Even Obamacare supporters know this: subsidies alone will cost taxpayers over $11 billion

Obamacare Costs

The weak attempt at trying to tout Obamacare as the reason why consumers are not paying as much in out-of-pocket care, in spite of the premium increases, has had a good run but now, it’s time to focus on the facts: government assistance offered to nine in 10 Americans who signed for health care coverage plans through the Affordable Care Act exchange will cost roughly $11 billion to the federal government this year.

Once you also add assistance offered through state-run exchanges in the mix, costs could top $16.5 billion, but since precise data regarding consumers buying plans in states that run their own exchanges is not available, the numbers are just a rough estimate.

While the subsidies may sound generous, the cost to taxpayers will affect everybody, including low- and middle-income Americans.

The media, and fervent supporters of this administration’s signature health care law, may have picked up the deceptive talking point and run with it, but the reality is that even with subsidies, the cost of insurance plans for individuals available after Obamacare kicked in was approximately 38 percent more expensive than plans available in 2013.

Barack Obama is the middle class’ biggest enemy

Some of the best intentioned among us may think regulations indeed serve a greater purpose, after all, certain companies are only in it to make as much as they can with as little effort as they can! Somebody should certainly make sure they are working under strict rules so this type of predatory behavior can be avoided and consumers can be protected.

Well, that’s everything regulations promise to do and the exact opposite of what they actually achieve.

A recent study carried out by American Action Forum demonstrated that the increase in consumer prices under the Obama administration is directly linked to the surge in the number of regulations it has adopted.

The study shows that since 2009, this administration has imposed at least 36 new regulations that range from new fuel-efficiency standards, which resulted in an increase in the price of automobiles by $91, to the cost of mortgages, which has risen to an abysmal $362 annually.

ObamaCare, this administration failure disguised as health care law, has also increased the prices of health care insurance.

Stop Obama’s green energy cronyism: Kill the Export-Import Bank

Barack Obama and Solyndra

One of the Export-Import Bank’s main goal, as it appears stated on its “About Us” page, is to “provide[s] export financing products that fill gaps in trade financing,” and effectively support U.S. companies that export “primarily to developing markets worldwide.”

The noble mission of filling in the gaps in trade financing, working as if the institution exists to fill in for an all-seeing eye and making sure that the developing world is being coerced into purchasing American products, doesn’t seem all that noble once you explore what the agency has accomplished in the last 80 years.

While the export credit firm offers financial incentives that promote a few amongst the greats of American corporations so that poor countries can afford U.S. products, one of the agency’s least publicized but extremely essential functions is to pick winners and offer them a striving market that is ready for their subsidized – therefore artificially affordable at the final consumer level – goods.

According to a research published by the Mercatus Center, the Export-Import bank’s most pressing problem is its procedural favoring of politically-connected corporations, which ultimately undermines competition, offering a disloyal and unjust environment to other companies that are not even allowed to compete with the government’s protégé abroad.

One of the industries that have been recently picking up steam with the help of the Ex-Im Bank is the green energy and sustainability sector.

To Help The Poor, To Not Help The Poor

Republicans in the Senate blocked legislation this week that would increase the federal minimum wage. Currently, the federal minimum wage level is at $7.25 an hour and the failed proposed increase would have raised it to $10.10 an hour. Democrats promoting the bill claimed it was a strong way to combat poverty.

The expected outrage at the failure of the bill included sound bites from an angered Obama aimed at Republicans, saying, “They said ‘no’ to helping millions working their way out of poverty.” Republicans responded to the many criticisms citing the CBO report showing that 500,000 jobs were expected to be lost if the increase was passed.

Though that is a great argument to make since it is quite difficult to work your way out of poverty if you no longer have a job, it is not the only one. The options for a business owner that is presented with a forced increase to labor costs include raising prices and cutting hours as well as cutting jobs entirely.

So, from the view of a poverty stricken minimum wage worker these options look just as bad. They are faced with an increase in the prices of goods and services they need. Not to mention they now run the risk of having their hours cut or losing their job entirely.

How many people in poverty would see an increase in pay because of this bill? According to the Census Bureau, in 2012, nearly 60% of those living at or near the poverty level were not in the workforce, meaning an increase in wage would not help.

Report: Americans face $1.8 trillion in annual regulatory costs

 Ten Thousand Commandments

One of the most dangerous, least often talked about threats of the governmental regulatory machine is how much of our money is engulfed in the regulatory process, putting the country deeper into debt.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has just released its annual report on the general state of U.S. federal regulations and what is known as the “hidden tax” of the U.S. regulatory state known as the Ten Thousand Commandments.

Because regulations are proposed and enacted without allowing for a substantial review of their cost-benefit and its open discussion, Americans are hit with the consequences of the growth of the regulatory state where it hurts the most: their wallet.

“Federal agencies crank out thousands of new regulations every year,” says CEI Vice President for Policy Wayne Crews, “but we have little information on the cost or effectiveness of most of them.” According to Crews, one of the main issues with this process is the lack of transparency since few of us have access to reliable sources of information on what the regulations hope to accomplish.

The cost of the regulatory mess we find ourselves in adds hundreds of billions to our debt, which is why this report is so important. CEI Vice President for Policy warned the public that action is needed.

Ex-Im Is The “Face of Cronyism,” Says Jeb Hensarling

Crony capitalism is America’s disease and the real problem with the modern perception of capitalism that most of the left likes to use against capitalism itself, without discerning between what voluntary trade and free markets can accomplish and what crony capitalism actually is all about.

It’s very easy to find perfect examples of crony capitalism in the age of President Barack Obama.

One of these perfect examples has been relying on taxpayer money to subsidize financial incentives destined to foreign companies that purchase U.S. exports: the Export-Import Bank.

The agency’s charter expires in 2014, making now the perfect time for opponents of crony capitalism to raise their objections to the agency’s upcoming congressional renewal. Heritage’s The Foundry talked to Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) about the Export-Import Bank and why he thinks that the federal export-subsidy agency should not be allowed to stay in business.

Majority of Americans Say Federal Taxes Are Just Too High

Americans are scrambling to have their taxes prepared by the end of the day to satisfy Uncle Sam’s thirst for their hard-earned money. Their lack of enthusiasm could have something to do with the fact that over half of the population claims taxes are just too high.

According to Gallup, 42 percent of Americans still say that they are paying enough, or “about right,” while 52 percent say that the taxes they are paying are too high. About two years ago, 46 percent of Americans said taxes were too high, indicating that there has been an increase in the number of people feeling they are simply paying too much.

Gallop found that the view that taxes are fair is more popular among Democrats, whereas Republicans tend to see their tax burden as not fair. According to the latest poll, 54 percent of Americans still regard the income tax as fair. However, this view is becoming less popular over time. According to Gallup, it hasn’t been this low since 2001.

Among Republicans, 57 percent say taxes are too high and 49 percent say what they pay is not fair. Among Democrats, 55 percent say they pay about right, and 69 percent say that what they pay is fair.

Among Independents, the numbers indicate that the difference between those who think their taxes are fair and those who think taxes are not fair is of 7 percent. Slightly more Independents (51%) say the federal income tax they have to pay is fair against 44 percent that say the taxes they pay are not fair.

Current Job Market for Teens is the Toughest on Record

Thomas Sowell used his latest piece to address a common misconception regarding the left’s avowed concern for minorities. In his column, the renowned economist pointed out that the educational policies pursued by the left in the name of the poor and the minorities often hurt those they claim to protect.

The same can be said about other policies pursued by Democrats who tend to defend that more interventionism will undoubtedly lead to more opportunities for the poor, the young and the minorities.

According to a Brookings Institute study, teens have been having a harder time finding jobs in recent years. In 2000, research shows that 45% of teens in the U.S. had jobs, now only 26% of teens aged 16 to 19 are employed.

Researchers used Department of Labor and Census data to track youth employment among the 100 largest metro areas in the country. The study shows that 1.8 million teens are either actively looking for a job but are unable to get one or they have part-time jobs, whereas they’d prefer to obtain full-time employment instead. The study refers to this pattern as “underutilization,” which means that teens are not satisfied or financially stable to focus solely on school.

In other words, more teens need to work but are unable to find work.

Texas Candidates “Reject the Debt”

Debt Clock

Coming out of a brutal series of losses in last fall’s fiscal fights, budget hawks are facing tough odds.

Some commentators have gone as far as to say that fiscal restraint has been defeated in Congress, with the heyday of 2010 giving way to a situation in which those who want to cut spending and reign in looming deficits and debt have taken a “back seat.”

Have deficit hawks finally been defeated? Is big spending the new norm?

Not if a cadre of Texas candidates has anything to do with it.

On Monday, the Coalition to Reduce Spending announced that 14 candidates for federal office from across the state had signed the Coalition’s Reject the Debt pledge ahead of Tuesday’s primary. The pledge requires elected officials to (1) consider all spending open for reduction, (2) vote only for budgets with a path to balance, and (3) offset any new spending with cuts elsewhere.

The signatories include Tea Party favorites like Katrina Pierson and Matt McCall, in a diverse scattering of candidates from across the state. The Coalition has also been in touch with various third party and Democratic challengers and expects more candidates to jump on after the primary.

“Washington won’t change until we change the incentives of the people we send there,” Coalition President Jonathan Bydlak said. “Candidates have to hold themselves accountable, or we have to do it for them. I’m pleased to see this group willing to hold themselves to fiscal restraint.”

CBO: Minimum wage hike would cost 500,000 jobs

An ever-increasing federal minimum wage is a statist panacea. Even Mitt Romney supported tying it to inflation in the 2012 campaign. But the CBO on Tuesday released its report scoring the proposals, and the numbers aren’t good.

If the minimum wage were raised on $10.10, as the Obama administration has proposed, somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million jobs could be lost over the next two years:

Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects. As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million worker

Economists and politicians have debated for decades about the minimum wage’s effect on employment, but the non-partisan government calculator has spit out a decisively negative result, at least for employment.


Adding more salt to the wound, the CBO finds that raising the minimum wage also won’t be the immediate fix for poverty that many thing it would:

The increased earnings for low-wage workers

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.