Who Really Won on the SCOTUS Obamacare Decision

To contact us Click HERE

by: Bryan Baumgart
Pending the outcome of the November elections it's hard to determine the ultimate winner in yesterday's decision. Most conservatives felt a pit in their stomach immediately after the decision was announced.  Due to the "teasing" offered during the obamacare hearings three months ago, they felt fairly confident that obamacare would fall when the mandate was struck down.  Libs and Dems rightly claimed victory because obamacare did not fall.  But he who laughs last laughs loudest!
As the dust settled, conservatives began to realize that perhaps Justice Roberts had not betrayed them after all.  Perhaps the decision was part of a veiled and brilliant strategy.  If obamacare had fallen due to the mandate being struck down only on the grounds of the "commerce clause", similar legislation could pop back up in the future.  However, due to the court disagreeing with obama and ruling the mandate a tax, Republicans have the opportunity to repeal the law through the reconciliation process with asimple majority of Romney and 51 votes in the Senate, avoiding filibuster. 60 senators are no longer necessary. 
The ruling has also appeared to have passified the left while energizing the right.  The Romney campaign pulled in $1 million dollars within 3 hours of the ruling.  He finished the day with over $4 million dollars in donations.  Meanwhile, the DNC is so broke they are considering cancelling opening ceremonies at their National Convention.  The ruling has also saddled obama with responsibility for the largest tax increase in the history of the world!  A very regressive tax that disproportionately hits the middle class. It reveals obama as either a liar or a very incompetent Constitutional Scholar.  History shows that elections aren't kind to middle-class tax hikers or liars, and this ruling has granted obama the title of both!  It appears the pendulum has finally been pulled toofar left. Get ready for the swing. Perhaps never before has the right been so fired up! (not even election night 2008). 
In reality, the Supreme Court's decision was exactly what everyone expected three months agobefore the hearings. We are actually right where weexpected to be right now, except the left was just passified while the right needed this catalyst to be energizedand determined enough to dominate the elections, repeal the law, and seatjudges swinging the bench far to the right. 
The only thing standing in the way of repeal appeared to be the threats and bribes surrounding implementation of state exchanges before November.  Obama had bribed states with federal funding for exchanges and threatened them with forcing the federal version of exchanges on them if they did not implement them right away.  States were threatened with losing federal funding for medicaid if they did not play ball, but the court nixed that threat as well, giving Republican Governors the ability to "play ball".  As reported by the Washington Examiner on Drudge yesterday, “The RepublicanGovernors Association said that nothing should be done by the states untilafter the election, a clear signal that they believe a GOP president, House andSenate will kill the health care reform”.

If there was ever a call for the factions ofconservatism to come together...Thursday was it!  This is the time to join forces with ALL of the groups with thecommon goal of taking the 2012 elections, repealing obamacare, and placingconservative judges on the bench!  Establishment, Ron Paulers, Libertarians, Tea Partiers, Constitutional Conservatives...everyone! Time to unify and make thisera of the lib's nothing more than a dirty stain on America's history!

"There is one more step in deciding obamacare's fate. MittRomney will appeal the Supreme Court decision to the ultimate arbiter- the American people. We expect a decision on November 6th. Oral arguments have already begun."

U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Quite Deceiving

To contact us Click HERE

Much has been made of the recent news that after Japan drops its corporate tax rate to 38.01 percent, the U.S. will then have the highest rate in the developed world, at 39.2 percent.

However, to fully understand this story you have to read between the lines and look past the political posturing.

Few U.S. corporations actually pay the 39.2 percent rate because the loophole-riddled tax code gives them lower "effective" rates.

The tax code has not been thoroughly overhauled in 25 years and it is in desperate need of fixing. Corporate lobbyists worked hard at putting all those loopholes in place, and they are determined to keep them there.

However, due to a shrunken tax base, a signifiant revision may be on the way.

In February, President Obama proposed a corporate tax reform blueprint that included a 28 percent top rate. Such an idea seems like one that Republicans would love, and it provides an opportunity for genuine consensus and true bipartisanship.

The problems with the tax code are egregious, and they are robbing the Treasury of much needed revenue. In 2010 the federal government brought in $2.16 trillion in revenue — down from $2.56 trillion in 2007 — putting revenue at a 60-year low.

Much of that is due to the effects of the Great Recession. But corporations are also taking advantage of the tax code and paying lower rates than most individual taxpayers, or avoiding taxes altogether.

Of the 30 companies in the Dow Jones industrial average, 19 told shareholders their effective rate for their 2011 fiscal years (most of which ended on December 31) was below Obama's proposed new tax rate, according to a Reuters analysis of securities filings.

Verizon, for example, paid an effective rate of just 2.7 percent. Even more remarkable, AT&T, Bank of America and Travelers Insurance actually posted a tax gain.

From 2007 to 2009, accounting tricks helped lower Pfizer's average tax rate to 17 percent; Merck to 12.5 percent, and GE to just 3.6 percent.

Those relaxed rates are well below the rates paid in other industrialized nations.

The average 2012 corporate tax rate for the 34 developed countries is 25.4 percent, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The Obama plan would put the U.S. just above that average.

The key to reform is to fully eliminate all deductions, exemptions and loopholes. The code must create a level playing field that is fair, straightforward and incorruptible. Presently, U.S. corporations are making a mockery of the tax code.

A 2008 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that approximately two-thirds of all corporations paid no federal income tax in 2005. However, it was part of a longer trend.

The GAO — the investigative arm of Congress — also found that two out of three US corporations paid no taxes from 1998 through 2005. The study covered 1.3 million corporations of all sizes, with a collective $2.5 trillion in sales. It also included foreign corporations that do business in the U.S.

The Wall Street Journal reported that 69 percent of U.S. corporations were organized as nontaxable businesses in 2008, up from 24 percent in 1986.

Last year, 30 of the biggest corporations spent more on lobbying than taxes. How crazy is that?

Corporations have gamed the system in their favor. So assertions about how punitive and restrictive the corporate tax code is are plainly absurd.

A government report shows that last year total corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1 percent of profits — a level not seen since 1972.

Things weren't always this way. In the 1950s, US corporations contributed a 30 percent share to the federal tax base. Today it's down to 6.6 percent.

Corporations paid a higher share of revenues in the past and the economy was a whole lot healthier. Revenue from corporate income taxes was between 5 percent and 6 percent of gross domestic product back in the early 1950s.

However, federal corporate tax collections made up only 1.3 percent of U.S. GDP in 2010, down from 2.7 percent in 2006.

The lobbyists did what they were paid to do, and they did a really good job. Congress, ever the loyal servants to their corporate masters and benefactors, did what was asked of them and rigged the tax code.

The consumer group Citizens for Tax Justice said it surveyed major U.S. companies and found that 26 on average paid no net federal income taxes between 2008 and 2011, among them General Electric and Duke Energy.

This nation is essentially broke. In Fiscal 2011, the U.S. government borrowed roughly 36 cents for every dollar spent. Fiscally, the country is teetering on the edge of a cliff. The government simply cannot allow huge, profitable corporations to continue paying zero taxes or, worse, post tax gains.

It's also time for corporations and their Congressional cronies to drop the act; they are not burdened by high or punitive taxes. Quite the contrary. Further, U.S. corporations are fortunate to be subject to the rule of law and all of the protections that this allows.

If the tax code is rewritten, it would benefit the corporations that don't get the special sanctions and the generous tax benefits. Ultimately, the playing field should be leveled and made equal for all.

Moreover, the tax code doesn't need to be rewritten for the benefit of corporations; it needs to be rewritten for the benefit of the rest of the nation. More revenue is desperately needed by the Treasury, which is presently being swindled by corporations.

2nd ‘Gendercide’ Video Showing Planned Parenthood’s Sex-Selection Abortion Assistance

To contact us Click HERE
May 31, 2012


On Tuesday, Live Action, a pro-life group based in San Jose, California, released the first part of its series on sex-selection abortion, the process of terminating pregnancies based on an unborn child’s gender. Part one of the “Gendercide: Sex Selection in America,” series showed a Planned Parenthood counselor in Austin, Texas, allegedly giving advice on how to obtain a gender-based abortion.

The second part, released this morning, allegedly showcases a similar conversation recorded at a NYC-based Planned Parenthood office earlier this year. In the undercover clip, an employee allegedly helps a woman (an actress brought in by Live Action) determine if her child is a female so that a requested sex-selective abortion can take place. 



A description of the YouTube video, posted by Live Action, has more about the conversation that is sure to trouble pro-life activists:

In the video, Planned Parenthood social worker Randi Coun advises the woman on an early, definitive method to tell the gender of her child in the late first or early second trimester: “So if you were to have what’s called a CVS test, which is, do you know what that is?” she asks, referring to the genetic Chorionic Villus Sampling test. “It’s done between 11 and 13 weeks, so it is a test that you could do now.” CVS tests have a risk of miscarriage of about 1 in 100, which Coun did not mention, and are typically done to test for genetic disorders in a pregnancy.

Coun also reassures the woman that she can carry her pregnancy farther into term before her abortion. “An abortion at any stage up to 24 weeks is considered a safe procedure,” she asserts. ” It’s not that it’s unsafe, or that there’s a lot more risk involved, it‘s just there’s more steps involved and it’s just a little more complicated.” Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Center in New York City does abortions up to 24 weeks of pregnancy and is the organization’s national headquarters.

“I can tell you that here at Planned Parenthood we believe that it’s not up to us to decide what is a good or a bad reason for somebody to decide to terminate a pregnancy,” Coun adds concerning the woman’s request for a sex-selective abortion. Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards yesterday opposed a ban on sex-selective abortions on the grounds that it would “limit [a woman's] choices as she makes personal medical decisions.”

Watch the undercover interaction, below:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/anti-abortion-group-releases-2nd-gendercide-video-showing-planned-parenthoods-alleged-sex-selection-abortion-assistance/

Dems Kill Bill Banning Sex-Selection Abortions

To contact us Click HERE
By Pete Kasperowicz - 05/31/12 

The House on Thursday rejected a Republican bill that would impose fines and prison terms on doctors who perform abortions for the sole purpose of controlling the gender of the child, a practice known as sex-selective abortion.

The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), H.R. 3541, was turned away with 246 voting to ban sex-selection abortions and 168 voting in favor of allowing sex-selection abortions. While that's a clear majority of the House, Republicans called up the bill under a suspension of House rules, which limits debate and requires a two-thirds majority vote, and in this case, would have required more support from Democrats.

Twenty Democrats voted for the bill, while seven Republicans opposed it. The bill needed roughly 30 more votes for approval.

Suspension votes are normally used for non-controversial bills, but the GOP-backed bill was clearly controversial. Republicans have occasionally put controversial bills on the suspension calendar in an apparent attempt to show that Democrats oppose certain policies.

In some cases, Republicans have rescheduled these bills for regular consideration after they have failed, allowing for passage by a simple majority. But Republicans gave no sign that they would try again with PRENDA.
Earlier in the day, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) indicated that the issue of stopping sex-selective abortion is important enough that the would try again, but he was not specific.

"This is an important issue to the American people," Boehner said to reporters off the floor. "This type of sex selection most Americans find pretty repulsive, and our members feel strongly about it. That's why it is being brought to the floor."

During debate on the bill Wednesday, Republicans said the bill is consistent with the broader U.S. position that sex-selective abortion should be condemned around the world.

"In 2007, the United States spearheaded a U.N. resolution to condemn sex-selective abortion worldwide," said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the sponsor of the bill. "Yet, here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, we are the only advanced country left in the world that still doesn't restrict sex-selective abortion in any way."

While some Democrats made it clear that they oppose sex-selective abortion, they indicated that they oppose the bill's enforcement provisions, which they said would put in place an unacceptable limit on women's rights to choose abortion.

"We can all agree that women should not choose to terminate a pregnancy based solely on gender, but this bill criminalizes a legal procedure," Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) said Thursday afternoon.

"The bill includes a provision that would allow a women's husband or parents, by merely alleging that an abortion is because of gender, to seek injunctive relief to prevent the doctor from performing abortion procedures, sending an incredibly private and personal decision into the courts," Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) added Thursday.

"It is another Republican intrusion into a woman's right to choose," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) of the GOP bill on Wednesday. "Women should be able to make such sensitive and private decisions with their families, their doctors and their god, free from the fear of the police."

Republicans voting against the bill were Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Charlie Bass (N.H.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Bob Dold (Ill.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), and Ron Paul (Texas).

Democrats voting for it were Reps. Jason Altmire (Pa.), John Barrow (Ga.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Jerry Costello (Ill.), Mark Critz (Pa.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), John Garamendi (Calif.), Tim Holden (Pa.), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Daniel Lipinski (Ill.), Stephen Lynch (Mass.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Silvestre Reyes (Texas), Mike Ross Ark.) and Heath Shuler (N.C.).

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/230283-house-rejects-bill-penalizing-doctors-for-sex-selection-abortions

Emails Reveal Obama's Cronyism With Pharmaceuticals for Obamacare Support

To contact us Click HERE

By Alicia Mundy - May 31, 2012
Newlyreleased emails give an inside look at how the White House struck a dealwith the pharmaceutical industry in 2009 to get support for the health billthat ultimately passed the next year.
Drug makers and their lobbyists believed they got a good bargain,the emails show. As TheWall Street Journal and others reported at the time, the companies escapedprice controls and forced the president to back down on his 2008 campaignpromise to allow the reimportation of cheaper drugs from other countries.
In May 2009, after the administration was hit by negative storiesabout the rising costs of its proposed health care overhaul, a drug industrylobbyist emailed colleagues, “Perfect timing to cut our deal w the White Houseas this is swirling.”
A month later, following another barrage of similar stories,another industry lobbyist wrote, ‘It’s pretty clear that the Administration hashad a horrible week on health care reform, and we are now getting jammed tomake this announcement so the story takes a positive turn before the Sunday talkshows beat up on Congress and the White House.”
The email was sent from the Pharmaceutical Research andManufacturers of America lobby on June 18, 2009, four days before theadministration’s agreement with drug makers was formally revealed. AnotherPhRMA lobbyist quickly responded, “Yes, that’s why they are doing it, but it’salso why we got a good deal.”
The Republican leadership of the House Energy and CommerceCommittee on Thursday released the emails, which they obtained fromhealth-care industry groups that worked on the bill.
The committee is investigating how the legislation was crafted.Republicans say the administration’s negotiations with industry groups weren’ttransparent and were driven by politics.
White House spokesman Eric Schultz called theemail release “a nakedly political, taxpayer-funded crusade to hurt thepresident’s re-election campaign.” He said the 2009 agreement with the drugindustry was publicly announced in the Rose Garden. The administration has saidthe deal was good for taxpayers because the industry offered multiyear savingsof $80 billion on drug costs.
The emails indicate that the White House originally wanted about$100 billion in savings and other breaks, in return for increasing the numberof patients with health insurance and drug coverage.
The emails show that drug makers won other unpublicized deals fromthe administration, which both the White House and the pharmaceutical lobbyrepeatedly denied at the time but were later disclosed in news reports. Theyincluded a promise from the White House not to demand that drug makersnegotiate Medicare prices with the federal government, which could have reduceddrug costs.
At one point, the White House threatened to shame the industrypublicly if the negotiations fell apart, according to an email written June 10by a PhRMA lobbyist. “Barack Obama is going to announce in his Saturday radioaddress support for rebating all of [Medicare Part] D unless we come to a deal.So they are punishing us” for refusing to concede, he wrote, referring to aproposal to require rebates in across-the-bard Medicare’s prescription-drugprogram.
“They can’t get 60 votes for that [in the Senate]. It isn’t even areal threat,” the email concluded. The president’s radio address, three dayslater, didn’t include the lines.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/05/31/emails-describe-deal-making-on-obama-health-bill/?mod=WSJ_elections_article_liveupdate

Obamacare Has 'Bent the Insurance Cost-Curve North, Not South'

To contact us Click HERE
By Susan Jones - June 1, 2012 "There's no question that the (Affordable Care) Act has, to this date, bent the health insurance cost curve north, not south, and the forecast in that regard is growing darker," an insurance benefits executive told a House panel on Thursday.

That's because the law requires health plans to cover individuals, such as adult children, that they did not cover in the past; it bars health plans from putting lifetime and annual dollar limits on benefits; and it requires plans to provide preventive care services -- including contraceptives in a few months' time -- at no out-of-pocket cost to the enrollee, Edward Fensholt told the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

"These mandates have increased our clients' health plan costs 2 to 3 percent on average to this point," he said. And he said the costs will escalate further when new rules -- such as reductions in waiting periods and the automatic enrollment requirement -- take effect in 2014.

Fensholt is a senior vice president of Lockton Companies, LLC, an insurance brokerage and consulting firm that provides employee-benefits expertise to 2,500 mostly middle-market employers.

In addition to the Affordable Care Act’s coverage mandates, Fensholt said a "great frustration" for his clients is the law's "many additional administrative burdens."

Under federal law right now, Fensholt said, a simple group health-care plan is required to supply up to 50 separate notices, disclosures and reports to enrollees or to the federal government -- often more than once. He noted that the Affordable Care Act added more than a dozen of those notices, disclosures and reports.

Fensholt gave several examples: Under the Affordable Care Act, health plans must provide a "four-page, double-sided summary of plan coverage in a very hard-wired format at specific times, not only to enrollees but to individuals who are merely eligible for coverage. And plans face fines of up to $1,000 per violation of this requirement," he said.

And starting in 2014, the law will require "significant and frequent reporting by employers," including what specific medical coverage the employer offers; a roster of employees who are eligible and enrolled in the company's health plan and whether those employees are full-time or part-time; the cost of the employer's health insurance offerings, and the employer's and employees' respective shares of that cost; and how many months of the year an employee and each of his enrolled dependents were covered by a company-sponsored plan.

"Our clients are already drowning under the cost of provi ding robust health insurance to employees," Fensholt said. "Rather than tossing employers a lifeline, the Affordable Care Act is in many ways an anchor -- albeit a well-intentioned one -- by piling on additional costs and burdens."

Fensholt said his clients don't understand why -- at a time when they're struggling to provide a fringe benefit -- "Congress would make the process more expensive and more complicated, rather than less so."

Bill Streitberger, vice president of human resources for the Red Robin restaurant chain, told the panel that when health care costs increase, his company has less money to invest in opening new restaurants.

For the last three years, he noted, Red Robin's health care costs per employee have increased more than six percent every year -- a much greater pace than the growth of Red Robin's sales or net income, he said.

The Affordable Care Act's 2014 mandates, Streitberger added, could negatively impact the ability of companies to grow and offer benefits to their employees.

He said the law will force companies like Red Robin "to decide on whether to reduce benefits to maintain affordable coverage, or accept the burden of increased company contributions, limiting our ability to continue to grow and create new jobs. Either way, we feel it could be a lose-lose for Red Robin" and its employees, he said.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamacare-has-bent-insurance-cost-curve-north-not-south-insurance-executive-tells-house

The Real Employment Situation – January 2009 through March 2012

To contact us Click HERE

* By: Larry Walker, Jr. *

"Our economy's now created more than 4 million private sector jobs over the past 2 years. And more than 600,000 in the past 3 months alone," Mr. Obama boasted to a forum at the White House on women and the economy, on Friday (CBS News).

And in related news, on the previous evening, Egan-Jones Ratings Co. cut the U.S.A.’s credit rating one step to AA, the second downgrade in nine months and two levels below its highest grade, with a negative outlook citing the nation’s increasing debt burden (Bloomberg).

Most of us are well aware of the nation’s impending debt implosion, but the real employment situation has been distorted beyond reason. I understand how badly Mr. Obama is fighting against returning to the obscure existence he led prior to 2008, but if he was at all capable, he would at least tell us the truth about where we stand. I’m frankly weary from all the sugarcoating and distortion of facts. So what’s the real employment situation?

The Truth Shall Set You Free!

In order to know the truth, we must examine not so much monthly trends in employment, but rather changes which have occurred from the end of January 2009 through March 2012. When we examine the entire record, we find that our economy hasn’t created any jobs at all over the past 3 ¼ years, on a seasonally adjusted basis. Instead the unemployment rate has risen from 7.8% to 8.2%, the number of nonfarm jobs has declined by 740,000, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 624,000, and total employment has declined by 153,000. Meanwhile, the working age population has grown by 7,865,000, while the civilian labor force has only managed an increase of 471,000, causing the number of persons no longer counted in the labor force to balloon by 7,395,000.

The truth is that our economy hasn’t created any new jobs since Obama’s policies took effect. The total number of jobs peaked at an all time high of 146,595,000 in November of 2007, and through March of 2012 the number stands at 142,034,000, more than 4.5 million off the mark. If we had more jobs than existed in November of 2007, then Obama would have something to brag about, although not much. But since the truth is somewhat inconvenient, we are supposed to ignore the fact that we are more than 4 million jobs in the hole, and submit to repeated media brainwashing and succumb to the belief that we have somehow moved ahead by over 4 million. Phooey! Here are the facts.

Unemployment Rate

The unemployment rate rose from 7.8 percent in January of 2009 to 8.2 percent as of March 2012, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Employment Situation 4/6/2012). (See table A-1 / Seasonally Adjusted)

Nonfarm Employment

Nonfarm payroll employment declined by 740,000 through March of 2012, from 133,561,000 in January of 2009 to 132,821,000. (See table B-1 / Seasonally Adjusted)

Unemployed Persons

The number of unemployed persons increased by 624,000 through March of 2012, from 12,049,000 in January of 2009 to 12,673,000. (See table A-1 / Seasonally Adjusted)

Total Employment

The number of persons employed declined by 153,000 through March of 2012, from 142,187,000 in January of 2009 to 142,034,000. (See table A-1 / Seasonally Adjusted)

Civilian Noninstitutional Population

The Civilian Noninstitutional Population (working age population) increased by 7,865,000 through March of 2012, from 234,739,000 in January of 2009 to 242,604,000. (See table A-1 / Seasonally Adjusted)

Civilian Labor Force

The labor force increased by 471,000 through March of 2012, from 154,236,000 in January of 2009 to 154,707,000. The labor force hasn’t grown at all since October of 2008. (See table A-1 / Seasonally Adjusted)

Not in Labor Force

The number of persons not in the labor force increased by 7,395,000 through March of 2012, from 80,502,000 in January of 2009 to 87,897,000. (See table A-1 / Seasonally Adjusted)

To make the claim of having created more jobs than Mr. Bush, which we all know was Mr. Obama’s insinuation; he must first match Mr. Bush’s all-time-high of 146,595,000. If the number of persons who involuntarily dropped out of the labor force (7.3 million), since Mr. Obama’s policies took effect, had instead been jobs created, Mr. Obama might go down in history as the all-time greatest. However, since we presently have 4.5 million fewer jobs than existed at Mr. Bush’s peak, and since, under the direction of Mr. Obama, 7.3 million new working age persons have been pushed straight into joblessness and generational dependency, Mr. Obama’s policies should perhaps be branded as the most ineffective in U.S. history.

Since employment is a lagging economic indicator, and because economists are calling for recession in 2012, and since the statistics above represent the sum total of Obama’s economic accomplishments, we’re in for serious troubles ahead. To reiterate, Mr. Obama’s policies of Inordinate Stimulus, Undue Debt and Global Warming Foolishness caused the Looming Recession.

Photo Credit: A swarm of Western Toad tadpoles eating algae. Photo: Kristiina Ovaska

Reference: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Situation Summary

Data: Worksheets