More Obamacare Fallout
Nov 24, 2012 Political
While Obama’s labor folks claim they have not heard any businesses complain about the impact of Obamacare the reality is that many businesses are feeling the heat. I suppose it is possible that there are not as many complaints as there could be since Obama has granted quite a few waivers to his minions so their businesses are not feeling the pinch. Others though, are downsizing or cutting hours so that they will not be stung by the huge financial impact Obamacare will have.
This started almost as soon as Obama was declared the winner of the tainted 6 November election and has been going strong ever since. Even some liberal professors (are there really any other kind) are feeling the pinch.
A community college in Pennsylvania is cutting back the hours of its adjunct instructors so that they will not fall under the definition of workers who have to be covered by their employer. The Community College of Allegheny is cutting all its part time folks back to 25 hours so that they are under the 30 hours Obamacare defines as full time for purposes of employer provided health care coverage. I wonder how many of these folks voted for Obama…
This is what happens when government mandates things that it has no business being involved in. When government makes rules that apply to businesses with 50 or more workers many small businesses that have slightly more than 50 workers scale down to below 50 to avoid the requirements. Obamacare has cutoffs and many businesses are cutting employees or scaling hours in order to avoid being bitten by the high costs of the law.
Other businesses are adding a surcharge as an individual line item specifically for Obamacare.
This is wise because it lets people know that the increase is because of the cost of Obamacare and it lets them know that cost is being passed on to them, just as all costs including tax increases, are.
I truly hope that this happens all over the country and that people are left to fend for themselves. All the mindless drones who voted for Obama and his vision of big government are likely unaware that they will have to buy health insurance and that Obamacare is not free. I want them to suffer sticker shock and outrage. I also want them to be in pain for the entire time they are required to follow the law.
Pain is a great teacher and I hope these morons are in great pain for what they have done to this country.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: morons, obamacare, pain, part time workers, small business
Obama Takes Limbaugh’s Advice
Dec 9, 2009 Political
After Barack Obama won the election Rush Limbaugh gave him some advice on the economy. OK, actually Rush gave Obama a proposal which Obama ignored. Limbaugh said that we should cut the Capital Gains tax to zero for a period of time and cut the corporate income tax in half. Limbaugh also said that cutting those taxes would put more money in the pockets of Americans and businesses would have more money to hire and expand. Of course this was ignored by Democrats even though cutting taxes always increases revenue to the Treasury and stimulates the economy.
I know a number of liberals who do not believe we should cut taxes. In fact, many of them say we should pay more taxes (somehow liberals always want more taxes but find ways not to pay them – see Obama administration for examples).
It looks like Barack Obama has finally taken some of Rush Limbaugh’s advice. Obama, in an effort to stimulate job growth, is pushing to eliminate the Capital Gains tax on small business for a one year period. The cut should be more and include many others but this is a good first step.
A major part of his package is new incentives for small businesses, which account for two-thirds of the nation’s work force. He proposed a new tax cut for small businesses that hire in 2010 and an elimination for one year of the capital gains tax on profits from small-business investments. Breitbart
Obama wants to cut taxes to zero for one year in order to stimulate job growth. Listen up liberals, your leader has just told you that cutting taxes stimulates job growth.
This is not the first time a Democrat has mentioned cutting a tax to stimulate the economy or stimulate job growth and each time they say it they are admitting that conservatives especially Mr. Limbaugh are right. Saying it is one thing and doing it is another and they seldom carry through with the plan but they do admit, probably unknowingly, that the conservatives are correct.
This economy would be on the mend in a big way had Obama listened to Limbaugh in the first place. Cutting Capital Gains taxes to zero for a year would cause a massive influx of money into the economy where people would spend it. Cutting the corporate tax in half would leave companies with a lot of money to expand and hire.
And the government would get its cut because people who have more money buy things that are taxed. People who get a job pay taxes and the revenue to the Treasury would skyrocket.
I know Obama is only talking about cutting the tax for small businesses but that is better than the path he has been on.
