There are a few ways that a policy gets to be called racist: it is intended to negatively affect one race over another, it results in a negative affect on one race over another regardless of intent, or it has historically been used to negatively affect one race over another regardless of present intent or eventual result.
The first two are justifiably used to disqualify certain policies; of course we shouldn’t enact things that are intended to or serve to foster racial discrimination. But the latter is used as a fallacious smear tactic almost exclusively against conservative and libertarian policies. If that’s how we’re going to debate, it’s long past time the historically racist origins of certain liberal policies got considered too.
Federalism gets a bad rap obviously because of slavery and Jim Crow laws. The mantle of states’ rights was used for a long time as a means to get away with any number of heinous injustices and atrocities. That is almost never the case today, yet one risks being labeled racist for suggesting it, whether the issue to which federalism is to be applied has anything to do with race or not.
Well, if the putative federalist in question is a Republican, that is. Democrats are free to cling to states’ rights when it is convenient without having to worry about similar ad hominem attacks. Even after President Obama’s hailed conversion on the issue of gay marriage, he maintains that states should be free to decide the issue themselves.
This is effectively the same position as most elected Republicans, yet he doesn’t get called names because of it. Even the President’s signature health insurance reform grants states tremendous discretion in how much of the law’s new bureaucracy to implement themselves. Has anyone called Obamacare racist?
Because ObamaCare is such a complete failure, the president is at least slightly welcoming the latest distraction to keep the masses from noticing that problem. Protestors took to the streets demanding that the government not only increase the minimum wage, but essentially double it. Of course, while that might seem like a nice idea for people that are barely making it by with low wage jobs, it would not work out very well for them in the end.
Forbes explored this issue at length a while ago, but their findings remain just as true today. Slight increases in the minimum wage have been shown to cause job losses, as companies downsize to absorb the increased costs of their labor force. One thing that has changed is the effect of ObamaCare on the situation. Many employers are already looking at cutting hours of low wage workers to avoid the increased costs of benefits for employees.
Liberals are demonizing this action, and are still demanding higher wages, while ignoring what should be obvious. Increased costs must be paid one way or another, whether by cutting labor costs, increasing prices for consumers, or a combination of the two. Since the latter is a likely solution for many companies that employ low wage workers, that would mean the continuation of a vicious cycle for the very people that liberals would hope to help by increasing the minimum wage in the first place.
Low wage workers tend to use the goods and services of companies like fast food restaurants and WalMart, so even if their wages are increased, it probably will not help them very much in the end. A pay raise doesn’t do much good if the price of goods and services goes up, too.
Despite voting heavily for him in 2008 and 2012, Millennials — voters between the ages of 18 and 29 — have increasingly become disenfranchised with President Obama. This began early in the summer with the coverage of the NSA’s domestic surveillance and has worsened thanks to the disastrous Obamacare rollout.
But slide, it seems, is much worse than most standard surveys have shown. Ron Fournier of the National Journal broke down the results of a recent Harvard University poll which found that not only do Millennials disapprove of President Obama, but 52% would vote to recall him (emphasis added):
Obama’s approval rating among young Americans is just 41 percent, down 11 points from a year ago, and now tracking with all adults. While 55 percent said they voted for Obama in 2012, only 46 percent said they would do so again.
When asked if they could choose to recall various elected officials, 45 percent of all Millennials said they would oust their member of Congress, 52 percent replied “all members of Congress,” and 47 percent said they would recall Obama. The recall-Obama figure was even higher among the youngest Millennials, ages 18-24, at 52 percent.
While there is no provision for a public recall of U.S. presidents, the poll question revealed just how far Obama has fallen in the eyes of young Americans.
Uhhhh. President Obama, call your office because…wow.
Things have been so disappointing for people that lean right for so many years now that there’s a general tendency toward hopelessness and cynicism when it comes to believing that anyone on the Hill represents their interests. After all, it’s tough to battle brute accusations of racism and obstruction with reasoned arguments concerning economic struggles and the inefficiencies of wealth transfer.
At some point, people just get angry and lose faith. But take heart conservatives and libertarians: there are people within the district and around the country working on your behalf:
A federal judge in the District of Columbia will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in one of several cases brought by states including Indiana and Oklahoma, along with business owners and individual consumers, who say that the law does not grant the Internal Revenue Service authority to provide tax credits or subsidies to people who buy insurance through the federal exchange.
…The subsidy lawsuits grow out of three years of work by conservative and libertarian theorists at Washington-based research organizations like the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The cases are part of a continuing, multifaceted legal assault on the Affordable Care Act that began with the Supreme Court challenge to the law and shows no signs of abating.
At this point, everyone generally accepts that the President’s purported one-year delay in forcing you to lose your individual health insurance policy (and, more importantly, corralling you into the Obamacare exchange) was political grandstanding amounting to almost no practical benefit. At last check, 19 states had rejected the so-called “fix.” For those that have adopted it, congratulations on delaying the inevitable.
The Obama administration has recently tried to reframe the narrative of this fiasco by focusing on the fact that only 5% of Americans purchase an individual health insurance policy. After all, why concern ourselves over the health plan of 14 or 15 million Americans when their sacrifices will benefit the much grander scope of universal utopia?
In spite of U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ promise that the HealthCare.gov website’s relaunch on November 30th would offer a much better experience to users, tech-security experts have claimed that some of the exchange website’s bugs haven’t been properly tackled yet.
According to Reuters, experts who testified before Congress during a hearing by the House of Representatives Science, Space and Technology Committee said that HealthCare.gov still poses threats to the personal data of Americans who sign up.
According to Morgan Wright, one of the tech-security experts that testified before Congress, the risks the website pose to citizens’ financial and Social Security data continue to be limitless. He also pointed out that a memorandum issued by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services was signed off on a finding that Americans’ personal data would be at risk of falling into the hands of hackers.
Despite the experts’ testimonials, White House Press Secretary stated that consumers can “trust that the information that they are providing is protected by stringent security standards” after the hearing.
A report provided by David Kennedy, a former U.S. Marine Corps cyber-intelligence analyst, highlighted the many issues with the website and that they would require the administration a minimum of seven to 12 months to make sure they are actually fixed.
It’s tough being a smarty-pants, know-it-all, dismissive-of-logic-in-favor-of-groupthink, 25-35 year old true believer in Hope and Change this holiday season. Because that conservative and close-minded family of yours is about to hammer you at the Thanksgiving table over Obamacare, and it’s going to be hard to hear — and we know how difficult hard things are for you to hear.
But chin up little camper! The machine you believe in has some talking points to toss around in response — with your trademark false intellectual snobbery and Kruschev-like, self-righteous table pounding — when grandpa starts in on what a wreck that new healthcare system has turned out to be. And, lucky for you, there’s no thinking required at all. Just memorization and regurgitation. A common core of policy response, if you will. The Huffington Post makes it easier for you by including all those .gifs you like, and using some of your vernacular.
Emily: GOP Governors are largely responsible for the struggling health care rollout in the first place. And Democrats are wimps, so that’s not a surprise to anybody.
Earlier this month, President Barack Obama visited Dallas, Texas to give a speech in front of supporters in which he tried to pressure Republican governors to expand Medicaid, a government program that covers people who make below 138% of the federal poverty line.
“We were just talking on the way over here that in addition to signing people up for the marketplaces so they can buy private insurance, part of the Affordable Care Act was expanding the number of working families who would qualify for Medicaid,” President Obama told supporters.
“Here in just the Dallas area, 133,000 people who don’t currently have health insurance would immediately get health insurance without even having to go through the website if the state of Texas decided to do it,” he said. “There’s over $500 million just for this county that would come in to help families get health insurance — has nothing to do with the website — if the state of Texas made this decision.”
“And your neighboring states have made that decision because they look at it and they say, this is a no-brainer, why would not — why would we not want to take advantage of this,” he added.
The fact that President Obama gave this speech in Texas, home to the country’s largest uninsured population, isn’t a coincidence. Seeking to capitalize on the state’s large Hispanic population, there is a big push by activist Democrats with help from the party to “turn Texas blue.” Part of this effort is to pressure Texas politicians, including Gov. Rick Perry, to accept Medicaid expansion, which is part of the Obamacare.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) decided to use the story of a Kentucky family yesterday to illustrate how the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, has been hurting common Americans.
He took the story of the Mangiones to the floor of the Senate to explain why President Obama’s promise regarding people’s freedom of choice was misleading at best.
When the President announced that if you liked your insurance plan you would be able to keep it, he ensured the public that our freedom of maintaining a plan granting us the type of coverage we find fitting to our lifestyle would be respected. Now that a small number of Americans are buying insurance through the glitchy heath care exchange website, we are learning that the promise the President made hasn’t been kept.
Because individuals are required by law to purchase insurance plans that cover more than what they are willing to pay for, people’s plans are being canceled for not qualifying under the new health care laws. The same plans President Obama once said individuals could keep, if they liked it.
According to Sen. Paul, the Mangiones “had an individual policy they were happy with. They paid $300 a month.” Once they enrolled for ObamaCare, they learned that “they are now going to be asked to pay $900 a month for things they don’t want and they didn’t choose to have.”
Sen. Paul went on to explain how his own experience with signing up for Obamacare was a failure and how important it is for us to tackle ObamaCare’s freedom of choice problem by keeping the law from hurting more families.
The Quinnipiac University poll brought bad news virtually across the board for President Barack Obama. But three particular parts of the poll relating to young people between the ages of 18 and 29 deserves discussion.
The poll found that voters overwhelmingly disapprove of President Obama’s handling of healthcare by a 24-point margin, at 36/60. The age demographic breakdown shows a 16-point divide in his approval rating among young people, at 40/56:
It’s the lowest of the four age demographics, but still very important.
When Quinnipiac asked voters who they trust to do a better job on the healthcare issue, President Obama or Republicans in Congress, voters gave a very slight edge to the GOP. It’s the first the Republicans have had an advantage of any kind on healthcare, according to the firm.
Holding any edge over President Obama on the healthcare issue, no matter how small, is important because he has staked his legacy on the issue. But the most interesting part is, yet again, the demographics. young people gave a 5-point edge to Republicans: