From the Washington Post: “Embattled IRS plans employee bonuses for 2013 work to ‘boost morale’”
Citing the need to boost employee morale, the Internal Revenue Service’s new commissioner said Monday that he will pay out millions of dollars in bonuses to agency employees, reversing a decision his predecessor made to save money amid the sequester budget cuts and other belt-tightening last year.
The agency remains under fire for targeting tea party groups, but Commissioner John Koskinen said the bonuses are needed to retain and attract good employees in a time of cutbacks.
“This is money best spent on our existing employees,” he said in an email to agency employees. “The performance award payouts are in recognition of that great work done in very trying circumstances. I firmly believe that this investment in our employees will directly benefit taxpayers and the tax system.”
His predecessor, acting Commissioner Danny Werfel, whom Mr. Obama tapped to clean up the agency after the tea party-targeting came to light, canceled the bonuses last year. He said the money was used to limit furloughs to just three days, instead of the five that would have been necessary under the budget sequesters.
It’s not clear where IRS officials found the money to pay for the bonuses, given last year’s tight budget.
Oh, heck no!
You're going to give millions of dollars in bonuses to these people so they can feel good while harassing citizens—many of whom haven't gotten a raise in years, have had government meddling increase their health insurance costs, in many cases are dealing with severely reduced work hours as a result of Obamacare, and because they perhaps made an honest mistake in reporting their finances?
Ridiculous. Vile. Unbelievable.
I've got a better idea: Fire at least half the staff, and allow them to feel good by getting a job that truly contributes to the wealth of the nation, rather than simply plundering it to make stupid Star Trek videos to show at 5-Star resort conferences in Cancun.
Seven Democratic lawmakers are pushing to ban the use of electronic cigarettes on the grounds of the Capitol complex as part of a wider campaign against them.
Led by the Senate's second-ranking Democrat, Dick Durbin (Ill.), the group called on rulemaking committees in both chambers to include e-cigarettes in the Capitol's existing ban on smoking in public places and near building entrances.
"Given preliminary [federal] research finding harmful chemicals present in e-cigarettes, measures should be taken to ensure that the public is equally protected from the potential dangers posed by e-cigarettes and their vapor," the lawmakers wrote Tuesday.
Via a spokesman, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) told The Hill on Wednesday that he would pursue the rules change.
The letter marks the latest in a series of actions by congressional Democrats to curb e-cigarettes.
Four of the seven senators included in Tuesday's letter accused the Golden Globe awards last month of "glamorizing" e-cigarettes after the show featured two celebrities smoking them, including "Veep" star Julia Louis-Dreyfus.
The same group has also urged the Obama administration to speed up its efforts to crack down on the devices.
Mostly unregulated at the federal level, the e-cigarettes vaporize a nicotine solution in order to simulate regular smoking.
Supporters say that "vaping" is a healthier alternative to smoking because it leaves out the noxious chemicals found in many conventional cigarettes. Some also say e-cigarettes have helped them quit regular smoking.
But critics argue that the battery-powered devices deliver a more powerful dose of nicotine per puff, posing a serious health risk.
Tuesday's letter was signed by Sens. Durbin, Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).
Totalitarianism is blooming wildy in America and it is amazing with what fervor the Democrat Party pursues its goals to run our lives to the minutia... Vote these enemies of America out!
Yesterday we heard about the new Congressional Budget Office calculations regarding Obamacare. There was a lot of talk and ink spilled over their statements. I haven’t yet heard anyone point out what I think is the most horrific news from the CBO. Perhaps someone has and I missed it.
The CBO is whitewashing Obamacare. Some news reports claim the report is even-handed and gives pros and cons (Drudge linked CNBC for such a report). Many conservatives are saying that the report admits Obamacare will reduce the number of jobs.
In fact, it says something far worse.
On the lost jobs, the CBO simply denies the evidence exists. No full-time jobs are being lost and no workers are being moved to part time in the CBO’s delusional world.
But what about the CNBC headline, “CBO nearly triples estimate of working hours lost by 2021 due to Affordable Care Act”? Here is how an Obamacare defender describes what the CBO says:
The CBO projects that the act will reduce the supply of labor, not the availability of jobs. There's a big difference. In fact, it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase, not decrease; but that many workers or would-be workers will be prompted by the ACA to leave the labor force, many of them voluntarily.
Back to the CNBC story, ignore the print and listen to John Howard’s commentary on the video.
