Obamacare’s Federal Exchanges Do Not Provide Security Or Verification

Breaking news: the Federal Health Care Exchanges that are supposed to be operational on October 1, 2013 have failed their security protection tests.  Friday August 2, a Health and Human Services inspector general report disclosed that the HHS is months behind schedule in making sure that there is security for the new data hub for the Obamacare Exchanges.  This report indicates HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee last April to the effect that the ACA’s data hub was “basically complete” was at variance with the truth.  Furthermore, HHS has not obtained most of the required service-level agreements from seven other government agencies that will be receiving the public’s information.  “ObamaCare’s Risk To Your Privacy,” Investor’s Business Daily, 8/8/13, p. A12.  According to Larry Kudlow, this new report “admits there is no security firewall protecting your data from hackers, identity thieves and many other federal agencies.”  Larry continued, “The whole security system has not been tested.”  Larry’s guest Dr. Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute said the hub will be working on the honor system and the portal where the public enters their personal information to enroll in insurance plans will be at even greater risk.  That means that people who try to buy health insurance on the Exchange will expose their social security numbers, finances, age, health records and various other information to anyone who wants to steal it.  It will be an open invitation to identity theft.   The Kudlow Report, CNBC, 8/7/13.  IBD stated, “If the hub isn’t sufficiently secure when the exchanges open up, it will create a huge opening for identity thieves and other such criminals.”  Representative Patrick Meehan (Pa.-R) described the exchange situation as, “A honey pot for hackers.”  “ObamaCare’s Risk To Your Privacy,” Id.

Twenty-six states, all with Republican Governors, have refused to set up state Obamacare exchanges, forcing the Federal Government to set up exchanges for those states.  Approximately seven other states have opted for federal-state partnership exchanges.  In New Jersey, Republican Governor Christie vetoed legislation by the Democrat controlled legislature establishing a state-run health care insurance exchange.  Christie stated that he was committed to comply with Obamacare “only in a manner that is the most effective and efficient for the residents of New Jersey, and the businesses that will carry the costs of this new program.”  Christie also said that the Federal Government is best equipped to operate the exchange.  “GOP governors reject ObamaCare health exchange partnerships,” Fox News.com, 2/17/13.  In rejecting both a state-run Obamacare Exchange and a federal-state partnership, Republican Governor Bill Haslam of Tennessee sent a letter to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of HHS, stating the partnership exchange model doesn’t answer his concerns over “aggressive federal timelines, a lack of true flexibility for states, and misguided federal policies.”  Id.  Florida passed the deadline for running its own exchange and Republican Governor Rick Scott also rejected partnering with the federal government stating, “We continue to be concerned about the many unknowns impacting the cost of operating an exchange, and simply do not have enough information to make a decision about running one at this time.”  Id.

However, there are a couple of problems with the Federal Government running Obamacare Exchanges.  For one, the federal government was caught flatfooted, because the Obama Administration had assumed that the states would all set up their own exchanges.  Second, Obamacare did not provide for funding of health care subsidies under Federal Exchanges.  Furthermore, under Obamacare the employer penalty is not imposed on the employer until one of its employees applies for the Obamacare subsidy.  Oklahoma’s Attorney General Scott Pruitt was quick to pick up on this quirk in the Obamacare legislation and brought a lawsuit to stop the IRS from issuing the subsidies/tax credits and collecting the penalties/taxes that Congress had not legislated into law.  Oklahoma’s lawsuit challenging the IRS’s authority to spend tax dollars and levy penalties without authorization from Congress is raising a legitimate Constitutional principle.  Simply put, the executive branch cannot Constitutionally collect a tax that Congress has not created through legislation, just because it suits the president’s and his party’s left-wing agenda to do so.  The Federal Government’s creating its own exchanges within states would appear to violate the 10^th Amendment.  However, even if the Federal Government can set up its own exchanges within the states, it has no authority under the ACA to use them to offer subsidies and inflict the accompanying punitive taxes.  “On Obamacare, Oklahoma Leads,” National Review Online, 6/4/13.

All told some 33 states have refused to create their own separate exchanges, including Oklahoma.  Therefore, the residents of those states are not eligible for exchange subsidies, and its employers are not subject to the associated punitive tax.  The law was intentionally written to deny subsidies to states that refuse to create exchanges, in order to pressure the states into setting up their own exchanges.  The Democrats simply failed to anticipate that the majority of states would refuse to create exchanges, despite the taxpayer funded subsidies.  However, the Obama administration, which has demonstrated a habit of disregarding the rule of law, is proceeding as though it has the legal right to offer subsidies and impose penalties in states that have refused to create exchanges.  Id.  In Halbig v. Sebelius, four individual taxpayers and three employers are also challenging the IRS’ authority to issue subsidies and collect punitive taxes under the same theory as the Oklahoma case.  “Halbig v. Sebelius: ‘All of Obamacare Hangs on the Outcome,’” Cato Institute Forum, 6/17/13; Gabrielle Karol, “New Lawsuit Filed Against ObamaCare,” foxbusiness.com, published 5/3/13.

There are at least twenty unconstitutional provisions in Obamacare, and the regulations being issued to enforce Obamacare are raising additional serious concerns and in some cases lawsuits or Congressional action.  For example, the Independent Advisory Board (IPAB), as known as Death Panels, violates Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution, which vests all legislative authority in the Congress.  Thus, IPAB constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to fifteen unelected cronies of the president.   For now, Kathleen Sebelius is acting as a one person self-appointed Death Panel, as we saw in the Sarah Murnaghan case of a ten year old girl being denied a lung transplant by Sebelius.  There is no right of appeal to an administrative denial of health care, which constitutes an unconstitutional violation of administrative “due process.”  Some twelve lawsuits have been filed by colleges, universities, hospitals and other institutions alleging that regulations issued by Sebelius under Obamacare violate the First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion.  Furthermore, Obama’s defining what constitutes a religious entity is an additional violation of the First Amendment.  Obamacare’s allowing the IRS warrantless searches of personal financial records violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches.     Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution provides that, “All bills raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”  Obamacare provides some twenty new taxes or increases in existing taxes and, therefore, was constitutionally required to originate in the House.  However, the Democrats rammed through the Senate bill in clear violation of the Constitution.  The Supreme Court has only reviewed about three of the many constitutional issues raised by Obamacare.  Therefore, the battle to end Obamacare will go on unless or until, to paraphrase the words of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, (Ky.-R) at CPAC, “Obamacare [is] repealed root and branch.”

Part-Time Jobs Were 185% of the New Jobs Created in June

By Rich Miner

That’s right.  Of the 195,000 new jobs created in June, 360,000 were part-time.  Full-time jobs actually shrank by 240,000.  These numbers were abysmal.  However, the White House, the media and Wall Street pundits extolled the jobs numbers as being solid, a very good report and a sign that the economy was improving to the point that the Federal Reserve would be able to begin to taper its monthly purchase of $85 billion in bonds and treasuries.   But a more careful look at the jobs numbers would show that the total payroll number was 135.9 million jobs, or still 1.6% below where they were 5-1/2 years ago before the recession started.  To make matters worse, the labor force has been increasing by about 120,000 a month during all those years.  So far in 2013 only 130,000 new full-time jobs have been added.  The remaining 557,000 of the alleged ‘solid’ jobs increase have been part time.  “Great Jobs News For Part-Timers,” Investor’s Business Daily, 7/8/13, p. A18.

According to Ray Stone, Managing Director of Stone & McCarthy Research, in the first quarter many of the new jobs were in manufacturing and construction, but in the second quarter most of the new jobs have been in retail, leisure and entertainment and have been largely part time.  He said the composition of the jobs growth was very disappointing.

There are many reasons for the number of full-time jobs being replaced by part-time jobs, such as uncertainty about the economy, new Government regulations, bureaucratic overreaching, Obama’s endless Executive Orders, but the biggest reason is ObamaCare.   Employers can avoid the penalty of not providing ObamaCare to part-time workers if they keep their hours at less than 30 a week.  In addition, many employers, who may very well be providing health insurance under current law, may not want to incur the higher cost of providing ObamaCare and can avoid doing so by cutting their employees to part time.   Providing shifts of part-time workers is less difficult for low-skill jobs, such as in the fast food industry.

For example, Charles Payne reported on “Fox and Friends” on 7/5/13, that Clarence Otis, Jr., Chairman and CEO of Darden Restaurants, which operates Red Lobster, Olive Garden and other restaurants, said that ObamaCare would cause him to redefine work and move people from 40 hours to 29 hours.  These are people with minimum skills, who are trying to work their way into the work force and gain skills as they go, and ObamaCare will force them to take a big hit.

Furthermore, according to “Fox and Friends Saturday,” 7/6/13, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the real unemployment rate known as U6 actually increased from 13.8% in May to 14.3% in June.  U6 takes into consideration part-timers who want full-time work, employees who are overqualified for the job and discouraged workers who have quit looking for work.  In addition, according to Tucker Carlson only 47% of Americans have full-time jobs.  Id.  That means that approximately 12% of the civilian population is working part time.  See, BLS Employment Summary Table A., 7/5/13.

McKinsey & Co. reported that 45% of college graduates today have jobs that don’t require college degrees.  “Great Job News For Part-Timers,” Id.  Often the first full-time job can set the pace for the person’s entire career, and now their educations are being wasted waiting tables.  Young people are being hit very hard with an unemployment rate of 16.1% among 18- to 29-year-olds, plus 1.7 million who have dropped out of the work force.  Id.

It is clear that Obama’s policies of trillions of dollars in pork-laden spending and the Fed’s policies of endless “Quantitative Easing” have not been much help to the employment picture and the economy.  Besides, these policies have had negative effects, such as unsustainable debt and a Fed balance sheet that has ballooned out of control.  That balance sheet must be unwound and may burst in the process.  In addition, Obama’s higher taxes, his constant demands for more taxes on job creators, his excessive regulations, his unconstitutional executive orders, his class warfare and his attacks on the free market system have all made employers afraid to hire new employees.  But the greatest cause of this horrible jobs report is ObamaCare.  This 2,700 page incomprehensible legislation, with countless pages of regulation that are constantly growing at the dictates of Kathleen Sebelius, encouraged employers to hire primarily part-time workers and to cut full-time workers back to 29 hours a week.

Facts About The Common Core

·        The Common Core is a set of education standards and tests prepared by the Obama Administration currently for mathematics and English language arts; however, the  Obama Administration has plans to add science and technical subjects, social studies and history.  The science standards being developed are called the Next Generation Science Standards.

·         Common Core is part of Obama’s “Race to the Top.”

·         Common Core was funded by a $5 billion provision in Obama’s 2009 $787 billion stimulus package, of which $4.6 billion is intended to help the States implement Common Core.  However, it has been estimated that it will cost the States approximately $16.4 billion to fully implement the program.

·         Common Core was designed by Achieve Inc. with funding from the Gates Foundation and with the help of the George Soros funded Apollo Alliance and Tides Foundation.

·         The Gates Foundation has funded some $100 million to promote various portions of Common Core.  See, “Stop the Common Core,” video by NoToCommonCore, together with Concerned Women for America of Georgia and the American Principles Project, narrated by Jane Robins, www.stopcommoncore.com  (the “CWA Video”).

·         The General Electric Foundation has contributed $18 million to Student Achievement Partners to assist States nationwide in implementing Common Core.  Robert L. Corcoran, the President and Chairman of GE Foundation, said they were supporting the program to obtain real and lasting change.

·          David Coleman, a co-founder of Student Achievement Partners, is an architect of the Common Core.  Mr. Coleman has been described by The New York Times as barnstorming the nation to promote the Common Core Standards.  Coleman became President and CEO of the College Board on October 15, 2012 and announced that the College Board will use Common Core to write the SAT’s, which may disadvantage those States that do not adopt it.  See, Tamar Lewin, “Backer of Common Core School Curriculum Is Chosen to Lead College Board,” The New York Times, 5/16/12.

·         Despite evidence to the contrary, the Obama Administration claims Common Core was developed by the States.  The $4.6 billion of taxpayers’ money and Federally-paid-for facilitators have gotten 45 States, including New Jersey, to accept it and to pretend that it was generated by the States.  However, five States, led by Texas, have stayed out or opted out of the Common Core and opposition to it is growing rapidly.

·         Two consortia were created that give the appearance Common Core was developed by the States.  The State of Washington led one consortium called Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium or SBAC and Florida lead the other consortium called Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers or PARCC.

·         On June 16, 2010, the New Jersey Board of Education unanimously adopted a resolution that made New Jersey the ninth State to adopt Common Core.  The adoption of Common Core was met with considerable debate over different aspects of the program. Rutgers math professor Joseph Rosenstein criticized the math portions of Common Core.  Professor Rosenstein was concerned that the national standards were weaker than New Jersey’s standards, and he said, “Simply, this will come down to dumbing down our math instruction.”  See, John Mooney, “NJ Board of Education Adopts Common Core Standards,” NJ Spotlight, 6/17/10.

·         The then NJ Commissioner of Education Bret Schundler tried to defend the BOE vote, but it appeared that he was rushing the vote through to gain points toward the pending application for $400 million of Obama’s Race to the Top money.  Id.  However, New Jersey wound up finishing in 11^th place, just 3 points behind 10^th place Ohio.  New Jersey had lost 4.8 points because it submitted financial information for the wrong years and just missed out on the RTTT money, which went to the top ten States in Obama’s RTTT scoring system.  Schundler also lost his job over the mishap.  See, Barbara Martinez, “After Christie Firing, Schundler Fires Back,” WSJ.com, 8/28/10.  Ultimately, the New Jersey education system and NJ school children will be the real losers with Common Core forced on them.

·         Because of Race to the Top’s short timetable, New Jersey and most other States that adopted Common Core did so without legislative approval.  The New Jersey State Constitution in Article VIII, Section IV, paragraph 1 provides that “The Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years.”  Some people have questioned whether this NJ Constitutional provision means that State legislative approval was necessary to adopt Common Core and to commit all of the State’s school districts to its requirements and expense.

·         The Common Core is the basis for a national curriculum and national tests, even though Federal law prohibits the US Department of Education from exercising control over the States’ academic curricula, their programs of instruction or their selection of instructional materials.  Obama violated (“circumvented”) that Federal law, by making “Race to the Top” Federal funds and “No Child Left Behind” waivers contingent upon accepting the Common Core.  This threat to withhold Federal funds might very well be considered  unconstitutional coercion of the States under the test laid down by Chief Justice Roberts in Florida v. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 567 U.S._____; 1325 S. Ct. 2566 (2012).

·         On September 2, 2010, U. S. Secretary of Education Duncan announced SBAC and PARCC were the winners of the DOE’S competition to develop tests to align with the Common Core standard.  SBAC and PARCC were awarded, respectively, $160 million and $170 million of Federal Race to the Top money.  See, “U. S. Secretary of Education Duncan Announces Winners of Competition to Improve Student Assessments,” U.S. Department of Education, ED.gov. 9/2/10.

·         Some say whoever controls the tests will control what must be taught in the classroom.  The Common Core appears to be a nationwide initiative designed to force the States into national K-12 standards and national tests.  Critics say that prodding the cash-strapped States into the program ultimately will lead to a national curriculum and prevent curriculum input from local educators, parents, and taxpayers.

·         Proponents insist that the Common Core initiative is “state-led” and “voluntary,” and that the national standards are “rigorous,” “internationally benchmarked,” and designed to make our students “college and career ready.” They insist that the States are not surrendering control over their standards and curriculum by adopting the Common Core, and that the Federal government is not behind this effort. In fact, NONE of these statements is TRUE. See, e.g. the CWA Video.

·      The Federally controlled, one-size-fits-all Common Core freezes in place an unacceptable status quo and prevents innovation to meet the challenges of the future.  It amounts to education without REPRESENTATION, in violation of the principles laid down by our founders in the Constitution.  These principles provide for individual freedom, personal responsibility, limited government, and for the powers, not specifically granted to the Federal government or prohibited to the States, to be left the States.  The founders intended that education be left to the States and local governments, and three federal laws confirm this principle. Id.

·      The Common Core Standards are insufficient to properly prepare students for four year colleges.  They do not meet the standards recommended by the National Mathematics Advisory Panel or those of our international competitors.  In particular, certain portions of the Algebra and Geometry required by four year colleges are omitted.  Algebra I is moved from 8^th grade to 9^th grade, making it very difficult and unlikely that the school will be able to move a student through Calculus by 12^th grade, as is required by selective colleges.  As a few other examples, the Common Core eliminates decimals, percents, conversions between fractions and least common denominators and de-emphasizes division and algebraic manipulations.  See, Jonathan Butcher, Emmett McGroarty and Liv Finne, “Why the Common Core is Bad for America,” May 2012.  Dr. James Milgram of Stanford University, who was the only mathematician on the Common Core Validation Committee referred to the math program “as almost a joke to think students [who took common core] would be ready for math at a university.”  See, “Quick Facts Sheet” www.StopCommonCore.com; see also, the CWA Video.  

·       The Common Core’s English Language Arts has been described as skill sets, not a coherent and demanding English curriculum that will prepare a student for a four year college.  Rather, the Common Core has been described as preparing a student for a non-selective community college.  Common Core has a requirement of 70% informational text to 30% literature, which English teachers say will not allow them to develop a proper college preparatory literature course.  Dr. Sandra Stotsky of the University of Arkansas, served on the Validation Committee, but refused to sign off on the ELA portion citing “poor quality, empty skill sets, the de-emphasis on literature, and low reading levels, such as 8^th grade levels for 12^th grade students.” Id.

