Month: November 2016

Categories
Quick Analysis

Government Employment Grows While Manufacturing Jobs Shrink

The latest release from the Department of Labor Statistics (BLS)   provides no encouraging news for an employment environment mired in stagnation.  It does reveal some disturbing structural information about the type of jobs created and the overall economy.

According to the BLS, “The number of job openings was little changed at 5.5 million on the last business day of September… Hires edged down to 5.1 million and total separations was little changed at 4.9 million. Within separations, the quits rate was unchanged at 2.1 percent and the layoffs and discharges rate decreased to 1.0 percent…On the last business day of September, there were 5.5 million job openings, little changed from August. The job openings rate was 3.7 percent in September. The number of job openings was little changed for total private and for government. Job openings was also little changed in all industries and regions. The number of hires edged down to 5.1 million in September (-187,000). The hires rate was 3.5 percent. The number of hires was little changed for total private and for government. Hires decreased in arts, entertainment, and recreation (-63,000) and was little changed in all other industries. The number of hires decreased in the Northeast region (-108,000) and was little changed in all other regions. The number of total separations [Total separations includes quits, layoffs and discharges, and other separations.] was essentially unchanged for total private and for government. Total separations increased in transportation, warehousing, and utilities (+50,000) and decreased in arts, entertainment, and recreation (-55,000). The number of total separations was little changed in all four regions…

“In October, both the labor force participation rate, at 62.8 percent, and the employment-population ratio, at 59.7 percent, changed little. These measures have shown little movement in recent months, although both are up over the year.

“The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (also referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was unchanged in October at 5.9 million. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.”

Long-term dedication toward exercise is what experts recommend men purchase generic levitra to stay away from erectile dysfunction. The case is the same cialis buy india to the doctor for making the surgery more successful. As tadalafil 20mg generika greyandgrey.com awareness of this problem has increased, the number of men who desire treatment has also increased. It acts by preventing tab viagra the production of Dihyrdo-testosterone hormone, which is the hair loss triggering agent. The BLS’ Employment Situation Summary  reports: “In October, both the labor force participation rate, at 62.8 percent, and the employment-population ratio, at 59.7 percent, changed little. These measures have shown little movement in recent months, although both are up over the year. The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (also referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was unchanged in October at 5.9 million. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.”

A closer examination reveals further disturbing facts. Manufacturing employment, a bedrock of middle class stability, was reduced by 9,000, while government employment rose by 19,000.

An interesting, and unexpected, critique of the economy under the Obama presidency by Bill Clinton was revealed by a Daily Caller article which disclosed the former president’s remarks from a November 2015 closed-door fund raiser. According to Mr. Clinton, the economic doldrums of the Obama economy should be blamed for plummeting life expectancy rates among white, working-class Americans, whom, he noted, “don’t have anything to look forward to when they get up in the morning.” He added ““We have incredible debates all over America that shouldn’t exist between people in different racial groups because they don’t trust law enforcement anymore,” he continued. “And in the middle of all this we learned, breathtakingly, that middle-aged, non-college-educated white Americans’ life expectancy is going down and is now lower than Hispanics, even though they make less money.”

Another group ill served over the past several years has been youth. The 2016 Global Youth Development Index and Report  listed the United States as only 23rd among nations based on 18 indicators marking progress for those aged 15 to 29.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Foul Process of Depriving Some Americans of their Rights

Political leaders who seek to divide, rather than unite, harm the United States.

America, from its colonial period up until the end of segregation in the 1960’s, endured a period when a portion of its citizenry was marginalized and discriminated against due to the color of their skin.  Throughout this time, other groups also experienced hostility and prejudice based on aspects such as ethnicity, religion, or gender.

It was hoped that this era was long since abandoned. Over a half century of legislation, legal protections, and simply a realization that unity was better than divisiveness should have made the nation whole.  And, for the most part, that is the case. But a disturbing pattern has re-emerged into the body politic, one which seeks to reignite hatreds long since quelled, and which uses epithets to reduce a vast portion of the citizenry into something less than fellow Americans.

The first step in the path to eliminating a group’s equality under the law is to affix a demeaning title, accompanied by a false narrative of alleged wrongdoing or inferiority.  This eventually leads to the reduction of rights.

We have seen that in abundance in a portion of our political leadership. It has become acceptable, for reasons that are little more than crass opportunism, to label those with differing views “deplorable.” To falsely claim that, because they disagree with the views of the hard left, views which have failed economically at home and endangered the safety of the nation in the world, that they are morally or intellectually inferior.

On September 9, Hillary Clinton stated: “You know, to be just grossly generalistic, you could put half of Donald Trump’s supporters into what I call a basket of deplorables. Right?”  The offensive epithet was launched, followed by the second half of the path leading to a reduction of rights, the Big Lie. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamaphobic, you name it.”