It would have been better if he took all of Limbaugh’s advice but baby steps, a little at a time and we will get there. Once the economy picks up Obama will take the credit but he will have shown that tax cuts are a good thing.
If Obama can cut the Capital Gains taxes on small business the job numbers should improve and the economy should start to improve. But that won’t do it all.
So, here is the piece Limbaugh wrote so Obama won’t have to search around. Read it Barry and follow all of it.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Obama, Rush Limbaugh, small business, taxes, unemployment
Those who do not know History…
May 13, 2009 Political
I get frustrated sometimes, having to tell someone that this time isn’t unique, and if you take away the election of an African- American, and just substitute the election of a man, (which is how it should be viewed), all of this economic cycle, complete with both the recession and the attempted government interference in the free market has all happened before in history. Study the terms of Franklin Roosevelt and you have almost the same things attempted, and the same things failing.
Roosevelt tried “stimulus”, in the form of temporary jobs, and they did have the effect of slowing the fall, but they had no real, long- term effect on the economy, because in order to affect the economy in a positive, long- term way, you actually have to make “new” money, not recirculate money around. If you have several people in a circle, and you pass a ten dollar bill from one to the other, everybody gets ten dollars, for a minute, but it is the same ten dollars, versus someone from outside the circle putting money into the circulation, which is new money, and it accumulates- more and more money finds its way into the circulation.
All these “green” jobs, and road jobs are fine and dandy for the moment, but they truly are not adding much to the economy, because to do this, we need to actually create something, and it must be private industry that does this. And when private industry does this, government must stand out of the way.
Government has always been a handicap to free markets, first, because government wants its cut of any profits, and second, because government has this irrational compulsion to “make things fair” in the markets. That concept is hilarious- that’s like trying to make a snake and a rat good friends- that’s not going to happen. The business world is in a constant state of flux, with companies rising and falling according to the markets.
Our problem has come about because of a lack of blue- collar infrastructure, and no- I am nor talking about the unions, they have been part of the problem here.
It all began with the experiment of “Globalization”, and the global economy, as if we would ever do well having our economy tied in any way to that of Sri Lanka, or Thailand, or Venezuela, for that matter. People in governments around the world have been pushing to “Globalize” the economy, much as the Europeans did with their common currency, and relaxed borders.
This won’t work with us, or I should say, it shouldn’t work with us, but Barama is part of the group that thinks that having one happy world will be a good thing. The problem is, in order to do this, our economy will have to go down to third- world levels, and we all become poorer because of it.
A good example might be a container with several compartments- you can fill these several compartments with different levels of water, but if there is no separation between the compartments, the water seeks its own level, and everybody has the same amount. This is contrary to free and open markets, where a person can make as much as the market can bear. A country that is productive doesn’t have to prop up a country that does no work- the last thing we need is a country on welfare.
Then you mix in the unions, which began as a good thing, but became useless, because they believed they were bulletproof- not so, and their thinking was so calcified, that they didn’t see it coming. Globalization, NAFTA, CAFTA, all the various openings that appeared in the world trade situation did the unions no favors- their status and membership shrank like a cheap chinese cotton shirt.
Unions, with the exception of those with captive corporations, lost their influence, because the manufacturing corporations found that they could move to a more favorable climate with regards to wages and taxes, and so they moved from our shores. No unions, lower wages, less taxes- what was not to like? Who cares if the quality is shoddy- if everybody wears shoddy clothes, who knows the difference?
There is no way to get them back. Absent lowering our wages to third- world amounts, those companies are gone forever. Neither can we completely close our borders to trade, for we no longer make what the world wants- they are beating a path to someone else’s door.
The best we can hope for is that we learn our lesson, re- institute a free market, and do what Americans have done through the ages- re- invent, retool, and rebuild our economy, but we will not be able to do this successfully if the unions cannot bring some innovative ideas and flexible thinking to the table. Neither can we do this if the government insists on impeding these ideas with government regulations. The government needs to step out of the way, and try to sweeten the deal with tax breaks for companies that locate here.
Manufacturing must return to the United States. Blue collar jobs must be held by Americans first, because blue collar jobs are the backbone of this country, and lets face facts- not everybody is cut out to be a software designer or a lawyer. The Nation needs carpenters and bricklayers also, and these people deserve a living wage in order to be a productive member of society.
Only by being able to get ahead can they begin to start their own small businesses.
And that is how we begin to get out of this mess.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: globalization, living wage, nafta, small business, unions
Obama To Overhaul Government Contracting
Mar 6, 2009 Political
Barack Obama ran on a platform of changing the way the federal government does business and his latest venture is into the government contracting process. The government is not necessarily interested in changing the way contracts are awarded and though there might be new rules from The Evil One, the reality is Congress will do what it wants. When contracts are awarded using the appropriate procedures and the contract is not awarded to whom a particular politician wanted then there are calls for investigations and a do over.
The Democrats have cried for 8 years about sole sourcing contracts to Halliburton by the Bush administration while ignoring the fact that Bill Clinton sole sourced to the same company for the same reason. They were the only one large enough to handle what was needed. Obama stated the other day that the rules were going to be rewritten to save the country billions of dollars:
President Obama on Wednesday ordered his administration to change how government contracts are awarded to private businesses, saying he intended to reverse some practices of the Bush administration and do away with no-bid contracts that have cost billions and led to corruption investigations.
~snip~
“The days of giving defense contractors a blank check are over,” Mr. Obama said. “We need more competition for contracts and more oversight as they are carried out.” New York Times [emphasis mine]
I commend Obama for indicating that there needs to be competition in the contracting process. He should exercise caution though because he will not be able to eliminate no bids all together. There are some companies who are the only ones that do what they do and others will not be able to compete. However, the competition needs to be there when practicable. Lowest bids should not be the sole determination of awarding a contract but it should play a part.
Given Obama’s statement I have a challenge for him. Barack Obama, if you truly want competition then you need to eliminate the government set asides for special groups. The government sets aside contracts for small, minority, veteran or female owned businesses and this is not necessarily the way to get the best service for our money. These businesses should be able to compete but they should not be the only ones allowed to do so. From Small Business:
GSA, like all Federal agencies, has established goals for awarding contracts to small, minority-owned, women-owned, HUBZone, veteran-owned and service-disabled veteran- owned small business owners. To meet these goals, GSA uses “small business programs”?. These programs include contact with the small business community, both to inform them about what GSA has to offer, and to help in locating and working with GSA procurement offices. Some small business programs also have “set-asides”? under which certain contracts are reserved for competition among small businesses.
Some agencies are required to purchase from these entities even if a better price is available elsewhere. I have seen many purchases for items that cost quite a bit more than the item could have been purchased for from a local store. The answer to any question is always, we have to buy from this organization.
If Obama is interested in restructuring the process then he needs to ensure that all set asides are removed and the process is opened for every business that can provide the service and who wants to compete. The goal is to save taxpayer money and to be good fiscal stewards so keeping practices that do not save money should be out of the question. That would be business as usual which is not the change we can believe in.
One thing is intriguing though. No bid contracts are the focus of this though the larger picture is to improve the entire process. The article cites over runs in the no bid process:
A review of 95 military projects by the Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan auditing arm of Congress, found that they [no bid contracts] exceeded the budgeted amounts by $295 billion over the course of several years.
This failed to mention how much over runs in competitive contracts cost but in any event the no bids are quite expensive. Or are they?
Given how much money the government spends on contracts this 295 billion over several years must represent only a very small percentage of the total cost.
Democrats say not to worry about pork in Congressional bills because the pork is a very small percentage of the entire bill. Harry Reid made that claim very recently and we have heard it a number of times. If the small percentage of pork does not matter and is no reason to overhaul the legislative process in DC then why is the small percentage of no bid over runs a good reason to overhaul contracting in the government?
I am all for making the contracting process more competitive and more cost effective but in total.
I am not in favor of window dressing and lip service which is generally what we get when government talks about change.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: contracts, fairness, no bid, Obama, small business