The CBO is saying that people will intentionally keeps their hours low because “Obamacare subsidies phase out as workers make more money, giving workers less incentive to keep working.”
So the reason why Obamacare will “cause a larger-than-expected reduction in working hours—eliminating the equivalent of about 2.3 million workers in 2021,” is not because employers will cut jobs or hours (so the CBO claims). Rather, “the equivalent of about 2.3 million workers” in 2021 will decide they prefer getting subsidize insurance rather than earn more money and pay unsubsidized prices for their health insurance.
The CBO is telling us that Obamacare has succeeded as far as Liberals are concerned. It is going to get millions more people to deliberately reduce their working hours in going to get “free” benefits from the government.
And yet we’re supposed to believe that Obamacare is helping the economy.
The situation is insane. Obama or his controllers—whoever designed the law—have deliberately impoverished Americans in order to get them to work less and let the government plan take care of their most basic needs. It has artificially arranged costs and benefits to get people to choose notto work—to make not working look more attractive than working.
What is the endgame? Do they think our nation can increase our debt forever?
Paul Ryan has to set the record for growing the horn out of his nose in the least amount of time. It is hard to believe that only in 2012 he was chosen to make Mitt Romney seem palatable to conservatives in the Republican Party. He has now fully metastasized into a RINO.
As someone recently remarked in the American Spectator,
one may be forgiven for wondering, what is Paul Ryan’s game plan? He recently negotiated away the automatic sequester cuts, one of the few real accomplishments of the House Republicans. And just last week he voted for the Farm Bill, which included hardly any of the fiscal reforms he sought previously. He had actually demanded ten times as much in cuts as was included in the legislation, an unholy amalgam of Republican farm subsidies and excessive Democratic food stamp spending. Truth be told, the former is more indefensible than the latter since the farm bill subsidizes Americans with an average income exceeding $100,000 per year.
But it keeps getting worse. Now, Politico reports that Paul Ryan has “held private talks” with Churck Schumer on immigration reform.
Schumer has been particularly busy. In 2013, the New York Democrat — who led immigration negotiations in the Senate — approached Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, and the pair have met four times since then, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the talks. They spoke about other issues as well — ice fishing and Asian carp — but immigration reform was high on the docket.
There were no actual negotiations in the meetings, which have not been disclosed until now. Schumer prodded Ryan to chart a course forward.
Forward to what? Why is Paul Ryan getting selected, as he was with the budget deal, to work with Democrats.
Ryan makes noises like he is going to do something remotely conservative, but the evidence lately has been dismal. Politico.com tries to make Ryan’s attention to this issue seem reasonable. The talks “provide a window into the urgency — and high stakes — surrounding the immigration reform debate.”
For Republicans there is no urgency except for a great deal of opposition. The urgency is to fight Obamacare and get answers about the NSA, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and the IRS scandal. Why is this taking up any Republican’s time or attention?
Yet, rather than defeating Democrats, Republicans are working hard to make the Democrats’ agenda look important to the nation. Thomas Sowell described our situation well:
Republicans may once again come to the rescue of the Democrats, by discrediting themselves and snatching defeat from the very jaws of victory.
The latest bright idea among Republicans inside the Beltway is a new version of amnesty that is virtually certain to lose votes among the Republican base and is unlikely to gain many votes among the Hispanics the Republican leadership is courting.
When it comes to national elections, just what principles do the Republicans stand for? It is hard to think of any, other than their hoping to win elections by converting themselves into Democrats lite. But voters who want what the Democrats offer can vote for the real thing, rather than Johnny-come-lately imitations.
Listening to discussions of immigration laws and proposals to reform them is like listening to something out of “Alice in Wonderland.”
Sowell is absolutely right. And Paul Ryan seems to be the leader in the Republican suicide mission.
When critics (like me) warn about the dangers of police militarization, this is what we’re talking about. You’ll see the raid team, dressed in battle-dress uniforms, helmets and face-covering balaclava hoods take down the family’s door with a battering ram. You’ll see them storm the home with ballistics shields, guns at the ready. More troubling still, you’ll see not one but two officers attempt to prevent the family from having an independent record of the raid, one by destroying a surveillance camera, another by blocking another camera’s lens.
Prince’s son, Justin Ross, was in the bathroom when police burst in, and he was carrying a gun that he has the legal right to carry. “I stood up, I drew my weapon, I started to get myself together to get out the door, I heard someone in the main room say police. I re-holstered my weapon sat back down and put my hands in my lap,” Ross recalls.