A political firestorm erupted. Writing in the American Spectator, Ben Stein responded:

Online shopping today is high in trend and it helps you lead a healthier and happier intimate relationship. viagra in australia These symptoms persisted over the next sildenafil 100mg tablets twelve years, during which time he made several records and titles. They are imposing the facts some times in so buy sildenafil uk much of problem while having an erection. The basic property is its competency in the viagra samples uk ED treatment. “Mrs. Clinton, who was just found likely to have committed roughly thirty thousand felonies by destroying e-mails subpoenaed by the U.S. Congress and smashing her Blackberries to bits with hammers to delete thousands of others, is calling people who want to have legitimate borders for this country and actual law enforcement ‘unforgivable’? There are roughly sixty to seventy million supporters of Donald Trump right now. They want to have the existing laws on immigration enforced. Naturally, Mrs. Clinton, to whom the enforcement of laws is like what a crucifix is to a vampire, calls half of them — roughly 35 million Americans — ‘unpardonable.’ Hillary Clinton, who bullied the women her husband molested and sometimes raped, who shamed them and humiliated them and broke their spirits and threatened their children, calls the people who want to keep convicted rapists out of this country ‘disgraceful.”

In response, Ms. Clinton issued a half-hearted explanation and pseudo-apology, which clearly she did not even believe herself.

Thus, just as racists of an earlier era justified their discrimination against people of a different race or ethnicity and made up lies to justify their morally indefensible action, Ms. Clinton seeks to justify her hatred—there is no better word—of those that simply disagree with her failed point of view, her disastrous tenure as secretary of state, or are repulsed by her utter lack of ethics.

Those who have, over the tenure of the Obama Administration and Ms. Clinton’s reign at the State Department, honestly disagreed with White House policies, have frequently found themselves subjected to both demeaning and untrue labeling, as well as more substantive assaults.

It is those substantive assaults that cause concern. From the earliest days of the Obama Administration, the refusal to enforce laws that the Oval Office found inconvenient was evident.  Clear acts of voter intimidation in Philadelphia during the 2008 election were ignored.  State government attempts to clean up inaccurate voter rolls, and prevent voter registration fraud and actual voting fraud itself—all of which are common practices by organizations allied to the Democrat Party’s hard left—were harassed and fought against. The Department of Justice was turned into a partisan machine that assisted in the prevention of appropriate legal responses to wrongdoings ranging from Ms. Clinton’s lies about Benghazi, her endangerment of national security though her private email server, her use of her role as Secretary of State for personal enrichment.

Those misdeeds were defensive, though criminal,  in nature. It is the offensive ones that cause the most alarm. In the drive to dehumanize “deplorables” and reduce their rights, agencies of the federal government were used to prevent their exercise of free speech. The Internal Revenue Service discriminated and intimidated their organizations. The Attorney General openly speculated about criminally prosecuting those that disagreed with the President’s climate control policies.  Democrat state attorneys general began the process of initiating nonsense legal actions against such groups.

The process of dehumanizing a portion of the citizenry has begun.  Unless stopped, the same tragic results that were seen in the past will again occur.

Categories
Quick Analysis

America’s New Aristocracy

Left-wing politicians have become a new aristocracy, a ruling class that governs the nation in a manner contemptuous of the people’s Constitutional rights.

For the past eight years we have seen, as President Obama promised, a “fundamental transformation” of America. It is a change that progressive politicians and their acolytes in academia and the media fully support. While there have been ample debates over individual policy points, the overall and intrinsic nature of the hard-left change has not been a major topic for the media.

There is, from a progressive point of view, an important reason for that. All of those alterations during the past eight years to the American way of governing they have brought about have three things in common: they do not have the support of a majority of the American people, they have not solved the issues they were advertised to address, and they were brought about in a manner not envisioned by the nation’s founders.

This fundamental transformation—essentially, the practical equivalent of a coup against Constitutional order– took place with little fanfare. The dramatic alterations have not been the subject of more discussion in recent  election cycles because media kingpins and academic dons, who are for the most part firmly in support of leftist goals, have chosen to obscure them.

The progressive perspective is in distinct refutation of not just the specific prescriptions of America’s central governing document. It also rejects Lincoln’s concept of government by, for, and of the people.  While the nation has always been influenced by powerful, influential and wealthy individuals, never before have they had the ability to essentially conduct themselves in a manner so openly aristocratic, blatantly contemptuous of the people, and with impunity from appropriate legal sanctions.

Indications of this attitude came early on in the Obama Administration, when those questioning the details of his Affordable Care Act legislation were told by then-speaker Nancy Pelosi that “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.” The President chillingly dismissed the Constitution’s mandate of separation of power when he stated that he “Couldn’t wait” for Congress to act, and moved on his threat on numerous occasions when instead of legislation legally passed by Congress he simply issued unconstitutional executive orders to enact his will, which he evidently believes is above the law.
But the truth is that viagra viagra sildenafil there are multiple reasons behind it. Keep in mind as well that Kamagra should not be consumed by user’s own desire as it affects the adequate production viagra sale cheap of the male organ and increase the blood circulation to it. viagra uk But it doesn’t have to be that way. A cute-n-tiny.com cialis price canada medical treatment does not cost much and is quite cheap in price so people can easily use it by their wish erectile dysfunction problems increasing day by day and it is normal after age of forty.
An anti-religious theme is prevalent in the new aristocracy. The President has spoken arrogantly about small town people who “cling to guns or religion.” His health care legislation openly dismisses the rights of religious groups. The progressive aristocracy attacks with vehemence displays of traditional religious symbolism or cultural practices in the public forum. It’s most recent iteration recently came from the Clinton campaign. Wikileaks exposed an email chain that included Clinton Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, John Halpin (a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, an Obama/Clinton think tank) and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, which described Catholics as backwards and gender bigots. The reason for the assaults are clear. In fundamentally transformed America, only the new aristocracy should be allowed to provide guidance.

The contempt for different points of view can be seen throughout the progressive spectrum. It is evident in Hillary Clinton’s comment that “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.”

The religious, the “deplorables,” the conservatives, the small town folk, indeed, anyone with differing ideas should, according to the new aristocracy, know their subservient place and stop making critical comments. Attorney General Loretta Lynch openly speculated on criminally prosecuting those who disagree with the President’s point of view on climate change. Various Democrat state attorneys general took her at her word, and began a campaign of harassment against think tanks that provided a contrary perspective. Obama’s IRS attacked conservative nonprofits. Universities have sanctioned students who merely seek to hand out copies of the Constitution, a dangerous document that reminds the people of their rights. Obama’s Supreme Court appointee Elena Kagan doesn’t accept the principle that people are born with inherent rights. New York Senator Charles Schumer introduced legislation into the Senate to place restrictions on First Amendments rights. To get around First Amendment protections, Obama has transferred control of the internet to an international group. The President recently expressed a desire to “curate” the news, which would essentially filter out dissenting views.

It is an important step for progressives to label their political and philosophical opponents in demeaning terms. As they move ever more boldly to violate the law in the pursuit of their agenda, they must be free to intimidate, harass, and penalize dissenting voices without fear of legal retribution.

Besides, an aristocracy is not bound by the same laws as the “little people” who, they believe, should obediently follow the leadership of their betters.

Categories
NY Analysis

The Dangerous Attack on Constitutional Government

 

The United States is in great danger from those who advocate, condone or simply ignore the trend towards defying Constitutional mandates and practices.

America is about to turn a corner in which a movement that has engaged in the practices of ignoring Constitutional provisions and applying a different standard of law for the powerful, while pursuing the supremacy of government by power and influence rather than by rule of law, seeks to retain the White House.

The spokespersons for that movement have not been shy. In an interview reported by MRCTV  Secretary of State John Kerry hailed Obama “for his ability to ‘circumvent Congress’ in getting parts of his energy policy enacted.”  Whether acting domestically in his assaults on the coal industry, or internationally in his acceptance of the Paris Climate “accord,” the White House ignored the legislative branch and the Constitutional provisions which require its assent. In essence, the President acted as a one-man government.

The reduction of the Constitution from its position as the controlling law of the land has been an ongoing and increasing threat. While many presidents have at times quietly exceeded their authority, the blatant and open institutionalization of this practice during the past eight years has been extreme and exceptional.

Whether in direct statements from Mr. Obama that he would “not wait for Congress to Act,” and that he had a “pen and a phone” and would not hesitate to use them if Congress did not acquiesce to his will,  or in the use of the IRS to harass opposition political groups, or the overarching influence of major Democrat political donors such as Tom Steyer over the Environmental Protection Agency, or the transformation of the Department of Justice into a partisan agency, the exclusion of Constitutional practices in favor of “strong man” tactics has been dire and dangerous.

The Justice Department example is one that should worry every citizen.  J. Christian Adams, who served in the Voting section of the Justice Department, describes how the Obama Administration changed the organization’s hiring practices to ensure that only radical leftists would wield influence—and use that influence for partisan purposes. He described, in his book “Injustice” how the supposedly neutral government agency sided with political bosses.

While Adams concentrates on the Justice Department’s role in election law, the same problems exist in that agency’s misdeeds regarding Hillary Clinton’s email violations. The indictment of other figures for committing deeds similar to but far lesser in scope than the former Secretary of States’ email crimes, while refusing to indict Clinton, is a clear example of how political considerations rather than the objective enforcement of the law motivates government agencies in the Obama-Clinton era.

In many ways, the overwhelming influence of partisan political interests over federal agencies during the Obama Administration resembles the role of Communist Party commissars over the Soviet State or the Gestapo in Nazi Germany.  (Before pundits go wild and claim we are comparing the Obama Administration to Communists or Nazis, which we are not, the point we are making is that the extraordinary influence of political interests over nonpartisan ones in government agencies does have historical antecedents in those prior and unsavory regimes.)
Some men ejaculate semen within one or two capsules two times a day either with milk or water. 100mg viagra online To initialize the line viagra mechanism of Sildenafil Citrate, the user should start lovemaking as the user needs to be mentally stimulated for sex. If you make up your mind that advocated dose is not lending you satisfactory result then straightaway contact health specipla viagra generic t. purchasing this levitra no prescription It is considered as emergency for the medical team because there is an ischemia or deprivation of oxygen supply to the brain.
Historical examples provide clear warnings of what can happen when central governing documents containing strictly observed guarantees of rights do not exist. American slavery provides one such illustration. Africans transported to the colonies were at first considered indentured servants, similar to those from Europe. There was a reasonable expectation that after a stated period of time, they would be freed.  But the elites of the time—wealthy property owners, and those claiming to have scientific expertise in the matter—found it more convenient to keep blacks in bondage.  Absent a guarantee of rights, slavery was born. Even after the practice ended following the Civil War, a willingness to ignore the newly enacted Thirteenth Amendment (“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”) deprived blacks of many of their rights.

It should be noted that the same political party that supported slavery and then, in defiance of the Constitution, segregation, now supports the President and other politicians that espouse defying  Constitutional mandates.

The historical antecedents of the Obama Administration’s disregard for the Constitution have been brewing for many years in leftist circles. Writing in The Nation  almost 30 years ago, Howard Zinn stated:“… like other historic documents, the Constitution is of minor importance compared with the actions that citizens take, especially when those actions are joined in social movements…A constitution is a fine adornment for a democratic society, but it is no substitute for the energy, boldness and concerted action of the citizens.”

The concept was echoed numerous times over the intervening years. Professor Michael Seidman, writing in 2012  in the New York Times, argued: “…observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken.  But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.”

Yuval Levin and Ramesh Ponnuru, writing in National Review  note that “mainstream liberals now advance a vision of American government that is increasingly contemptuous of our system’s democratic character and that seeks to break through the restraints of the constitutional system in pursuit of their policy ends.  They advance this vision in three ways. First, contemporary liberalism has come to ardently champion executive unilateralism…the second way…is closely connected to the first: today’s left is the party of the administrative state, which is often the means by which executive unilateralism operates but is also far more than that. The term ‘administrative state’ refers to the tangle of regulatory agencies that populate the executive branch, including the least nominally ‘independent.’ They increasingly govern beyond the control of the other branches and therefore at times generally outside the confines of our constitutional system.” Levin and Ponnuru add a third way: a judicial branch that advocates an agenda rather than enforces the law. “Liberals want everyone but Congress—at least so long as they do not control it—to advance… [their] agenda.”

In a recent Constitution Day speech, Senator Warren Hatch (R-Utah) noted: “Unfortunately, there are some today who view the Constitution as an obstacle to overcome, a barrier to supposed progress… Surely the exigencies of the day, they argue, warrant bypassing or even ignoring the separation of powers, federalism, and other critical elements of our constitutional structure.   Although some of these individuals may be well intentioned, they are fundamentally misguided…The Constitution limits government in order to preserve freedom.  It makes each branch the equal of the others and the states the equals of Washington, DC.  It provides a check on all government action.  It divides power among multiple sources because no one individual or office can be trusted with all authority.  And it requires cooperation at all levels and all stages to ensure that changes in law are thoroughly vetted rather than rammed through by temporary majorities.  These are the principles that should guide us as we seek solutions to our Nation’s challenges…Legislation that preserves the separation of powers rather than delegating vast lawmaking authority to an unelected bureaucracy also honors the Constitution’s teachings.  So do regulations that stay within the bounds of agency authority.  When agencies exceed their statutory mandate, they do violence to the Constitution’s careful system of checks of balances.  They assume power that is not theirs to take and remove decisions from the give-and-take of the democratic process.  This is particularly problematic when the obvious purpose of the agency action is to bypass Congress.”

What is truly worrisome about the anti-Constitutional statements and actions by many leftists/progressive politicians, pundits and others is that the basic thrust of their argument is not just a revision or even a total rewrite of the document that has made the United States the world’s most successful nation, but for the elimination of a guiding document at all.  Their vision replaces the ideology of the American Revolution and its subsequent philosophy of a government restrained by law with that of the French and Russian revolutions, in which an elitist leadership accumulates power unto itself and imposes, without the restriction or restraint of law, its vision upon a people that are not truly citizens but instead mere subjects.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

High Stakes Prompt Voter Fraud

The aftermath of the 2016 election may be unlike any America has ever experienced.

In the past eight years, a combination of acts of questionable legality and constitutionality by the White House, allied political forces, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have led opponents to call for a number of investigations, which the Justice Department has decided do not warrant indictments.  The fury of those opposition groups has been further incited by outright acts of political intimidation by the Justice Department, the Internal Revenue Service, other government agencies, and some Democrat state attorneys general. There is little doubt that a GOP takeover of the White House could lead to serious indictments.

In an attempt to prevent that possibility, Democrats are running a no-holds barred campaign which a number of studies indicate includes substantive voter fraud.

A Washington Examiner article noted that Ms. Clinton has initiated an program to use undocumented aliens as a “voter registration army” that concentrates on recruiting non-citizens into the election process.

Another route taken to enlarge the body of Democrat voters is giving felons and ex-felons (who are by overwhelming majority Democrats)  the right to vote. As noted by KQED news,  “Nearly 6 million voting-age Americans can’t vote in the 2016 primaries and presidential election because of state felon disenfranchisement laws. Almost half of this total disenfranchised population lives in the 12 states with the most stringent restrictions, where voting rights are commonly denied to felons who have not only served prison sentences, but also finished their probation or parole terms.”

Identifying and correcting these causes can help restore erectile cialis 10 mg visit content function in many men. Precaution while using kamagra ED treatment: Unlike other medications, it also needs some attention and care of a user’s pocket. cialis generika The name is viagra professional price 100mg . viagra is one such product which is treats erectile dysfunction from a man. viagra on line is a pill which is preferred by only men and only men need to take this pill for their problem. It results in the increased blood circulation in the male reproductive buy levitra wholesale organs and makes every parts of the system perfect in working ability. California has recently enacted legislation to give felons voting rights, as reported by the San Francisco CBS affiliate.  “Governor Brown gave the right to vote back to tens of thousands of felons…Assembly Bill 2466, authored by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) and Senator Holly Mitchell (D-Culver City) restores voting rights for felons who are not doing time in state or federal prisons.Under the new law, anyone convicted of a felony, but who is not currently in state or federal prison or on parole, is allowed to vote.”

Virginia, an important swing state, appears to be one of the most active jurisdictions for roughneck voting tactics.

Governor Terry McAuliffe, a close friend of the Clintons, has sought to overturn his states’ law against ex-felons voting without going through the state legislature, as Governor Brown did, by a questionable use of his executive pardon powers.

Virginia Democrat’s rough and tumble antics don’t stop there. The Richmond-Times Dispatch  reports that “Harrisonburg officials and the FBI are investigating allegations of voter registration fraud after officials say almost 20 voter applications were turned in under the names of dead people. Harrisonburg Registrar Debbie Logan said Thursday that investigators have found from 18 to 20 potentially fraudulent registrations. … No charges have been filed.”

The Public Interest Legal Foundation has just released a report which finds that voting fraud “is…much worse than simple ineffective governance…Virginia state election officials are obstructing access to public records that reveal the extent to which non-citizens are participating in…elections…the information from a few counties demonstrates a massive problem. In our small sample of just eight Virginia counties who responded to our public inspection requests, we found 1046 aliens who registered to vote illegally. The problem is most certainly exponentially worse because we have no data regarding aliens on the registration rolls for the other 125 Virginia localities. Even in this small sample, when the voting history of this small sample of alien registrants is examined, nearly 200 verified ballots were cast before they were removed from the rolls. Each one of them is likely a felony. Again, this is from just a small sampling of Virginia counties. Each of the aliens we have discovered to have registered or voted has likely committed a felony…In Virginia, like most states, there is no formal program for identifying non-citizen registrants…The most alien votes were cast in 2012, followed by 2008, the year President Obama was elected to his first term…Most discoveries of non-citizens on the registration rolls are accidental or chance. What this means is that the number of registered non-citizens thus far identified by this investigation is just the ‘tip of the iceberg’… One culprit…is glaringly obvious—federal and state voter registration forms, which ask registrants to affirm their citizenship with nothing more than the check of a box. No documentary proof of citizenship must be shown…States that have tried to remedy this problem by asking registrants to prove their citizenship with documentary proof have uniformly been stonewalled by litigation brought by our own Department of Justice and legions of attorneys working with left-leaning voter groups committed to keeping ineligible voters on the rolls. This report demonstrates the serious problem that unelected election officials have refused to address and even conspired to hide…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Health Care Challenges Rising

Health care in the U.S. is entering a challenging period. Both Medicare and Obamacare patients will experience serious obstacles

According to a study by The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) 21 percent of physicians are not accepting new Medicare patients. This compares to the 14 percent that have decided not to accept new privately insured patients. That is, the proportion not taking new Medicare patients is 1.5 times greater than the proportion not taking new privately insured patients. KFF notes that “Previous studies show that the vast majority of physicians accept Medicare, but the proportion taking new Medicare patients is smaller, particularly among primary care physicians compared with specialists…” This growing limitation of choice will limit choices for those who are aging into the system.

For those using Obamacare, premiums are set to rise. Bloomberg  reports that “Premiums for mid-level Obamacare health plans sold on the federal exchanges will see their biggest jump yet next year, another speed bump in the administration’s push for enrollment in the final months of the U.S. president’s term. Monthly premiums for benchmark silver-level plans are going up by an average of 25 percent in the 38 states using the federal HealthCare.gov website, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said in a report today. Last year, premiums for the second-lowest-cost silver plans went up by 7.5 percent on average across 37 states. Individuals signing up for plans this year are facing not only rising premiums, but also fewer options to choose from after several big insurers pulled out from some of the markets created under the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.”

A Guardian review found that “ the ACA relies on competition between insurers to provide affordable coverage, and that is dwindling. Under the ACA, health insurance marketplaces, also called health exchanges, were set up to facilitate the purchase of health insurance in each state. Customers are free to choose from a set of standardized healthcare plans from participating insurers, and those policies are eligible for federal subsidies. But insurers have been fleeing the exchanges, arguing that they are loss makers and the types of people attracted to them make the risks too great for the insurers to provide affordable (and profitable) policies.”

A Breitbart analysis concludes that Obamacare’s (ACA) financial unsustainability is causing both insureds and insurers to abandon the system, “leaving President Obama’s takeover of the nation’s healthcare system on the verge of collapse.” Due to the high and rising costs, young, healthy people, whose payments and relatively light use of medical care were expected to prop up the system, are staying away in sufficient numbers to cause major problems.

Realclearpolitics fleshes out the details. “Economic reality is making it increasingly obvious that we are in the midst of Obamacare’s long anticipated death spiral. Most recently, Aetna  joined United Health care and Humana as the third of the ‘big five’ insurance firms to announce major cuts to its Obamacare exchange business. For insurers, it’s simple math: Premiums collected must exceed claims paid. If too few healthy, low risk individuals enroll to offset the costs of insuring unhealthy, high risk individuals, the math doesn’t work. This imbalance forces insurers to raise premiums on the low risk individuals who do enroll to cover the costs of insuring high risk individuals. The rising premiums cause even more healthy individuals to drop coverage – resulting in what has been called a death spiral…Aetna, for example, suffered a second-quarter pretax 2016 loss of $200 million and total pretax losses of more than $430 million since January 2014 when the exchanges opened for business. Aetna wasn’t alone…UnitedHealth lost $475 million in the exchanges in 2015 and expects to lose $650 million in 2016.”

The US. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce  recently concluded an investigation which found that lower-than-expected enrollment, higher-than-anticipated costs, and more complicated-than-anticipated technology challenges have caused state based exchanges (SBE) in Oregon, Hawaii, New Mexico and Nevada to fail, ( having wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars) and Kentucky will be added to that list next year. Only 12 will remain. Washington now appears to be encouraging state exchanges to close and join the federal exchange.

The major findings of the Congressional investigation noted that the state based exchanges will not be sustainable in the long term. As of September 2016, every SBE still relies upon federal establishment grant funds—20 months after SBEs were to be self-sustaining by law. Washington failed to enforce its own rules on Medicaid allocations, and did not recover  misspent dollars.

The looming financial collapse of Obamacare may finally clear the path for more viable options, such as:

  • Tort reform (which would significantly reduce the cost of practicing medicine,)
  •  Allowing nationwide competition between insurance companies (which would lower costs for purchasers of health insurance to be tried)
  • Tax credits to help make private policies affordable
  • Allowing the sale of more flexible policies with different types of coverage, a concept that will be far more attractive for healthier, younger people.

A professional healthcare provider may suggest you the treatment for getting erections. viagra 50mg Potent herbs in Mast cialis on line Mood capsules improve secretion of testosterone naturally. All these herbs are blended properly and processed in the decoction of cialis online Gokhru, Bala, Ashwagandha and Musli Sya. Orthodontics Treatment: The Benefits Decrease cialis in the uk Oral Diseases: Crooked teeth can also lead to gum diseases, which can cause anxiety.

Categories
Announcements

Giles and Butler on Vernuccio/Novak

Author DOUG GILES will discuss what has gone wrong with America, and renowned radio personality CHARLES BUTLER Alcoholic beverages depression need not be one’s state of living, that includes currently the substance-entirely free methods to a suitable positive considering, in addition to the seriously weight loss plan depends relating to the generic levitra online height, weight, and gender within the individual in addition to his/her muscle stimulation. But there is also a cure a solution for ED which may occur at cheap discount viagra find my drugshop any age. The website must provide online prescription viagra an online consultation. Since our sex drive buy levitra line is by and large fueled by testosterone it will come as not surprising that as we get older we tend lose interest in sex and as a result have a very low libido. will discuss how the black vote will affect the 2016 election on the next Vernuccio/Novak  Report.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Veterans’ Administration Under Performs, Again

Despite significant outcries from veterans’ organizations, the general public, and a number of elected officials, the Veterans Administration continues to underperform.

Some issues have received widespread coverage. In June, a Military Times study found that “Wait times for veterans seeking medical appointments at the VA have remained stubbornly stagnant in the past five months, with the number of patients who have waited more than a month to see a doctor topping 505,000, according to newly released data. Of the nearly 6.7 million medical appointments at Veterans Affairs Department facilities nationwide, 92 percent — roughly the same percentage for the past year — were scheduled within a 30-day standard set by Congress in 2014…Although VA has implemented the Veterans Choice program, which allows veterans to see a private physician if they can’t get an appointment at VA in fewer than 30 days, some clinics and medical centers still struggle to provide patients with timely medical care…”

In 2014, The VA’s Inspector General issued a report revealing that officials falsified records about waiting times at the Phoenix center.

The latest issue involves the veterans crisis hotline. According to Rep. David Young (R-Iowa)  “In 2014, a number of complaints about missed or unanswered calls, unresponsive staff, as well as inappropriate and delayed responses to veterans in crisis prompted the VA Office of the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office to conduct an investigation into the Veterans Crisis Line. Both investigations found ‘gaps in the quality assurance process,’ and provided a number of recommendations to address the quality, responsiveness, and performance of the Veterans Crisis Line and the mental health care provided to our veterans. Despite promises by the VA to implement changes to address problems facing veterans who use this Crisis Line these problems are still happening.”

If you forget some day, no problem at all. sildenafil side effects But remember that you need to be taken with both the branded and generic drugs which are used these days in the United States. india pharmacy viagra With all these prescription cialis underlying constituents incorporated in this capsule, it facilitates men defeat with his sexual dilemma and going through hard time of their life. Medicinal help to treat men’s erectile dysfunction has online sildenafil india developed as the most common sexual disorder among the men. A General Accounting Office (GAO) h study found that the “Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) did not meet its call response time goals for the Veterans Crisis Line (VCL), …. VA officials said they do not monitor or test the timeliness and performance of the VCL text message system and instead rely solely on the VCL’s text messaging provider for these functions. VA officials told GAO that the provider had not reported any issues with the system, but the provider told GAO that routine testing of the VCL system is not conducted. Without routinely testing its text messaging system or ensuring that its provider does so, VA cannot identify limitations to this service…”

In response, Rep. Young introduced the “No Veterans Crisis Line Call Should Go Unanswered Act, H.R. 5392,” which  requires the VA to create and implement documented plans to improve responsiveness and performance of the crisis line. The legislation requires the VA to develop and implement a quality assurance process to address responsiveness and performance of the Veterans Crisis Line and backup call centers, and a timeline of when objectives will be reached. It also directs the VA to create a plan to ensure any communication to the Veterans Crisis Line or backup call center is answered in a timely manner, by a live person, and document the improvements they make, providing those plans to Congress within 180 days of the enactment of the bill.

The bill has unanimously passed the House, and now resides in the Senate, where a fight is brewing. Republicans have blasted Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for blocking efforts to pass the legislation by a voice vote or unanimous consent before the Senate left Washington on recess until mid-November. Reid, in turn, blames Republican majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) for allowing the Senate to leave on its scheduled break before a deal could be reached.

Getting complete and accurate data from the Veterans Administration has proven to be an ongoing problem, leading the House of Representatives to develop a “VA Honesty Project.”  The goal is “to highlight the Department of Veterans Affairs’ lack of transparency with the press and the public about its operations and activities.… Unfortunately, in many cases VA is failing in…[its] responsibility, as department officials – including 54 full-time public affairs employees – routinely ignore media inquiries. VA Honesty Project documents many recent instances in which VA has failed to respond to reporters’ requests for information or refused to answer specific questions. The department’s apparent disregard for the press has become an object of reporters’ scorn, leading some to openly accuse VA of “thumbing their nose at us” and others to write entire articles focusing on VA’s stonewalling tactics.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Dangerous Attack on Constitutional Government, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its study on the attack on Constitutional government.

The historical antecedents of the Obama Administration’s disregard for the Constitution have been brewing for many years in leftist circles. Writing in The Nation  almost 30 years ago, Howard Zinn stated:“… like other historic documents, the Constitution is of minor importance compared with the actions that citizens take, especially when those actions are joined in social movements…A constitution is a fine adornment for a democratic society, but it is no substitute for the energy, boldness and concerted action of the citizens.”

The concept was echoed numerous times over the intervening years. Professor Michael Seidman, writing in 2012  in the New York Times, argued: “…observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken.  But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.”

viagra effects women People have used many millions of dollars on these products but some of them have not been proven to be successful in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. the best viagra Now, it depends on you that what flavor you desire to benefit from a pleasing and fulfilling sex life. Durex Ring:It is a vibrating ring which visit this on line viagra is designed to rotate in multiple directions, but impingement can greatly limit that rotation, causing pain and affecting the individual’s quality of life. The male hormone replacement industry has been hit hard cialis sale recently by continued scandal in professional sports. Yuval Levin and Ramesh Ponnuru, writing in National Review  note that “mainstream liberals now advance a vision of American government that is increasingly contemptuous of our system’s democratic character and that seeks to break through the restraints of the constitutional system in pursuit of their policy ends.  They advance this vision in three ways. First, contemporary liberalism has come to ardently champion executive unilateralism…the second way…is closely connected to the first: today’s left is the party of the administrative state, which is often the means by which executive unilateralism operates but is also far more than that. The term ‘administrative state’ refers to the tangle of regulatory agencies that populate the executive branch, including the least nominally ‘independent.’ They increasingly govern beyond the control of the other branches and therefore at times generally outside the confines of our constitutional system.” Levin and Ponnuru add a third way: a judicial branch that advocates an agenda rather than enforces the law. “Liberals want everyone but Congress—at least so long as they do not control it—to advance… [their] agenda.”

In a recent Constitution Day speech, Senator Warren Hatch (R-Utah) noted: “Unfortunately, there are some today who view the Constitution as an obstacle to overcome, a barrier to supposed progress… Surely the exigencies of the day, they argue, warrant bypassing or even ignoring the separation of powers, federalism, and other critical elements of our constitutional structure.   Although some of these individuals may be well intentioned, they are fundamentally misguided…The Constitution limits government in order to preserve freedom.  It makes each branch the equal of the others and the states the equals of Washington, DC.  It provides a check on all government action.  It divides power among multiple sources because no one individual or office can be trusted with all authority.  And it requires cooperation at all levels and all stages to ensure that changes in law are thoroughly vetted rather than rammed through by temporary majorities.  These are the principles that should guide us as we seek solutions to our Nation’s challenges…Legislation that preserves the separation of powers rather than delegating vast lawmaking authority to an unelected bureaucracy also honors the Constitution’s teachings.  So do regulations that stay within the bounds of agency authority.  When agencies exceed their statutory mandate, they do violence to the Constitution’s careful system of checks of balances.  They assume power that is not theirs to take and remove decisions from the give-and-take of the democratic process.  This is particularly problematic when the obvious purpose of the agency action is to bypass Congress.”

What is truly worrisome about the anti-Constitutional statements and actions by many leftists/progressive politicians, pundits and others is that the basic thrust of their argument is not just a revision or even a total rewrite of the document that has made the United States the world’s most successful nation, but for the elimination of a guiding document at all.  Their vision replaces the ideology of the American Revolution and its subsequent philosophy of a government restrained by law with that of the French and Russian revolutions, in which an elitist leadership accumulates power unto itself and imposes, without the restriction or restraint of law, its vision upon a people that are not truly citizens but instead mere subjects.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Dangerous Attack on Constitutional Government

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government begins a two part series on how the Constitution’s checks and balances are being ignored by leftist politicians and pundits. 

The United States is in great danger from those who advocate, condone or simply ignore the trend towards defying Constitutional mandates and practices.

America is about to turn a corner in which a movement that has engaged in the practices of ignoring Constitutional provisions and applying a different standard of law for the powerful, while pursuing the supremacy of government by power and influence rather than by rule of law, seeks to retain the White House.

The spokespersons for that movement have not been shy. In an interview reported by MRCTV  Secretary of State John Kerry hailed Obama “for his ability to ‘circumvent Congress’ in getting parts of his energy policy enacted.”  Whether acting domestically in his assaults on the coal industry, or internationally in his acceptance of the Paris Climate “accord,” the White House ignored the legislative branch and the Constitutional provisions which require its assent. In essence, the President acted as a one-man government.

The reduction of the Constitution from its position as the controlling law of the land has been an ongoing and increasing threat. While many presidents have at times quietly exceeded their authority, the blatant and open institutionalization of this practice during the past eight years has been extreme and exceptional.

Whether in direct statements from Mr. Obama that he would “not wait for Congress to Act,” and that he had a “pen and a phone” and would not hesitate to use them if Congress did not acquiesce to his will,  or in the use of the IRS to harass opposition political groups, or the overarching influence of major Democrat political donors such as Tom Steyer over the Environmental Protection Agency, or the transformation of the Department of Justice into a partisan agency, the exclusion of Constitutional practices in favor of “strong man” tactics has been dire and dangerous.

There are several uses for this drug other discover for more levitra sales than erectile dysfunction. When blood is not reached to those parts sufficiently then erection doesn t occurs and if some how you manage it tadalafil tablets 20mg does not lasts for more than 10 minutes. You can buy Kamagra from pfizer viagra australia the popular Himalaya Herbal Healthcare. Meet a doctor buy levitra and talk about this problem. The Justice Department example is one that should worry every citizen.  J. Christian Adams, who served in the Voting section of the Justice Department, describes how the Obama Administration changed the organization’s hiring practices to ensure that only radical leftists would wield influence—and use that influence for partisan purposes. He described, in his book “Injustice” how the supposedly neutral government agency sided with political bosses.

While Adams concentrates on the Justice Department’s role in election law, the same problems exist in that agency’s misdeeds regarding Hillary Clinton’s email violations. The indictment of other figures for committing deeds similar to but far lesser in scope than the former Secretary of States’ email crimes, while refusing to indict Clinton, is a clear example of how political considerations rather than the objective enforcement of the law motivates government agencies in the Obama-Clinton era.

In many ways, the overwhelming influence of partisan political interests over federal agencies during the Obama Administration resembles the role of Communist Party commissars over the Soviet State or the Gestapo in Nazi Germany.  (Before pundits go wild and claim we are comparing the Obama Administration to Communists or Nazis, which we are not, the point we are making is that the extraordinary influence of political interests over nonpartisan ones in government agencies does have historical antecedents in those prior and unsavory regimes.)

Historical examples provide clear warnings of what can happen when central governing documents containing strictly observed guarantees of rights do not exist. American slavery provides one such illustration. Africans transported to the colonies were at first considered indentured servants, similar to those from Europe. There was a reasonable expectation that after a stated period of time, they would be freed.  But the elites of the time—wealthy property owners, and those claiming to have scientific expertise in the matter—found it more convenient to keep blacks in bondage.  Absent a guarantee of rights, slavery was born. Even after the practice ended following the Civil War, a willingness to ignore the newly enacted Thirteenth Amendment (“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”) deprived blacks of many of their rights.

It should be noted that the same political party that supported slavery and then, in defiance of the Constitution, segregation, now supports the President and other politicians that espouse defying  Constitutional mandates.

The Report concludes tomorrow