·      The Common Core has been described by the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce as raising the bar.  The Common Core has more accurately been described as raising the bar for the bottom students and lowering the bar for the top students.  Thus, none of the students will be prepared to meet the rigors of a four year college curriculum, nor to compete in today’s competitive world.  The Common Core does not meet the standards of today’s leading States.  They will be required to dumb down their curricula.

·         The Common Core provides for a massive database on all school children.  This part of the project is being partially funded by the Gates Foundation, and is considered by many outraged parents to be the most insidious part of Common Core.  The program calls for collecting 400 data points on children from pre-school to age 20.  The data will go beyond names, addresses, bus stops, grades, attendance and include hobbies, attitude toward school, eye color, hair color, skin color, blood tests, birth marks, premature birth and their family’s income, voting status, religion and politics.  See, The CWA Video.

·         The program also calls for FMRI’s which measure blood flow and heat in different parts of the brain, as well as digital wrist bands and eye movement sensors to monitor the children at all times.  Psychiatrist Harry Thompson, MD, felt that it would be very dangerous to have a data bank with information on students including the 400 data points and their brain waves.

·         The Obama Administration’s US Department of Education established a seven member board to oversee how SBAC and PARCC were implementing the Common Core.  This is just the latest move of the Obama Administration to assert Federal control over the alleged State standards of Common Core.  See, Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute, “Feds Assert More Control Over Common Core,” Choice Media. TV, 4/413.

·         When Governor Rick Perry found out about some of the details of Common Core he took Texas out of it.  Four other States including Virginia, Nebraska and Alaska have stayed out or have followed Texas out of Common Core.  However, there is a fear that they may adopt C-Scope, which is far worse.  South Carolina has a bill introduced to take that State out of the program, and Governor Nikki Haley has strongly endorsed the bill.  Minnesota refused to sign on to the math portion.  Utah is holding hearings to consider withdrawing.  Senator William Ligon (R, GA) introduced S. B. 167 to withdraw Georgia from Common Core.  The Indiana Senate passed an anti-Common Core Bill 38-11.

·         Concerned citizens groups across the country include:  Concerned Woman for America of Georgia (www.stopcommoncore.com),  Pennsylvanians Against Common Core (www.nopacommoncore.com) , Hoosiers Against Common Core (www.hoosiersagainstcommoncore.com) , Ohioans Against Common Core (www.ohioansagainstcommoncore.com ), and Utahns Against Common Core (www.uthansagainstcommoncore.com) and the list goes on for some 44 groups in at least 42 States now fighting The Common Core.  For more information go to www.stopcommoncore.com.

·         While the fight against the math and ELA are heating up, a consortium is already developing the Next Generation Science Standards.  This consortium involves 26 States and groups claiming to represent scientists and teachers.  The NGSS will include climate change being taught in the middle school.  And, “In high school, students would learn in more detail about the human role in generating emissions that are altering the planetary climate.”  See, Justin Gillis, “New Guidelines Call for Broad Changes in Science Education,” The New York Times, 4/9/13.  In some cases, traditional subjects such as “biology and chemistry may disappear entirely from high school, replaced by courses that use a case-study method to teach science in a more holistic way.”  Id.  Naturally, controversy has already developed over NGSS.

The Sequester Came, Obama Ordered Maximum Pain

And the Stock Market Set All Time Record Highs

          Obama delivered on his threats to exact maximum pain on America because HIS sequester has gone into effect.  Obama had proposed the unsound idea of across the board cuts to the military and the discretionary portions of the budget as part of his scheme to get Congress to raise the debt ceiling before his re-election.  Now that he is re-elected and his sequestration has gone into effect, Obama and his minions have started to wreak intentional havoc on Americans.  The stock market had other ideas.  Despite Obama’s histrionics, on March 5, 2013, the Tuesday after Obama’s sequester went into effect, the Dow Jones Industrial Average established an all time high of 14,253.85, the Nasdaq hit 3,224.13, a level not seen since November 2000, and the S&P 500 hit 1,539.79, which was a new high not seen since November 2007.  The Dow Jones continued its upward trajectory for the rest of the week and set records for the next seven days and is on a winning streak of ten days and counting.  Apparently, unlike Obama, the stock market thinks that cutting government spending is a very good thing, even if it is by Obama’s unfortunate sequester.  Many people, including those trading in the stock market think the sequester is the only way Obama can be forced to cut government spending.

          Meanwhile, Obama’s faithful Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano (D) could not wait for the sequester to kick in.  Just days before the sequester took effect, she released over 2,000 illegal immigrants from prison in Arizona and threatened to release over 3,000 more.  Since these prisoners were being held pursuant to a court order, Janet Napolitano’s actions are not only outrageous but appear to have broken the law.  Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer (R) said Napolitano’s actions are the “height of absurdity” given that the release was before the sequester had even gone into effect.  Furthermore, also before the sequester Immigration Customs Enforcement, which reports to Napolitano, said it would release 10,000 illegal detainees nationwide.

          On March 1^st, on Fox News Channel (FNC)’s “American Newsroom,” Governor Brewer said that beyond the sequester, there was another reason for releasing the illegal detainees.   In response to host Bill Hemmer’s question, “Why do you think this happened in Arizona, in your state?”  Governor Brewer said:

          “Well, you know, I personally believe that it could be pay back, it could be to punish Arizona, make them squirm. They are pushing back on what we are pushing on because we want our borders secured. And we’re strong about it.  We believe in the rule of law, which they should be upholding.  And they’re not.”

          HEMMER: “Do you think they are picking on you?”

 

BREWER: “I think it’s obvious they are doing everything in their power. This is just another notch in their belt, if you will. They are suing Arizona - when did you see the federal government sue a state?”

 

Texas Governor Rick Perry also responded to the Obama/Napolitano/ICE release of illegal immigrants, since those releases also took place in Texas, Georgia and California.  On Greta Van Susteren’s “On The Record,” FNC, 3/5/13, Governor Perry called the release of illegal immigrants a “Federally sponsored jailbreak”.

           Perry continued:

           When you start talking about turning loose individuals, who could be quite criminal in their nature, that’s quite a big problem, and this Administration needs to be thoughtful about how you deal with the sequester issue and cutting and prioritizing.  We do it in the states every day. This seems to be a plan to scare as many Americans as we can—to put as much pain onto individuals….I think this President has a political agenda that he is driving, not one that’s looking to solve problems in this country.”

           Also on Greta’s “On The Record,” Paul Babeu, Sheriff of Pinal County in Arizona, said the release of illegal immigrants is a danger to public safety.  He said that when he contacted ICE for information about the release, at first ICE tried to conceal that it happened, and then they lied about the number and nature of the persons released.   He is demanding that Congress hold a public inquiry.  California’s Republican Congressman Darrell Issa, who is the head of the Congressional Oversight Committee and sits on the Judiciary Committee, said that the Judiciary and the Homeland Security Committees have already launched investigations into Napolitano’s ICE’s illegal release of illegal immigrants and that the Oversight Committee will work with those investigations.

           Issa also said Obama’s own Inspector General has pointed out $67 billion in Federal Government waste that would be a better place to start cutting than releasing illegal immigrants.  However, Obama refuses to listen to his own Inspector General.  Id.  Apparently, Obama is more interested in pursuing his agenda of inflicting pain on the American people.  There is more flexibility in the sequester than the President is admitting and the House Republicans offered a bill to give the Executive Branch more flexibility in making the cuts, but the President wasn’t interested.  He wants to exact maximum pain.

           The pain campaign continues with the military cuts, where Obama is cutting training, maintenance and the deployment of the carrier USS Harry S. Truman, as well as threatening massive layoffs and furloughs of civilian and military DOD personnel.  The USS Truman was scheduled to deploy on March 1st, and Obama personally approved the order to stop the deployment.  The order stopping that deployment will mean that the US will only have one carrier deployed to the Persian Gulf.

           The TSA agreed to buy $50 million in new uniforms just before the sequester went into effect, at the same time Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced that the sequester could result in flight delays of 90 minutes and warned of furloughing air traffic controllers.  Janet Napolitano backed up LaHood on the furloughs and stated long lines were already forming at airports, a claim denied by airport officials.  “TSA signs $50 million uniform deal, as billions in federal cuts ripple across America,” FoxNews.com, 3/6/13.  TV cameras deployed at airports have shown that the lines were short.

           Tennessee Republican Representative Marsha Blackburn criticized Napolitano by saying:

           I find it deeply disturbing that Secretary Janet Napolitano is running around scaring people by saying she is going to have to furlough employees because of the sequester and that she would also spend $50 million of taxpayer money on new uniforms.  This is classic failure in leadership.  Id.

           Rep. Blackburn also stated that DHS had the flexibility in the sequester to “cut waste, fraud and abuse from its budget.”  Id.

           At the other extreme Obama ordered the cancellation of tours of the White House to rub his sequester in the face of taxpaying Americans and school children who had previously scheduled trips to Washington with visits to the White House.  The tour guides are volunteers and several prominent individuals have offered to raise the money to cover the rest of the costs.  Some commentators have pointed out that Obama’s weekend golf trip to Florida to play a round of golf with Tiger Woods would have covered the cost of keeping the White House open.  Naturally, Obama has rejected such offers of private individuals raising money for White House tours, because he wants to inflict maximum pain on Americans, if he cannot get “his own way.”  And we know that Obama’s way consists of inflicting another type of pain on Americans:  the pain of higher taxes.

           Finally, Yellowstone National Park said it would delay opening the park by two to three weeks, because of the sequester.  On “Your World With Neil Cavuto,” FNC, 3/11/13, Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal said he thinks the Obama Administration is not looking to find waste.  “They are looking for the things that are most sensitive to the American taxpayer.”  Steve’s position was supported by a statement by a Park Ranger, who has been quoted as saying his Supervisors said they “want the public to feel the pain.”  Id.  Steve Moore also pointed out that Obama’s own budget found hundreds of millions of dollars that were duplicative and could be cut without doing anything to our environment.  Id.

           Professor Thomas Sowell of Stanford University predicted all of this in his insightful column in Investors Business Daily on 3/05/13, p. A15.  He explained that big government will always cut the most popular programs during a budget squeeze so that the public will demand their reinstatement and thus defeat the budget cuts; there’s no point in cutting things that the public won’t notice.  Obama’s histrionics and actions and those of his Administration are all political ploys to inflict pain and punishment on Americans and blame the Republicans.  Hopefully, the American people will see through Obama’s political stunts.

Obama Attacked His Own Sequester Plan

On Tuesday February 18^th, standing in front of several rows of police officers and other emergency responders, being used as props, Obama blamed the Republicans for a long list of terrible things that will happen if Obama’s own sequester plan goes through, including police, teachers, firefighters, TSA and air traffic controllers being laid off and criminals being set free.  But there are several problems with Obama’s political theater.  First, the sequester was his idea in the first place.  Second, police, teachers, firefighters, and other first responders are on local municipal, county and state budgets, and are not part of the sequester.  Furthermore, Mary Schiavo, a former Inspector General of the US Department of Transportation at the time of the Clinton government shutdowns, stated that air traffic controllers, TSA and other federal first responders are exempt from government shutdowns, and that maintenance and repairs are paid out of a prefunded Repair Trust Fund and will not be affected by the sequester either.

Many commentators have pointed out that the $85 billion sequester for this year is only 2.3% of total federal government spending out of a $3.6 trillion budget, and the ten-year $1.2 trillion in proposed cuts out of a projected ten-year spending budget of $47.2 trillion is less than 0.3%.  These alleged “cuts” are actually reductions in the proposed rate of increase and are not actually cuts in the amount of spending.  If the Obama administration cannot find such small amounts of low priority items to reduce or cut back on the rate of increase, they are incompetent. Furthermore, since the sequester is a reduction in the rate of increase of government spending, there should not be a need for anyone to be laid off.  Clearly, Obama was just being a demagogue by telling people he would exact maximum pain by shutting down the most vital services, even ones he does not have control over, rather than cutting the lowest priority items and programs.  Obama has used this political trick before, including during the debt ceiling debate, and everyone should be used to it and call him out on it.

In fact, many people have called Obama out on his now worn out ploy and political theater, including Speaker John Boehner; Senators Tom Coburn, Lindsey Graham, and Rand Paul; as well as former Senator Jim DeMint.  In addition, Larry Kudlow, Karl Rove, Stan Druckenmiller, the hedge fund manager of Duquesne Capital, Mary Schiavo, former Inspector General of the US DOT, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Rudy Giuliani, Ford O’Connell, Chairman of the Civic Forum PAC, Robert Woodward, an Associate Editor of the Washington Post, Harvard Business Professor Michael Porter and many others also criticized the President’s histrionics and various aspects of his political grandstanding.  But that didn’t stop Obama from repeating his lies on his Saturday radio address on February 23, 2013.

In an op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal (“WSJ”), Speaker John Boehner made clear that the $1.2 trillion sequester, due to kick in March 1^st, is the result of Obama’s failed leadership and blamed Obama for getting us into this mess in the first place.  Boehner wrote, “During the summer of 2011, as Washington worked toward a plan to reduce the deficit to allow for an increase in the federal debt limit, President Obama and I very nearly came to a historic agreement.  Unfortunately, our deal fell apart at the last minute when the president demanded an extra $400 billion in new tax revenue —50% more than we had shaken hands on just days before.”  “The President Is Raging Against a Budget Crisis He Created,” by John Boehner, WSJ, 2/20/13, p.A15.

In his op-ed article Boehner explained that, since the debt ceiling was looming, he immediately worked out an agreement with Senators Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell that called for immediate caps on discretionary spending to save $917 billion and form a super committee to find an additional $1.2 trillion in savings, and if the super committee failed to meet its target, the debt would not be raised when the ceiling would be hit again in a few more months.  But to insure his re-election, Obama scuttled this bipartisan, bicameral deal and, with the debt ceiling about to hit within hours, Obama forced his solution of the “sequester” on a reluctant Congress.  Id.  Boehner also pointed out that the House Republicans had passed two bills to replace the sequester with sensible alternative spending cuts, but Harry Reid has refused to even take them up in the Senate, and Obama has not made a sensible proposal.

Boehner also said that we should be cutting the budget by even more than the $1.2 trillion the sequester mandates.   Boehner further stated that, because of the way Obama demanded that the sequester be structured, “the sequester is an ugly and dangerous way to do it.  By law, the sequester focuses on the narrow portion of the budget that funds the operating accounts for federal agencies and departments, including the Department of Defense.  Exempt is most entitlement spending—the large portion of the budget that is driving the nation’s looming debt crisis.” Id.  “What Congress should do is replace it with other spending cuts that put America on the path to a balanced budget in 10 years, without threatening national security.”  Id.  Speaker Boehner went on to say that in the fiscal-cliff deal, “The president got his higher taxes-- $600 billion from higher earners, with no spending cuts….He also got higher taxes via ObamaCare.”  Id.  Boehner flatly stated that the American people “understand that the tax debate is now closed.”  Id.  Boehner summed up by saying, “Mr. President, we agree that your sequester is bad policy. What spending are you willing to cut to replace it?” Id.

Bob Woodward, an Associate Editor of the Washington Post, in an op-ed article in the Washington Post, basically confirmed Boehner’s version of the sequester.  Woodward wrote that the sequester was the idea of Jack Lew, now nominated for Secretary of the Treasury, and Obama approved the sequester.  Woodward confirmed that the reason Obama proposed that sequester was to get the debt ceiling moved past the election.  Bob Woodward, “Obama’s Sequester Deal-Changer,” The Washington Post.com, 2/22/13.  Moreover, Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary, confirmed that the sequester idea originated in the White House.

In an editorial, entitled “President Armageddon,” WSJ, 2/20/13,p.A14, The Wall Street Journal excoriated Obama for his “political tricks” and “his usual threat of Armageddon,” if Obama’s own sequester went through.  The Journal also said that “Americans can expect more such melodrama in the coming days.”  The Journal broke down Obama’s three biggest political tricks: (1) what it called “The Washington Monument ploy,” a parade of horribles that went on for several minutes, (2) the recession scare and (3) a tax increase disguised as “tax reform.”  As for the recession scare, the Journal reviewed some of the history of government spending cuts:

After World War II federal spending fell from 42% of GDP to 14.8% in two years, yet the private economy and employment roared back to life.  In the 1980s domestic [government] spending fell by about two percentage points of GDP and in the 1990s it fell by more than three.  Those were decades of government austerity but rapid growth in private output and wealth.  Mr. Obama has taken government spending from 21% to 24% of GDP, yet we’ve had the weakest economic recovery in three generations. Id.

 

The Journal could have continued the history by pointing out that in every one of the eight years of the Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge Presidencies, they reduced tax rates a step at a time from the Wilson era top rate of 74% down to a top rate of 24%, cut government spending each year, and reduced the national debt.  The results were spectacular: the economy boomed, production of everything from cars to refrigerators to radios to airplanes expanded and unemployment was a low 3.6%.  Furthermore, when John F. Kennedy cut taxes 26% across the board, the economy also boomed in the 1960’s.  In addition, the Bush 2003 tax cuts kicked off a five-year boom.  That boom only ended when the Carter/Clinton “Community Reinvestment Act” and Clinton’s levering up Fannie and Freddie, together with Clinton’s increased subprime lending requirements for Fannie and Freddie, caused the inevitable busting of the housing bubble and brought the economy down.

The Journal concluded by stating, if Obama “won’t drop his tax increase and negotiate in good faith, as he hasn’t during his Presidency, then the sequester is the only way that any spending is going to be cut. The economy will be better for it.” Id.

Senator Rand Paul summed up the President’s histrionics in front of the police and firemen this way:

I would say balderdash.  It’s untrue, unfair, dishonest, disingenuous.  The President is making stuff up.  He put law enforcement--he put firemen and policemen, who, 98% of them, are being paid for with your local taxes, and says, you’re going to lose your local policemen, because of this.  It’s not true.  The sequester is a slowdown in the rate of growth of government.  It’s the least we can do.  Our country is drowning in a sea of debt, borrowing $50,000 a second.  We have to slow down spending.  And for the President to use this histrionics is really, I think, beneath the office of the Presidency.  “Happening Now,” Fox News Channel, 2/22/13.

Whenever the progressive, Keynesian policies of tax and spend have been applied they have failed, and the economy, taxpayers and debt levels have suffered.  These policies failed for (1) Wilson, who increased government agencies and spending dramatically, increased the income tax rate from zero to 74%, resulting in  the depression of 1918-19; (2) Hoover, who, together with signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, increased taxes, spending and started new government agencies, leading to the depression of 1929-33; (3) Franklin Roosevelt, who put Hoover’s programs of increasing taxes, spending and starting new government agencies on steroids, turning the Hoover depression into the Great Depression with high unemployment continuing for years, often above 20%; and (4) Barrack Obama, who expanded government agencies, increased government spending by over a trillion dollars a year, increased the National debt by some $6 trillion in four years, producing the weakest recovery since FDR and has given us a 14+% unemployment rate by the Labor Department U-6 rate, which includes those who are underemployed and those who gave up looking for work.

We should learn from FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, who in April 1939 with unemployment at 20.7% said, “[W]e have tried spending money.  We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work…. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…. And an enormous debt to boot!”

Everyone Benefits from the Right to Work

In an article the Star-Ledger posted on December 30, 2012, by Stephen Sweeney, President of the New Jersey Senate, it’s not surprising he used AFL-CIO supplied information alleging a $5,538 unfavorable differential in wages in Right-to-Work (“RTW”) States vs. non-RTW States.  After all, he is the General Organizer for the International Association of Ironworkers.  However, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”), private-sector, inflation-adjusted compensation in RTW States increased by 12% between 2001 and 2011, while such compensation increased by only 3% in forced-union dues States during the same period.  See, “Right-To-Work Lies Fall Flat In Michigan,” Investor’s Business Daily (“IBD”) 12/12/12, p.A1.  Inflation-adjusted compensation in the RTW States was better because those states tend to attract more quality jobs and have lower living costs.                                                                                                                            

Senator Sweeney ties RTW Laws to the tea party movement.  The right of each state to pass a RTW Law was part of the Taft-Hartley Law, passed in 1947, long before the tea party movement started in 2009.  Twenty-four states have passed RTW Laws.  Tennessee was one of the first states to do so, passing its law in 1947.  As a result Tennessee has been attracting new domestic and foreign businesses for years and has become a major automobile manufacturing hub.  Nissan opened its Smyrna, Tennessee plant in 1983 and moved its US headquarters to Tennessee in the mid-2000’s.  It recently added 1,000 employees to its Smyrna plant and plans on adding 1,300 more in 2013.  Toyota has a parts facility in Jackson, Tennessee; Bridgestone Tire has its American headquarters in Nashville; and Volkswagen opened its only US plant in Chattanooga in 2010.  Even GM is reopening its old Spring Hill, Tennessee plant. Tennessee has been mainly spared the mass layoffs, plant closures and bailouts that affected the Detroit area.  Many groups credit the fact that Tennessee is a RTW State as the key advantage that saved it the pain that other parts of the country suffered.  Sean Higgins, “Tennessee Auto Industry Thrives Without Unions,” IBD, 3/5/12, p. A1-A6.

Speaking of the automotive industry, you may remember that back in the 1950’s Ford Motor Company had several assembly plants in New Jersey and nearby Pennsylvania.  However, in the mid-fifties, Ford started shutting plants.  Ford closed the Edgewater, NJ plant in 1955, the Chester, PA plant in 1961, the Mahwah, NJ plant in 1980 and the Edison, NJ plant in 2004.  It’s not that cars could not be manufactured profitably in the United States or that the US had insufficient demand for cars, because during this same time frame many automobile manufacturing and assembly plants were built by Toyota, Honda, BMW, Nissan, Subaru, and Volkswagen.  Toyota alone opened approximately eleven plants from California to Pennsylvania, while the big three were closing plants from coast to coast.  However, many of the new plants were built in RTW States, such as Tennessee, South Carolina and Alabama.

The main thrust of Senator Sweeney’s article was, without citations, that RTW Laws “can have devastating impacts on workers and a state’s economy as a whole.”  However, the facts do not support his statement.  There are advantages to the RTW Laws for both employees and employers.  News coverage usually leaves out the advantages to employees of letting employees have the choice of whether or not to join a union.  A recent survey of CEO’s ranked states in which they would like to do business on a variety of measures.  All of the states in the top 10 were RTW States.  Not one of the states in the bottom 20 was a RTW State.  In the ‘worst states for jobs’ list, New Jersey came in 45^th out of 50.   For most expensive states, New Jersey came in 5^th highest, above even New York. 

Economists have noted that RTW States have more labor force flexibility, faster economic growth, higher employment, greater inward migration, lower living costs and higher real compensation.  In the ten RTW States rated the best in the nation, private sector employment increased 10.6% from 2000 to 2010, while in the 10 compulsory-unionism States rated the worst in the nation, which included New Jersey, employment increased just 1.9% over the same period.  It is obvious the increase in employment and greater labor force flexibility, due to the absence of strict union rules, together with lower cost of living in RTW States, helps employees.  RTW Laws are win-win laws for both employees and employers.  See, “More ‘Raspberries’ For Compulsory Union Dues,” National Right To Work Newsletter (“NRWN”), June 2012, p.1.  New Jersey has suffered net outward migration and its high taxes, high living expenses, forced-union dues and excessive regulations are all part of the cause.

Overall, the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (the “BEA”) reported that from 2000 to 2011 private-sector, nonfarm employment increased 12.5% in RTW States, while in forced-union dues states such employment only increased 3.5%.  Thus, the increase in employment in the RTW States was nine percentage points higher than, or over 3.5 times as great as, in forced-union dues states.  “Right to Work States Have Superior Job Growth,” NRWN, Oct. 2012, p. 6.  All of the bottom ten states in job creation in that period did not have protection for their employees from forced-union dues and monopoly union representation.  Id.

The benefits of the new RTW Law in Indiana are already showing up in a stronger economy.  When Indiana was a forced-union dues state, it had one of the worst economies in the country.  From 2000 to 2010 the BLS determined that Indiana’s private-sector payroll employment declined by 9.1%.  Just two other states, both forced-union dues states, did worse during that time period.  The Midwest’s forced-union dues states as a group experienced a dismal decline of 9.8% during that period.  However, during the same decade, the five Midwestern states with RTW Laws actually experienced a slight increase by an average of 0.5%.  “’We’re Absolutely on the Right Track,’” NRWN, August 2012, p. 5.  By September 2012, six months after Indiana’s RTW Law went into effect, Labor Department data showed that the number of new private-payroll jobs in Indiana increased by nearly 100,000 or 4.1%.  “Indiana Right to Work Statute Is Working,” NRWN, Sept. 2012, p.5.  Furthermore, the job growth is likely to continue. The Indiana Economic Development Corporation, reported that fifty-seven companies have Indiana investment projects in the pipeline, which will bring $1.6 billion in new investment into the state, and many companies indicated RTW was a factor in their decision. Id.  In fact, in signing RTW Laws in Michigan, Governor Snyder cited the favorable results in Indiana, including Indiana’s increase in new jobs and its newfound ability to attract businesses.  Matthew Dolan and Kris Maher, “Unions Dealt Blow In UAW’s Home State,” The Wall Street Journal, 12/12/12 p. 1.

RTW States not only have better job creation, they also have better compensation growth for employees.  According to Commerce Department data, private-sector compensation (wages, salaries, benefits and bonuses) fell by 0.7% from 2001 to 2011 in then forced-union dues Indiana, while it rose by 6.4% nationwide.  Indiana and the six other Midwestern forced-union dues states experienced an aggregate real private-sector compensation decline of 2.7% during the same period.  During the same decade, the five Midwestern RTW States achieved an increase in real private-sector compensation of 13.0%. “Indiana Right to Work Statute is Working,” Id.  Superior job growth and superior compensation growth in the RTW States equals a double win for employees.  Effectively, under current Federal Law, an employer in a unionized company cannot offer merit-based pay increases or bonuses unless the union gives its permission or there is a federal finding of an “impasse.”  Mark Mix, “Union boss bargaining hurts our most productive workers,” The Washington Examiner, May 11-12, 2012.   In a rare occurrence, Governor Christie and the Newark Teachers Union recently agreed to permit merit bonuses in the Newark schools.  It would be good to see more of this type of cooperation.

Right to Work Laws even affect the number of school-aged children.  Apparently, parents would rather raise their children in RTW States for a variety of reasons, including more job opportunities, better compensation, work force flexibility, better chances for job advancement, lower cost of living, better living environment, schools without forced-union dues and lower taxes.  Whatever the reasons, the top seven states with the biggest gains in school-aged population from 2000 to 2011 were all RTW States.  Six of the seven states that lost the most school-aged children were forced-union dues states.  Katrina-ravaged Louisiana was the only exception of a RTW State that lost school-aged children.  In the aggregate, RTW States’ K-12 populations increased by 1.87 million or 9.2% since 2000, while forced-union dues states have seen their school-aged populations drop by 1.21 million or 3.7%.   Naturally, states that are losing school-aged children are also providing fewer opportunities for teachers to obtain employment, keep their jobs and achieve career advancement, and vice-versa in states that are experiencing growth in the population of school-aged children.  “Right to Work = Teacher Job Opportunities,” NRWN, Sept. 2012, p.3.

Senator Sweeney made several other bogus claims, including, among others, that unions are “the reason a strong middle class is even possible in our country.”  Contrary to Senator Sweeney’s spurious claim, it was hard work, economic freedom and the constitutional protection of personal property rights that created the middle class, not unions.  The American middle class actually started during the colonial period by applying the principles of life, liberty and property espoused by John Locke, the Protestant principles set forth in the 1599 Geneva Bible that the Pilgrims carried with them in 1620 on the Mayflower, and the Protestant work ethic.  These principles were set forth in The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and they allowed America, including the middle class, to continue to flourish.

The only way an economy can increase the average living standards of its workers is through increased productivity.  This productivity is derived partly by the workers developing their own skills that lead to careers and upward mobility.  In addition, productivity increases have derived primarily from entrepreneurs and inventors developing new productivity-enhancing equipment and production processes.  The progress in inventing production-enhancing machinery and procedures has been going on for hundreds of years, without the help of unions.  The list of inventions that have increased worker productivity is long and storied.  The list includes Eli Whitney’s cotton gin in 1793, Cyrus McCormick’s reaper, developed by 1831, Henry Leland’s contributions to standardized and interchangeable parts and his design and development of the Cadillac and Lincoln automobiles, Henry Ford’s production line and affordable Model T Ford, Thomas Edison’s 1,200 patents including the light bulb, John D. Rockefeller’s improvement of the cracking tower, and continued down to Bill Gates’ operating systems and Steve Jobs’ long list of products at Apple Computer.  If anything unions have hindered this process of improving worker productivity through resisting productivity-enhancing equipment.  For an example of how a union can hurt an economy, just look at what the UAW has done to Detroit.

Senator Sweeney implies that unions represent workers; however, unions represent only about 7% of workers and even fewer in the private sector.  If unions were as great at representing employees as Senator Sweeney claims, then why would the evidence show that, when employees are given a free choice as to whether or not to join a union, many of them choose not to join a union.

The facts clearly indicate that RTW Laws are win-win for the employees, the employers, jobs creation, increased real compensation, and general economic health of the states that have such laws.  Senator  Sweeney should have a more open mind on the advantages to employees and the health of the economy that are provided by permitting employees the freedom to choose whether or not to join a union.