Ross says he didn’t hear the police announcement until after one officer had already attempted to kick in the door. Had that officer been successful, there’s a good chance that Ross, the police officer, or both would be dead. The police department would then have inevitably argued that Ross should have known that they were law enforcement. But you can’t simultaneously argue that these violent, volatile tactics are necessary to take suspects by surprise and that the same suspects you’re taking by surprise should have known all along that they were being raided by police. Well you can, and police do, and judges and prosecutors usually support them. But the arguments don’t logically coexist.
To my friends in law enforcement... please... this kind of action must stop. Now! There is no excuse for such thuggery in the name of police action.
All I can think, over and over, is: What if this were my house? With no legitimate reason for police to enter my home in this way, I would absolutely assume whoever did this must be criminals intent on harming me or my family—no matter what they are wearing, and no matter what they are claiming with their words.
C'mon, gentlemen, any thug can shout he's a police officer upon entering, without actually being a member of law enforcement. So how can a citizen be blamed for opening fire upon such intruders?
Worst of all, in this case, the police didn't find anything they were supposedly looking for—it's about the same as using an American drone to obliterate a target we merely "think" may be a bad guy—it should not be done! It puts both the police and innocent citizens at risk for no reason.
Finally, the writer is correct about the need for a return to true and authentic "knock and announce." Give the inhabitants a chance to let you know you've got the wrong house, or to show you there's no need for battle troops inside.
Covering faces... destroying and covering cameras... this in itself should tell us the police know what they're doing is likely wrong. After all, if you're doing the right thing and have nothing to hide... Isn't that what we're being told by government these days?
If you want to dress up and play Army man, join the National Guard. But please... PLEASE... get this storm-trooper activity out of our cities, and away from our homes.
I especially love the TV guy's question of "why do they have all these cameras in the first place?". Who cares? It's their house, they can have a million cameras as far as I an concerned. In times like these, who wouldn't want security cameras? And wouldn't they rather have perps on video than eye witness descriptions? It shows how far gone we are already as a society. The question should have never been asked. We are so used to get our rights trampled upon, that we don't even notice anymore when it happens...
"We have NOT expanded the welfare state...self-reliance is alive and well." - Barack HUSSEIN Obama 2/2/14
Grrrrr....NO better way to start this than with an emotion...a furious, 'how dare he' emotion for in his interview with Bill O'Reilly, Barack HUSSEIN Obama...the man who in his role as Commander-in-Chief has defamed and dishonored our military...our troops...and our veterans every chance he gets...now dared to equate the G.I. Bill with welfare and food stamps.
Welfare...the once noble temporary help for the truly needy has been hijacked into becoming a system of freebies and handouts that the Democrats have turned into a living wage for the 'sponges' of our society in exchange for their votes.
The G.I. Bill...NO matter that Obama said it is an entitlement just like food stamps (which by the way if one is able-bodied and can work one should NOT get) is certainly NOT welfare by any means for it's a 'contractual entitlement' that was earned...earned in a way by doing a job that most Americans aren’t willing to do...earned with blood and tears...as in putting on our country's uniform and placing one's life on the line to keep us safe and free at home.
The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944...commonly known as the G.I. Bill...was a law enacted to give certain benefits...like low-cost mortgages; low-interest business loans; cash payments for tuition and living expenses to attend high school, college, or vocational school; and one year of unemployment compensation for returning WWII veterans. And while changes have been made to the original bill in the years since it was enacted, the G.I. Bill was and still is available...in some form...to every veteran who was on active duty...combat service per se NOT required...and to those NOT dishonorably discharged. In other words the G.I. Bill helps those who successfully did the job they were contracted to do...as in to defend our country...and that 'contractual entitlement' is by NO means welfare.
Welfare on the other hand is public aid paid for with our taxpayer dollars. What's known as the 'welfare state'...NOT an ideal situation NO matter what Obama says...expands on this concept to include services such as universal healthcare (as in healthcare through Medicaid which has seen its numbers skyrocket thanks to ObamaCare), food and nutrition programs as in food stamps (SNAP), and unemployment insurance.
And this is some of what 'the sponges' believe they are 'entitled' to for doing NOTHING...for doing NOTHING as welfare handouts do indeed affect work incentives giving those on welfare NO reason to get off welfare. Freebies and handouts for 'the sponges'...the 'gimmee gimmee you owe me' sorts...for simply promising loyalty to the Democratic party...the party who in turn continues to cut veteran's benefits across the board and funnel those monies into even more welfare programs to keep those on the welfare dole happy and content so they won't bite the hand that feeds them...translation: by voting Republican.
Welfare is as different from the G.I. Bill as Barack HUSSEIN Obama is from Ronald Reagan and the two should NOT even be mentioned let alone compared in the same breath...capeesh Obama.
And then we have this little bit of happiness...
"Not even mass corruption. Not even a smidgeon of corruption."
- Barack HUSSEIN Obama 2/2/14
In a vain attempt to sweep the IRS scandal under the rug...a scandal stalking his administration for quite some time now, Obama poo-pooed the notion that his administration used the IRS for political purposes by singling out, delaying, or outright denying tax-exempt status for TEA Party groups (and groups with the word 'Patriot' in their names) that obviously did NOT support his re-election bid or his policies.
And when O'Reilly questioned him on it Obama whined, “That’s not what happened" and in true Obama place the blame on everybody but me mode, he claimed that the IRS officials were just "confused about how to implement the law in regards to tax-exempt groups."
And if you believe that I've got some swampland to sell you.
Blaming instead "bone-headed decisions," Obama outright denied (translation: LIED) that corruption of any sort was going on...and he did it with a straight face with NO teleprompter needed to script him.
And the award for the best...or should I say the worst...impersonation of a president goes to Barack HUSSEIN Obama. And even though many organizations and groups came forward to say they indeed were targeted and either denied or delayed in getting tax-exempt status, Obama twisted the scenario and instead blamed Fox News for continuing to focus on this story. But hey, he had to twist it...deflect it...for what Obama dare NOT have mentioned again on national television was that Lois Lerner, former head of the very IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, admitted under oath that certain organizations and groups applying for tax-exempt status were singled out if they had the words 'TEA Party' or 'patriot' in their names.
And Lerner even apologized on behalf of the IRS and said it was “absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate.” This Obama 'forgets' to mention...'selective forgetfulness' I call it...the Obama tactic honed to a fine art.
And with Congress NOT even finished with its investigation into this matter, our self-anointed king has deemed this whole event inconsequential and NOT worth his time...and oh yes, NOT wanting to step on union toes the previously held up bonuses have now been released and will be given to the very individuals involved in the denials and delays.
Such is life in Obamaland...or should I say in the Kingdom of Obama...either way 'We the People' lose for as Bill O'Reilly found out...and something we've known for a long time...don't bother asking Barack HUSSEIN Obama a question that you know he will just answer with yet another LIE.
Some things, you just wonder why they didn't happen sooner. Salon.com's publishing of a full-throated defense of communism is one of them.
Salon is one of those premier liberal outlets whose regular outrage at anything conservative lands its writers frequent guest appearances on MSNBC.
Now, it's finally gotten around to publishing one of its contributing writers' litany of reasons communism isn't so bad, after all. If you can stomach it, the original article is here.
Titled "Why you’re wrong about communism: 7 huge misconceptions about it (and capitalism)," Salon writer Jesse Myerson's article should be called "Seven more proofs liberals aren't from Earth."
Most of his "misconceptions" about communism are actually just complaints that capitalist societies are bad too, therefore communism must actually be good.
For instance, did you know that many of those 110 million or so people killed by communism in the last century (if any deaths actually happened at all, the writer seems to be saying) were actually themselves communists? Clearly, that makes it OK.
Besides, the Russians were fighting a revolution, and the American Revolution proved that such wars are violent.
(Personally, I think I missed history class the day we discussed Washington rounding up millions of people for crimes like writing pamphlets or failing to share their homes, sending them to Siberia and finally killing them as enemies of the state.)
The best excuse award, though, has to go Myerson for pooh-poohing the tens of millions of deaths caused in the state-created Great Chinese Famine because famines aren't exclusively a "left-wing problem."
Also, Myerson points out, capitalism oppressively keeps people from owning farms and forces them to work for evil bosses.
(You can't help but wonder how a communist boss is going to be an improvement, especially when you're being oppressively forced to work on a collective farm that doesn't let you keep the fruits of your own labor.)
In Salon's world, capitalism (not the British crown) first enslaved blacks, and capitalism (not small pox) killed the Native Americans, but capitalism is only possible because women were property and raised the kids. (Presumably, in Myerson's version of communism, women would be free to kill Native Americans for themselves.)
The Salon article also assures us that while 20th century communism may have had its horrors, 21st century communism is an enlightened puppies-and-kittens affair. "Given the technological, material, and social advances of the last century," Myerson writes, "we could expect an approach to communism beginning here and now to be far more open, humane, democratic, participatory and egalitarian than the Russian and Chinese attempts managed."
And Myerson points out that communism does not force conformity. His proof for this is that many famous artists and writers have been Marxists, although he ignores the many artists imprisoned byMarxists. "
"Communism is based on the total opposite of uniformity: tremendous diversity, not just among people, but even with in a single person’s 'occupation,'" Myerson writes.
Myerson is one of many hopelessly twisted liberals who has bought into the convoluted rationalizations of communists, all of which can be summed up as "Real Communism hasn't been given a chance yet."
Holocaust deniers rightly get shunned by educated society. But this gibbering delusion of the Left that communism will one day produce an earthly utopia is just as pernicious and dangerous.
The fact that so many on the Left still admire communism goes a long way toward explaining why we elect sock puppets like President Obama.
The Super Bowl is over and it's one for the history books as they say what with Denver getting their butts kicked. Poor Denver but what is...is...and even more pathetic than this one-sided game was Bill O'Reilly's pre-game interview of the self-anointed king of us all...Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
The interview...which focused on the disastrous ObamaCare roll out, the Benghazi fiasco, and the IRS's targeting conservative groups applying for 501-C3 status...had O'Reilly trading for-the-camera barbs with Obama like they were good buddies. And while at times O'Reilly did seem a bit annoyed with Obama when he asked him certain questions he knew Obama did NOT want even brought up (as in Benghazi), he still let Obama slink out of answering them directly...accepting vague alludings instead of demanding simple YES or NO answers to those questions. Evasive rhetoric with NO substance...the hallmark of Obama and his entire administration.
But sadly, O'Reilly showed his true colors when in a phone interview on 'FOX and Friends' yesterday morning he said, "I don't think he (Obama) wants to hurt anyone but his policies are hurting people." Give me a freakin' break...how about the five million plus people he knew beforehand he would hurt with his out and out LIE about being able to keep their health insurance...how about the multitude of seriously ill people who have now been cut off from the very doctors treating them...how about the countless handicapped children and adults now without the services they require...these are living, breathing, flesh and blood people hurt NOT by policies per se, but hurt by a miserable excuse of a president who did NOT and still does NOT care one damn iota about them even knowing they would be hurt.
And O'Reilly backed away from this very critical point both in the Obama interview and in his musings yesterday morning.
And so O'Reilly bloviated (one of his favorite 'Words of the Day') on to 'FOX and Friends' that his being tough on Obama...especially with his Benghazi questions... with tough being a happening in his mind alone...would be fodder for the liberal press as they would say he was a shill for the GOP because all he did was ask GOP questions. And while some questions O'Reilly did ask were indeed ones asked by Republicans during the Benghazi hearings...the problem is he let Obama off the hook time and again by NOT pounding home...or even mentioning for that matter...that Obama deliberately and with malice left four Americans to die nor did he touch upon the true reason why the attack happened...as in Obama's ILLEGAL gun and weapons running operation to the al-Qaeda backed Syrian rebels...done through Benghazi...went sour.
NOT a word about that on 'FOX and Friends'...NOT a word during the Obama interview either.
Instead during the Obama interview, O'Reilly focused on the same old, same old, of whether the administration did NOT describe Benghazi as a terrorist attack because Obama’s people did NOT want to use the word 'terrorist' right before the November presidential election for fear it would contradict Obama's infamous, now come back to haunt, statement of "al-Qaeda is decimated and on the run."
“Your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn’t want that out,” O’Reilly said. “That’s what they believe.” And Obama's retort was to blame FOX with his statement that, “They believe it because folks like you are telling them that” and throwing in for good measure, “These kinds of things keep on surfacing, because folks like you will promote them," he said in reference to the IRS scandal.
"Folks like you"...subtle racist words out of a NOT so subtle racist's mouth...and you have NO idea how I wanted to give O'Reilly a slap upside his head for he let Obama take control of the interview with those two sentences.
Continuing on to say that Fox News is to blame for "misinforming" the public on issues that have stalked his presidency during the past year, