by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Is Executive Amnesty is inexplicably tied to Obamacare?
On Monday of last week, the New York Times reported that Health and Human Secretary, Sylvia Burwell, projected 9.1 million enrollees in Obamacare by the end of the year. This is in stark contrast to the original projections by the Congressional Budget Office, which “had estimated that 13 million people would be enrolled next year, with the total rising to 24 million in 2016”.
The New York Times also noted that, “in the past, the White House has used the budget office numbers as a benchmark for success under the Affordable Care Act.”
Currently, enrollment stands at 7.1 million, down from the 8 million touted last year by Obama. This reduction stems from persons who failed to pay premiums or could not prove their identity and therefore considered ineligible.
Additionally, HHS curiously forecasted that “most of the new marketplace enrollment for 2015 is likely to come from the ranks of the uninsured,” and less likely from persons who had already been paying for their own insurance without the marketplace.
If enrollment is lagging so badly behind expectations, how could Obama possibly salvage numbers for Obamacare so that it could show a modicum of “success under the Affordable Care Act”?
Answer: Executive Amnesty.
Early estimates have put those who might benefit from Obama’s amnesty plan to be 3-5 million, a number that would neatly fit the amount necessary to bolster the fledgling Obamacare, which was Obama’s signature policy.
Now, if one goes to the healthcare.gov website, and hovers over the “Get Answers” tab, it opens up a tab which includes the section, “Coverage For…” Guess who is first on the list? Immigrants. Immigrants are listed ahead of “Young adults, Self-employed people, Unemployed people, People with disabilities, People with job-based coverage, Military veterans, American Indians & Alaska Natives, Pregnant women, Same-sex married couples, Retirees, and Incarcerated people.” (in that order). So if a immigrant was granted amnesty, the government made it very easy for him or her to get started.
Within the section under “Immigrants”, the website lists 17 types of immigrant status that makes one eligible for Obamacare. Furthermore, six more types of status are eligible if one has applied for a particular immigrant program, and yet another five more status types are able to enroll in Obamacare if they are coupled with employment authorization. That makes 28 types of immigrants who are eligible for an Obamacare plan already.
Now, to be fair, the website explicitly states at the bottom of the page: “Undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible to buy health coverage through the Marketplace. They’re not eligible for premium tax credits or other savings on Marketplace plans.”
However, that’s where Obama’s 10-point Executive Amnesty plan comes in. Under this plan, “President Barack Obama is on the verge of granting executive amnesty and work permits to five million illegal immigrants, including the illegal immigrant parents of children who are American citizens OR previously received executive amnesty under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in 2012.”
Now, the first thing to note about the relationship between amnesty and Obamacare is the part about DACA. On healthcare.gov, it states that “Deferred Action Status” is eligible for Obamacare, but also notes specifically on that same bullet point that “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is not an eligible immigration status for applying for health insurance”. Now, if Obama implements his Executive Amnesty plan, those currently claiming DACA status will be able to suddenly attain Obamacare — allowing potentially many, many new subscribers here.
Another analysis from HotAir goes further in depth:
“One key piece of the order, officials said, will allow many parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents to obtain legal work documents and no longer worry about being discovered, separated from their families and sent away.
That part of Mr. Obama’s plan alone could affect as many as 3.3 million people who have been living in the United States illegally for at least five years, according to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute, an immigration research organization in Washington. But the White House is also considering a stricter policy that would limit the benefits to people who have lived in the country for at least 10 years, or about 2.5 million people.
Extending protections to more undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children, and to their parents, could affect an additional one million or more if they are included in the final plan that the president announces.”
Hence, if Executive Amnesty goes through, the warning on the healthcare.gov website regarding undocumented immigrants is no longer applicable to those who would receive protections; thus, they would be eligible to purchase an Obamacare plan.
As it stands now, a large number of legal immigrants are already using Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. In a report released just this past week from the Center for Immigration Studies, “immigrants have accounted for 42 percent of the growth in Medicaid enrollment since Obamacare began being implemented in 2011”. Furthermore, “The high rate and significant growth in Medicaid associated with immigrants is mainly the result of a legal immigration system that admits large numbers of immigrants with relatively low-levels of education, many of whom end up poor and uninsured.”
2011-2013 have proven to be successful for immigrant-related Obamacare signups; therefore, the likelihood for immigrants who receive amnesty to sign up for an Obamacare plan or product seems relatively high. As a very rough estimate number, if Obama was to grant amnesty to 5 million immigrants, (a middle estimate figure) and assuming the signup rate for Obamacare just among those immigrants is 42% (to stay on trend), then 2.1 million immigrants would sign up.
If HHS is predicting 9.1 million enrolled by the end of the year, and then potentially another 2.1 million can be also factored in, the White House is getting closer to the originally projected figures. Remember, “in the past, the White House has used the budget office numbers as a benchmark for success under the Affordable Care Act”, and the CBO had predicted 13 million by the end of this year, so adding immigrants newly eligible through Executive Amnesty will certainly help to salvage Obamacare numbers.
With the news this morning that Obama will announce Executive Action on immigration this coming Friday, it seems all the more likely that Executive Amnesty is tied to Obamacare. The White House has been mum about how many people have enrolled in the past few days of open enrollment season, suggesting that the number is low. An independent site, acasignups.net, back this assertion.
At this point, no one in the Administration even cares about the cost anymore. It’s all about saving the legislation from abomination, no matter the pricetag or method. That’s probably why the CBO has not even bothered to score the impact of Obamacare on the deficit since 2012 — before Obamacare even began to be fully implemented! Of course, it’s not like anyone really believes either by now that Obamacare won’t add to the deficit.
Therefore, if the numbers so far this year are not meeting even lowered expectations for enrollment, then it is imperative to get the numbers up NOW. That is why Obama has decided to act on Amnesty so soon after Obamacare signups just began again — so stay tuned for Friday, and pay attention to how the Executive action affects immigration and Obamacare.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
In case anyone wasn’t sure about the White House denials regarding its ties to Jonathan Gruber, here we have video of Obama heaping praise upon him:
“You have already drawn some of the brightest minds from academia and policy circles, many of them I have stolen ideas from liberally, people ranging from Robert Gordon to Austan Goolsbee; Jon Gruber; my dear friend, Jim Wallis here, who can inform what are sometimes dry policy debates with a prophetic voice.”
This seems to directly contrast Obama’s statement to Ed Henry yesterday, where he “just learned” about Jonathan Gruber (probably from the TV), like every other major story. President Obama said, “I just heard about this. I get well briefed before I come out here. The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I’ve completely disagreed with in terms of the voters, is no reflection on the actual process that was run. We had a year-long debate, Ed, I mean, go back and look at your stories. The one thing we can’t say is that we did not have a lengthy debate about health care in the United States of America. or that it was not adequately covered. I think it is fair to say that there was not a provision in the health care laws that was not extensively debated and was fully transparent.”
Gruber was also not merely “some advisor who never worked on our staff”. We know now there was a cozy relationship with Gruber. Gruber “visited the White House more than a dozen times, according to official visitor logs. One of those meetings took place in the Oval Office with Obama. Additionally, according to contracts issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Gruber was paid $400,000 for his work on the president’s signature health care law.”
Additionally, Gruber was paid large sums of taxpayer money, totaling nearly $4 million of the last several years — half of it directly related to Obamacare work. Though he wasn’t paid directly by the White House (probably how Obama technically justified the “staff” comment to himself), he was paid by Health and Human Services as well as 8 states so far to work on Obamacare and, prior to, by HHS for other consulting work
Though Obama continues to try to distance himself from Gruber and his remarks, the ties just keep surfacing.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, TAXES
Many states continue to bamboozle their citizens by obfuscating the true depth of their debt that is occurring in the form of unfunded liabilities. Those liabilities are mainly state public pension plans, and they continue to routinely promise pie-in-the-sky returns, even after years of bleak economic growth and investment.
A group called State Budget Solutions analyzes the problem of underfunding each year. Its annual report “reveals that state public pension plans are underfunded by $4.7 trillion, up from $4.1 trillion in 2013. Overall, the combined plans’ funded status has dipped three percentage points to 36%. Split among all Americans, the unfunded liability is over $15,000 per person.”
Many people might think, “I don’t work for my state government, so it doesn’t affect me”. It most certainly does. We are facing a generation of Baby Boomers who are getting ready to retire, and expect to have the pension that has been promised to them. Those promises are the unfunded liabilities which must be paid out. Pension costs come from state budgets — you and me — and in order to cover the costs, adjustments must be made. Expect tax increases and/or reduced government services in the coming years because a greater portion of the state budget will need to be dedicated to meeting these obligations.
How did we get here? The most damning factor is that of generous promises.
Ultimately, negotiators — be it union heads, lawmakers, or other bureaucrats — have had a fiduciary responsibility not to pay more than fair compensation, thereby restricting compensation and benefits to amounts no greater than what those skills would command in the private sector. Unfortunately, there are really no such competitive inhibitions in the public sector and therefore the negotiation routine lacks the incentive for restraint. In most cases, the self-interest of the public sector negotiator is more directly aligned with the leader that can get him elected rather than the taxpayer whom he is representing.
Lofty and mythical promises have been made for years now without a care about how it will be paid for — because the negotiator will likely be long gone when obligations come due. This is a true case of the fox in charge of the hen house. Thus runaway financial promises have deeply accumulated in state governments for which it cannot properly budget, while binding future governments not yet in office.
The Great Recession has made the problem more acute in recent years. “As the economy struggles to get back on track, states’ fiscal health also suffers, making it more difficult for state officials to make up for the shortfalls with greater contributions. As bond yields have suffered due to interest rates being held at historic lows, the fair market valuation of public pension liabilities also took a hit.”
Furthermore, most, if not all states, have hidden the vast problem by using accounting tricks — probably hoping the economy or investment will bounce back, or else just passing the buck year after year so it becomes someone else’s problem.
For instance, “state pension funds use a high discount rate. Discounting liabilities is a necessary part of fund management. Fund managers must assume that the current assets will be worth more in the future due to a number of factors, notably the return on investing those current assets. The problem arises because the discount rate is not based on the nature of the assets held by the pension plan, but is rather based on the assumed rate of return.”
The assumed rate of return — herein lies the problem. By continuing to perpetuate and promise rates of return of 5-8% for pensions, state governments show on paper that their liabilities are much smaller than they are. However, for years now, returns have been much closer to 2-3%. Yet state governments fail to make those realistic adjustments because it sounds neither glamorous nor generous to the employee.
What’s more, some states are facing such enormous financial pressures and shortfalls in all sectors of the state budget that they have reduced or skipped the yearly contribution to the pension funds altogether — thereby making the gulf that much wider. New Jersey balanced its budget (again) this year by reducing (again) the payment by $2.4 billion; Virginia skipped its payment back altogether in 2010 — although it did implement a repayment plan over subsequent 5 years to make up for that choice.
In fact, a cursory glance back at these practices reveal that the games have been ongoing for several years now. A Wall Street Journal article on this subject from Spring of 2010 — nearly 5 years ago — discusses how states were reducing and skipping payments and delaying the “day of reckoning”. New Jersey, California, and Illinois were some of the worse offenders then.
Is it any wonder that these three states are in the top ten for the amount of unfunded liabilities? California has the worst, $754 billion. In terms of funding ratios, Illinois leads the list with only 22% of its obligations funded. You can look at the full and various lists here.
The crisis will only continue to worsen unless changes are made. The outlook is gloomy for state governments and, based on past performance, is not likely to get better anytime soon. For most states, the “kick the can” approach allows them to coast while the liabilities fester, letting it become the problem of other future governments at some undefined point in the future. That is reprehensible.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, TAXES
During the ongoing court case between Judicial Watch and the IRS, the IRS recently filed a “Defendant’s Opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion Seeking Recovery”, protesting the continued FOIA requests regarding Lerner’s tapes.
Some remarkable information emerged. In the document, the IRS wrote that they have not searched IRS servers because “the servers would not result in the recovery of any information.”
The IRS further claimed no search was performed on the back-up tapes, because there was “no reason to believe that the tapes are a potential source of recovering” any lost emails.
What’s more, the IRS stated no there had not been a search on the government-wide back-up system because they had “no reason to believe such a system … even exists.” (contrary to earlier statements), and that the IRS didn’t submit “declarations about any of the foregoing items because it had no reason to believe that they were sources from which to recover information lost as a result of Lerner’s hard drive failure.”
So what did the IRS do? The IRS described how it collected information from IRS employees likely to be involved, “loaded that information onto an electronic server, processed it, and searched it”, creating what it calls “the Congressional database” for the purposes of the investigation. It is from there, and only there, that the IRS “is reviewing all documents in the Congressional database to determine whether they are responsive to Judical Watch’s FOIA requests”. Not email servers. Not back-up tapes. Not back-up systems.
So the IRS made a separate database, created from information it selected to go into the database, and searches that — hoping that database and search is satisfactory enough for the courts.
The IRS also protested Judicial Watch’s Motion Seeking Recovery on these grounds:
I. Judicial Watch is not Entitled to Discovery
II. Judicial Watch’s Motion is Premature
III. Judicial Watch’s Request for Discover is Inappropriately Broad and Vague|
The IRS specifically argued in its document that “the discovery is the rare exception in FOIA cases and should only be allowed under extraordinary circumstances, such as agency bad faith or conflicting declarations. No extraordinary circumstances are present here, and Judicial Watch cannot manufacture extraordinary circumstances through hearsay, innuendo, and bald assertions.”
In case anyone was wondering whether or not extraordinary circumstances, agency bad faith, or conflicting declarations applies, here’s a quick summary timeline produced by IJReview.
August 2013 – Congress issues the first subpoena for Lois Lerner’s emails from 1/1/2009 through 8/2/2013
September 2013 – Lerner resigns from the IRS.
October 2013 – House Oversight Committee issues second subpoena for the emails.
February 2014 – President Obama asserts to Bill O’Reilly that there was “not even a smidgen of corruption” at the IRS.
March 2014 – The IRS states the the emails from Lerner’s computers were removed, put in storage, but that they “are in fact searching” for them.
June 2014 – The IRS states that it has lost emails of other employees, all of which had been subpoenaed as well.
July 2014 – The IRS admits that it was told that the drives were likely able to be repaired, but opted to destroy them instead.
September 2014 – The IRS states that emails from more than 20 employees, all of which were were subpoenaed, were lost due to drive crashes.
November 2014 – The IRS admits that it never looked for the emails in the first place.
This court case will continue to drag on and on, hoping that enough time will pass that Americans will forget or lose interest in this scandal. Kudos to Judicial Watch for continuing to insist on information and integrity.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ELECTIONS, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Romney’s appearance on Fox News Sunday this past weekend confirmed that Romney should not be a candidate for President in 2016. Indeed, his inability to answer any of Chris Wallace’s questions at all made it painfully clear why he lost his election bid in 2012.
The first question had to do with the old “outsourcing jobs” bit, which has been an omnipresent theme in several races, such as Quinn for Governor in Illinois, and Purdue for Senate in Georgia. The way Chris Wallace asked about it gave Romney the perfect chance to explain how the outsourcing attack is utter nonsense, but instead, he virtually ignored the opportunity by not answering and addressing Wallace’s question. All he did was basically state that the Democrats make ad hominem attacks…and that’s about it. Nothing about how those relocated jobs can and do strengthen American business. Nothing about how the U.S. economy can’t support many of these businesses anymore, so they have to go elsewhere. Nothing about how, in some scenarios, not exporting jobs to stay globally competitive often means, as a result, firing people and closing the business outright. But Romney — the businessman, mind you — ignored all of this and acted as if the other side was right.
The second question Romney messed up was in regard to immigration reform. Wallace suggested that the Senate passed a comprehensive plan but that the House GOP refused to pass it. Here, Romney ignored this point again, saying that well, if the GOP gets control of the Senate, they can make immigration laws too. He totally failed to point out that the comprehensive immigration bill was a Democrat style bill which contained provisions unacceptable to the GOP regarding spending and border control.
The last question was in regard to Reince Priebus’ 11 points. Wallace asked Romney if he thought it was a mistake for the GOP to have made these points. Romney basically ignored it. He could have talked about once the elections are won, the GOP can move forward. But he didn’t.
To use a baseball analogy, it was strike three. Romney is not a good contender. We need someone that knows how to answer the damn question, to articulate the positions of the GOP on their feet. To prepare the points that need to be made, get the sentence out swiftly and succinctly. The nominee for 2016 needs to be able to think quickly, defend liberty, promote prosperity, and speak the principles that we hold dear. Romney has proven, once and for all, that he is unable to do such a thing.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Will the Republicans take the Senate? Election Day Links (to be updated periodically)
Republicans sense power shift; Dems rev up damage control
WASH POST: 97% CHANCE GOP TAKES SENATE
CNN 95%
NYT: 70%
PAPER: Where did O go wrong?
NYT: Irate Electorate…
Most ads on Obamacare…
WH Strategist: Dems Running from President ‘Look Like Chickensh*t’…
Guide to What to Watch for on Election Night…
Harry Reid’s fateful evening…
30 year old Republican set to be youngest congresswoman in history…
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, TAXES
The Legatum Institute’s 2014 Prosperity Index scored Norway as the most prosperous country in the world, with the United States ranked as the 10th. 142 countries that are ranked in the Index. Central Africa Republic is the least prosperous
There are eight factors that go into the ranking. They are:
Economy
Entrepreneurship
Governance
Education
Personal freedom
Health
Security
Social capital
The Legatum Institute has released the Prosperity Index for seven years. The top ten this year are:
1 Norway
2 Switzerland
3 New Zealand
4 Denmark
5 Canada
6 Sweden
7 Australia
8 Finland
9 Netherlands
10 United States
In 2008, the first year of the Index, the United States ranked 6th place. 2009 it was 9th place, 2010 and 2011 it was 10th place, 2012 it was 12th place, 2013 it was 11th place, and now in 2014 it’s back to 10th place.
Legatum is a private, United Arab Emirates-based, investment organisation and thinktank. It’s headquarters are in Dubai International Financial Centre. It is interesting to see such a scoring from a perspective on the other side of the world.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The idea of “disparate impact” is an abomination that has taken root in the business world and is being pushed into other sectors as well, such as housing and labor. This idea holds that “a defendant can be held liable for discrimination for a race-neutral policy that statistically disadvantages a specific minority group even if that negative “impact” was neither foreseen nor intended. In such cases, defendants can be forced to pay for harm caused not by their own actions, but by economic and statistical realities, even if beyond their control.”
If we do not focus on substantially curbing or ending it, it will continue to grow, extorting huge sums from innocent companies and parties, creating an enormous economic burden on society, and allowing the tort bar to run amok. Yet it is vigorously being expanded by one man in particular: Thomas Perez.
There are many areas in business where charges of “discrimination”, often regarding race, could and are being made every day. Employment and mortgage origination are two of the most prevalent. The law requires — as it should — that for a company to be guilty of such discrimination, there must be an intent to discriminate.
But government agencies have found a way to overrule that requirement by developing the idea of “disparate impact”. Disparate impact allows if a protected class of citizens has a statistically lesser representation with respect to a business (hiring, mortgages origination, etc) it may be implied that the business has intentionally discriminated — because there is an adverse impact as a result. This is clearly irrational, since there may be many economic, societal, and local reasons for the particular statistical representation. Unfortunately, disparate impact puts the burden to show lack of discrimination on the employer, meaning he is guilty until proven innocent. In fact, in order for an employer to defend himself against such a charge, he would have to show that the “offending rule or practice” was a “business necessity”.
The current administration has been keen on applying disparate impact theory to a number of private companies, and appears intent on ramping up the practice. For example, Obama’s current Labor Secretary, Thomas Perez, had been particularly lucrative in this regard while serving as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice, his position prior to joining Obama’s cabinet. Last summer, National Review Online (NRO) covered some of Perez’s cases in recent years in his role of , noting that Perez “has applied that theory vigorously to force large settlements from financial companies even in cases where there was no evidence of actual racial discrimination”. In other words, employers can be sought after for violating the law, whether or not there was actual intent.
The White House in general, and Perez in particular, like disparate impact theory because it, as NRO noted, it “sets a very low bar for proving discrimination. Under it, prosecutors need not prove intent, merely that minorities have suffered a disparate impact from some action”.
This is the person who is currently the front-runner for Attorney General to succeed Eric Holder.
The Wall Street Journal has taken note of Perez’s penchant for “disparate impact” as well, calling it “Mr. Perez’s most controversial, and constitutionally questionable, position”, “as a measure of discrimination. According to this theory, if fewer blacks or Hispanics are hired than their percentage of the “relevant” population, then the employer must have discriminated, even if all hiring procedures were fair and racially neutral.” Again, intent need not actually be proven, but merely the affect of a practice or policy is enough to gain the attention of disparate impact advocates.
Current labor leaders have expressed unease with the possibility of now-Labor Secretary Thomas Perez assuming the role of AG, as his bias is pervasive:
“Ryan Williams of Worker Center Watch said that the labor secretary’s brief stint at the Labor Department has been defined by divisiveness and political ideology, rather than effective leadership or unbiased regulation. He pointed to the department’s funding of union front groups known as worker centers as an example of his bias.
“Perez has been charged with enforcing existing labor law. Unfortunately, he’s chosen only to enforce the law when it applies to employers, not to the Administration’s union allies,” Williams said in a release. “While the politicization of federal agencies is running critique of the Obama administration, the Justice Department is the one agency that should remain above the fray of politics, and Perez has demonstrated that he is incapable of serving as a neutral arbiter of the law.”
Patrick Semmens, a spokesman for the National Right to Work Foundation, said that Perez’s record gives no indication that he will abandon his politics to administer the law in a neutral manner.
“Tom Perez as Attorney General is a scary thought. If Perez is allowed to operate the Department of Justice the way he has run the Labor Department, he will consistently put the priorities of the president’s key political backers ahead of the rights of regular Americans,” he said.”
Housing is another area where “disparate impact” theory has entered the arena more frequently. In 2013, “The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a regulation on “disparate impact,” codifying a long-used legal precedent that says the Fair Housing Act prohibits practices that result in discrimination “regardless of whether there was an intent to discriminate.”
A challenge to “disparate impact” policy in housing has been given the green light by the Supreme Court earlier this month, the third time to do so in the last 2 years. But the Obama administration has been so desperate to keep SCOTUS from potentially ruling against it, it vigorously mounted pressure to have the prior cases dropped. Guess who was the key player in the first case? Thomas Perez. Both the WSJ and The Weekly Standard covered this extensively, noting how Perez “made a Supreme Court case disappear”.
Forbes describes the deals more in depth: “The disparate-income case the Obama administration scuttled also had perverse implications for the supposed victims of discrimination. In Magner v. Gallagher, antidiscrimination advocates accused Minneapolis of reducing the stock of affordable housing for minority residents by aggressively enforcing housing codes. Those codes, of course, also benefit poor residents by insuring their dwelling units are safe. In the end, future Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, then an assistant U.S. Attorney, flew to Minneapolis and worked out a settlement to prevent the case from being heard.
In the second challenge, Twp. of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, the Soros-funded Open Society Foundation, Ford Foundation and other groups contributed money to a developer to provide low-income housing units and settle a lawsuit challenging the New Jersey city’s redevelopment program.”
For the newest case to be heard next year, Texas officials were “sued under the U.S. Fair Housing Act over tax credits for low-income building projects. The question is whether people can sue by showing a practice had a “disparate impact” on racial minorities, or whether they must meet a higher standard by proving intentional bias.” That will be decided on next year. Will Thomas Perez be the next Attorney General by then?
The battle for Thomas Perez will wait until after midterm elections. He follows the footsteps of Eric Holder in theory and tactic and expanding “disparate impact” theory is one of his most important gimmicks. This is one fight that should be watched closely.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Thomas Perez was Obama’s Labor Secretary pick 15 months ago, and he’s emerging as top contender for Attorney General as well. Is it any wonder that he gave a major speech at the National Press Club this week to share his vision of America? Entitled, “Calling for an Economy That Works for Everyone”, Perez discusses the concept of “shared prosperity”.
How many times did he use that phrasing? Try 20 times. These phrases were bold in the speech:
*”An economy that works for everyone is one where prosperity is broadly shared.”
*”The principal unfinished business of this recovery is to ensure that prosperity is broadly shared, and that we build an economy that works for everyone.”
So what is “shared prosperity”? Perez describes, “Step one involves tearing up the talking points and understanding history. Shared prosperity is not a fringe concept cooked up by socialists. Historically, both parties have embraced it with their words and their actions. In fact, it’s a principle as American as apple pie, and it’s the linchpin of a thriving middle class.”
He then cites Teddy Roosevelt, Goldman Sachs CEO, and Janet Yellen as supporters of this concept.
Perez went on to describe three major initiatives which consisted of: raising the minimum wage, more federal spending on infrastructure, and immigration reform. Perez states that a majority of small businesses support a minimum wage increase. He further declared that “shared prosperity” is found in “big bold policy initiatives”, such as “comprehensive immigration reform” (hint: amnesty). Perez claims that immigration reform would raise the GDP 5.4% over the next 20 years and raise wages for workers. This is in contrast to the CBO report that suggests wages would actually be lowered.
Other facets of Perez’s vision of prosperity include: paid leave, job training, and the “importance of the worker voice”, via collective bargaining. Perez particularly praised the collaborative efforts of the SEIU and UAW, calling unions a “critical step” in “shared prosperity”.
Additionally, Perez’s “shared prosperity” called for leadership. Perez’s vision is that of Obama’s: “First, we need leadership from Washington. And if Congress won’t do its part, President Obama has demonstrated that he’ll use his executive, regulatory and convening authorities — his pen and his phone, as he says — to provide that leadership.”
Interestingly, (coincidentally?), “Shared Prosperity” was “Resolution 6” at the Annual AFL-CIO Conference in August 2013. This was held less than a month after Perez became Labor Secretary, and many of its tenets sound remarkably like those championed by Perez, such as:
“• a secure job that pays a living wage in a safe workplace for all who seek one;
• a voice at work—through our unions and through collective bargaining with our employers”
The resolution further describes, “The values of shared prosperity are locked in conflict with the agenda of financial elites and global corporations. But in the end this conflict is self-defeating. A world of radical inequality is not in anyone’s long-term interest. That is why we seek a global economy where worker rights and the environment are protected, an economy where global finance is regulated and put to work to increase shared prosperity.”
You can read the entire agenda here. And apparently, the Washington State Labor Council was so impressed with this idea, they announced their own “shared prosperity” agenda in January 2014. Will other state councils follow suit?
“Shared prosperity”, however, is really nothing new. Hillary Clinton discussed this very concept in a campaign speech from 2007, entitled “ECONOMIC POLICY: Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity”. And at a campaign fundraiser in 2012, Obama also called for “shared prosperity” in his own speech when he asked folks in Chicago: ““Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared? Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in this mess in the first place?”.
As our current Secretary of Labor, Perez wished to implement this vision of “shared prosperity” into labor practices for America. If Perez is on the short list for Attorney General, how does he feel about the law? One more excerpt from his speech:
“Leadership also means enforcing the law fairly and independently. At the Labor Department, we’re being more strategic and aggressive than ever about cracking down on wage theft, misclassification and other violations. During the Obama Administration, we’ve recovered more than $1 billion in back wages. We’ve taken enforcement to a whole new level — not only because it gives workers the pay they’ve earned, but also because it levels the playing field and helps the vast majority of employers playing by the rules. Laws are only as effective as the political will of those enforcing them.”
Thomas Perez’s previous position before becoming Labor Secretary was serving as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. No wonder he is a front runner to succeed Eric Holder.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Michelle Nunn has been getting a lot of traction on the “shipping jobs overseas” rhetoric in an effort to paint her opponent, David Purdue, as unsympathetic to American workers. It’s a tactic toward anyone who is in business to demagogue them for shipping jobs overseas, just like they did to Romney in 2012.
Michelle’s cheap shots have lead her to create an ad campaign specifically focused on this narrative. Hours of countless searching has turned up a deposition from 2005, during which David Perdue “answered a question about his ‘experience’ with outsourcing by saying: ‘Yeah, I spent most of my career doing that.’”
Unfortunately, she made a bad decision about whom she chose to highlight — it turns out the ad features a businessman, Roy Richards Jr, whose company has also outsourced jobs. Perhaps she should have done her homework on him instead.
Politifact of Georgia couldn’t even make the stretch that Purdue’s career outsourcing meant that he “was proud to have sent jobs overseas”. Politifact noted, “it is accurate to claim Perdue’s sworn statement is that he spent most of his business career outsourcing. But that doesn’t translate into callous indifference to American workers – or even a tenure that did nothing more than ship jobs abroad. We continue to rate the claim Half True.”
The Washington Examiner goes more in-depth to the nature of his business dealings:
“Perdue was not referring to outsourcing as most understand it – that is, the process of firing American workers in favor of cheap labor overseas — but rather a business plan for his former company, Pillowtex, to save some American jobs, as Politifact noted.
“There is nothing to suggest he was narrowly moving jobs overseas just to increase profits or give himself a bonus,” said Rob Bliss, a finance professor at Wake Forest University in an interview with Politifact. “Moving jobs overseas would have been an effort to make the company more competitive. It’s a perfectly legitimate thing to do.”
Politifact also noted other companies where Perdue worked that did outsource jobs, but said those companies were “in industries where jobs were being lost to both cheaper foreign production — outsourcing — and also to technology and global business trends far outside his scope of control.”
As for the attack ad trying to substantiate that Perdue despises American workers, National Review Online called it “seriously hypocritical” since the featured businessman apparently also engaged in outsourcing at his own company. The Atlantic Journal-Constitution gives a rundown here. And NRO noted that “Cato’s Dan Ikenson has explained in Forbes, relocating jobs overseas can have as much to do with costs for customers, proximity to supply chains, or interest in new consumer markets as it does with labor costs and profitability.” Simply put, it’s a stretch to boil down “outsourcing” as simply disdain for the American worker for the sake of profit. But that is what Michelle Nunn wants you to believe.
Businesses continuously make decisions about where to get jobs and how to keep a company afloat. If the policies here in the United States are making it difficult to succeed and compete, or the market and demand has changed, that’s not the fault of the business owner. They must be willing to adapt or risk going out of business. Someone as ignorant as Michelle Nunn about basic economics should not be elected to Senate.
