ATF managers fired him without explanation, again in a Denny's parking lot, the following was posted on CleanUpATF.org.
It's well-known that ATF management and their viciously corrupt counsel are, for the most part, brutally self-serving and mean-spirited. But this Cefalu termination is nevertheless surprising in its utter incomprehensibility under the circumstances, from purely legal and elemental federal labor law standpoints. If they had any prayer of making the action stick, they had to do it more than a year ago, before so many additional events have transpired that will render the termination plainly unlawful and inescapably untenable. It's just plain moronic no matter how you slice it.
It seems apparent that ATF's leadership at all levels has degenerated to a pathetic state of paroxysmal, shoot-from-the-hip incompetence. They can't even do the wrong thing right.
Cefalu's trial will take place in U.S. District Court Northern District of California in San Francisco.
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the October issue of Townhall Magazine.
Panola Pepper Corporation was started for all the right reasons. Located in the town of Lake Providence in Louisiana’s East Carroll Parish, the hot sauce company has been providing employment to those who live in one of the nation’s poorest areas. Year after year, East Carroll Parish ranks among the top 10 U.S. counties with the highest poverty rates. Time magazine once named the town of Lake Providence the “poorest place in America.”
Founded in 1983, Panola Pepper began as a wintertime business to give farm workers income during the three-month gap between the planting and harvest seasons. Employees would produce, bottle, and label hot sauce so they would not have to go on government assistance to make it through the winter. Fortunately, the product was so well received that the business became full-time. Thirty-one years later, Panola Pepper employs 35 people and continues to grow.
One major roadblock stands in the way of that growth, however. The employer mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, imposes new regulations that make it difficult for Panola Pepper to continue operating in the way it always has. In fact, Obamacare has put undue burden on small businesses and large corporations alike, impeding growth and increasing costs across the board.
Small Business Staying Small
The employer mandate will require that all American businesses with 50 or more full-time employees (defined as working 30 or more hours per week) provide health insurance or else pay a penalty. Businesses that do not comply will receive a steep fine of $2,000 for each full-time employee beginning with the 51st person. After being delayed twice since 2012, the mandate is expected to go into effect in 2016.
In the case of Panola Pepper Corporation, President and CEO Mike Coullard explains that his small business simply can neither afford to accommodate the mandate (by providing insurance for all employees) nor pay the penalty fines. While operating within a very small profit margin in this impoverished area of the country, Panola Pepper must now consider machinery options to replace employees.
“Now that we’re looking at getting close to that number of 50 employees, we are starting to look at automated machinery instead of people as a viable option to meet our growth needs,” Coullard tells Townhall. “And they’re certainly out there. You can buy faster equipment to eliminate people from virtually every position on our assembly line. It takes about 13 people to run the line and we could spend half a million dollars on better equipment and eliminate about eight of those people. We are not doing this because it’s not part of our culture, but if we are forced to provide health insurance to our employees, then that half a million dollars seems a whole lot easier to spend.”
Another option is to cut employee hours so they are no longer considered full-time. “These are the tough decisions that we face,” Coullard explains. “Our options are limited. Keep doing business the way we always have and be forced to go out of business because we can’t afford to pay anyone, or make some of these tough decisions that the government is putting on small businesses.”
Coullard stresses that the company’s objective is to employ as many people as possible, turning any profit back into the development of new products so they can hire more people. “When limits by government are put on your ability to grow and continue to do things the same way,” he says, “unfortunately, people are affected.”
Big Businesses Facing Higher Costs
Small businesses like Panolo Pepper are more willing to tell the truth about plans to mitigate Obamacare’s high costs than large corporations that fear boycotts and bad press from progressive activists. For example, the media chastised Darden Restaurants, the owner of Olive Garden and Longhorn Steakhouse, in 2012 after announcing plans to limit the number of full-time employees per restaurant. Large companies are still finding ways to deal with Obamacare’s costs; they just aren’t making any public statements about it.
But by exactly how much are costs rising as a direct result of Obamacare? Since the law passed, chief human resource officers are becoming increasingly attuned to the health care aspect of their overall job. Dr. Patrick Wright of the University of South Carolina’s Darla Moore School of Business conducted a survey of top CHROs across the country, focusing on their company’s response to the employer mandate. The results revealed that a whopping 78 percent of respondents reported health insurance cost increases by an average of 7.73 percent. Additionally, 37 percent indicated that labor costs have increased by an average of 5.6 percent. Only 19 percent experienced no net change in costs.
The shift to high-deductible consumer-directed health plans is also becoming more commonplace as a means to reduce costs. Employers hope that by putting more responsibility into the hands of the employee, fewer services will be used. But Wright notes there are downsides, too.
“On the plus side, the move to CDHPs will increasingly introduce market mechanisms into the health care market. On the negative side, however, it will be a difficult transition in terms of a change of mindset for both employees and health care providers. Employees will have to take more responsibility for choosing lower cost providers and providers will have to become significantly more transparent in their prices.”
Wright also found that 73 percent of respondents plan to, or already have, moved employees to consumer-directed plans, and 71 percent have raised or will raise employee contributions toward health insurance. Nearly a quarter said they will more rigorously ensure part-time workers stay beneath the 30-hour limit.
A Logistical Nightmare
It’s no secret that Obamacare is unpopular among CHROs. In a survey by the HR Policy Association, only 10 percent said the law would help their companies more effectively control health care costs. Forty-eight percent predicted costs would increase by 0 to 5 percent. Thirty-seven percent predicted costs would increase by 6 to 10 percent. Five percent predicted costs would increase by more than 10 percent.
Eighty-five percent of respondents reported they find it troubling that the law has increased access to the health care system without making significant improvements in the efficiency and affordability of that system. And shockingly, 68 percent said that if other large employers decide to no longer offer health care coverage, their companies might give serious consideration to doing the same.
Christine Cunneen, CEO of Hire Image LLC, a company that performs background screenings and drug tests, has seen an 86 percent increase in health care premiums over the last seven years. Her employees’ $500 deductible has now quadrupled to $2,000.
“Two people under my plan have had to pay $2,000 out of pocket, whereas in the past, they typically didn’t get to the deductible unless they were getting care out of plan or out of network,” Cunneen explains. “Now, they go for blood work and are charged $150 for a draw fee. There are a lot of underlying costs that no one is really talking about.”
“I think there should be some type of solution, a lot of it is falling on the backs of the individuals who have been covered in the past,” she notes. “It’s quite expensive for us to stay competitive in the job market if you’re keeping good staff.”
As a perk, Cunneen covers 75 percent of health care premiums for her employees and will continue to do so for now.
Similarly, John Overton, owner and CFO of IT company Turn Key Solutions, generously covers 80 percent of his employees’ health benefit package.
“For professional positions, such as the caliber of IT professionals we seek to hire, quality benefits are high on the priority list of potential candidates,” Overton explains. “In the past we could say, ‘In addition to competitive salary, we offer the same great health care benefits as most Fortune 500 companies.’ Now, instead of highlighting premium health care benefits, we highlight that we pay 80 percent of the employee’s basic health care benefit package.”
To compensate for the more basic health insurance plan, Overton has increased the starting pay for new positions by as much as 20 percent.
“It is disappointing not being able to offer my employees premium health care plans that are affordable, but we are trying to make up for it by paying more,” he says. “We’re growing and hiring, but health care options and rates have become more and more of an impediment to growth rather than the improvements that the [Obama] administration promised.”
Government Picking Winners and Losers
The American Health Policy Institute recently calculated the costs of Obamacare over a 10-year period. “We ... found that the marginal costs of the ACA for larger corporations are about $5,000 per employee over a 10-year period,” says Dr. Tevi Troy, AHPI’s president, former-deputy secretary of Health and Human Services, and former-senior White House aide in the George W. Bush administration. “That is just ACA-related hikes; that does not include health care inflation or the aging work force.”
“For the average of one of these large corporations (i.e. 10,000-plus employees), we would see costs in the $160 to $200 million dollar range over that 10-year period. Again, this is just marginal ACA costs,” he continues. “Every large company is making changes in their health care system, it’s just the fact. ... There are about 170 million people in employer-sponsored care right now and they are all looking at the system saying, ‘What are we going to do differently over the next 10 years?’ We don’t know the extent of all the changes.”
Compared to small businesses, huge corporations have infrastructures that make it easier to absorb and redistribute costs. A large sum of the increases can be made up for by passing it along to employees through higher premiums.
“Large companies have such large employee bases that they’re not concerned about one marginal hiring decision changing the entire scope of how they deal with health care. They’re more interested in the marginal cost per employee than what the overall costs are of hiring,” Troy explains.
“The people who get subsidies will see benefits and the people who don’t will see higher costs, I mean it’s always been the case that there will be winners and losers in this law,” he adds.
Raising the Costs of Job Creation
Randy Bradley, owner of a Burger King franchise through Kadina Corporation, tells Townhall he might have to drop employee retirement plans and cut hours to offset the new health insurance regulations.
“We have to look at a number of solutions because if the cost of insurance per employee is more than my profit, which it will be, that will drive me out of business unless I take other actions. There will be a combination of having to reduce other employment costs. For instance, my employees have a retirement plan available that will probably end because I can’t afford to provide both health care and retirement.”
It’s tricky business in the fast food world when one must raise prices to make up for increased costs.
“There is only a certain amount of elasticity in the market,” he explains. “If I go beyond a certain point in raising prices, customers are going to come less often because they can’t afford to come at the new prices. We have very difficult decisions to make. What costs do we cut, what prices do we raise, how much do we raise them by, and how do we comply with all of this regulation? There are a lot of very difficult decisions involved here.”
Bradley explains: “They have defined large business by the number of employees you have, but the number of employees you have does not give any indication as to whether health insurance is affordable. If you’re making $1,000 per year per employee and the insurance will be $3,000 per employee, it does not matter if you have five employees or 500 employees, the profit per employee dictates whether or not you can afford insurance.
“It is absolutely going to cost more to hire people and that also means we are going to be able to give less in the way of wage increases,” he continues. “Within a business, you have a certain amount of money for each type of expense: utilities, insurance, food costs, paper costs, etc. Those things don’t go away, so I only have a certain percentage of the money I get from my customers to spend on labor costs. If they force me to put more money into health insurance, I’m going to have to reduce the number of labor hours I can spend. It’s a limited pool. If I can only spend, say, 18 percent on my crew members’ hours spent working, I am still only going to be able to spend 18 percent. If the cost is going up per person, I’m going to have to cut hours.”
These are not isolated cases. According to surveys from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 17 percent of businesses reported that they are reducing the number of workers they employ and 22 percent said they are reducing wages and salaries of those employees. Twenty-five percent said they are increasing consumer prices to help mitigate costs. Sixty-nine percent of businesses plan to increase employee contributions by means of higher copays, deductibles, and premiums.
This is simply not sustainable. Obamacare was sold to the American people as a budget-neutral law that would even save the average family $2,500. Instead, Obamacare has raised health care costs, forced millions of Americans to buy more health care than they wanted, and killed countless jobs in the process.
If one thing is certain, it is that Obamacare has been effective in redistributing the wealth from those who previously had employer-based insurance to those who did not. With the Congressional Budget Office predicting that 30 million people will still be uncovered by the end of the decade, Americans continue to ask if this was really worth it. •
In 1982, former black panther Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted of murdering Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. He stood over Faulkner after a traffic stop and shot him multiple times, including in the face as he laid dying on the ground. Abu-Jamal never denied the killing during his trial. He, and his supporters, are still unapologetic for Faulkner's death. The far-Left has turned Abu-Jamal into a hero and so-called political prisoner. He even has a street named after him in France.
Although he still sits in prison carrying out a life-sentence (his death penalty sentence was overturned by the work of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and by President Obama's former DOJ Civil Rights Division nominee Debo Adegbile in 2011), Abu-Jamal has been invited to give the commencement address for Vermont's Goddard College this weekend. The worst part? He was handpicked by the students. More from the Washington Times:
The college said Abu-Jamal’s speech has been prerecorded by Prison Radio.
“As a reflection of Goddard’s individualized and transformational educational model, our commencements are intimate affairs where each student serves as her or his own valedictorian, and each class chooses its own speaker,” Goddard College Interim President Bob Kenny said in a statement. “Choosing Mumia as their commencement speaker, to me, shows how this newest group of Goddard graduates expresses their freedom to engage and think radically and critically in a world that often sets up barriers to do just that.”
The college said Abu-Jamal received a bachelor of arts degree from the school in 1996, completing his coursework by mail.
Maureen Faulkner, the widow of Officer Daniel Faulkner, recently went on the Kelly File to respond.
"I am absolutely outraged that they would have such an absolutely hate-filled murderer on as a commencement speaker. I mean this man, he murdered my husband with malice and premeditation. He is evil. What does he have to offer?" Faulkner said. "All I can say is he's a murderer and he lost his voice when he put a bullet between my husband's eyes. And I still do not understand this justice system and why they are allowing him to speak."
The college is justifying the invitation by pointing out Abu-Jamal is "an award winning journalist who chronicles the human condition" and that standard policy is to allow whoever the students invite to speak.
After more than 300 airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby said this week that the group “remains a very potent force.”
"Yes, they've changed some of their tactics, there's absolutely no question about that, in response to the pressure that we put them under, but that doesn't make them less dangerous or less potent over time," Kirby said.
"Yes, they're blending in more. Yes, they're dispersing, and yes, they aren't communicating quite as openly or as boldly as they once were. That's a good thing, because if they aren't operating as freely, then they aren't as free to achieve their goals.
"That doesn't mean ISIL doesn't still pose a threat. It doesn't mean they aren't still trying and in some cases succeeding at taking and holding ground. No one said this would be easy or quick, and no one should be lulled into a false sense of security by accurate airstrikes. We will not, we cannot bomb them into obscurity."
We’ve heard countless times by now that airstrikes alone will not defeat and destroy the group—a point even Kirby emphasized.
"This is going to be a long struggle," he said, urging "a sense of strategic patience about this entire effort."
"This group will adapt, and we're going to have to adapt right along with them. And air strikes alone, you're just not going to bomb them away. It's not going to happen like that."
He continued: “We've been pretty honest about the fact that military action alone will not win this effort, but that shouldn't be taken as an admission of ineffectiveness, and one of the ways we know we're having an effect is precisely because the terrorists have had to change their tactics and their communications and their command and control."
Meet the Press host Chuck Todd has been pushing and pushing Mark Pryor and Tom Cotton to debate each other one-on-one in Arkansas. He even pledged to make the trip down to the Natural State himself to serve as moderator. Cotton, for his part, has accepted. His opponent ... has not.
“Everything else is happening in this race. Plenty of TV ads, plenty of attacks going on back and forth…let’s see them sit down and have a debate,” Todd said in an interview with KARK 4 News last week. “I think you owe it to the viewers.”
It’s worth repeating and reiterating that the Pryor campaign has already accepted two debate invitations (one of which Cotton has so far declined). So it’s inaccurate to portray Mark Pryor as a debate dodger in the same sense Mark Udall is. Nonetheless, like Sen. Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire, he's not exactly sanguine about the prospects of adding more one-on-one debates to his calendar.
As Todd notes, this is a disservice to Arkansans who are unfairly bombarded with misleading attack ads that distort and slander candidates’ positions. One would think, therefore, that both candidates would relish the opportunity to debate one another in public as often as they could. Apparently not.I'll leave you with two recent attack ads: One hits Pryor for voting for Obamacare; the other hits Cotton for not protecting women, or something: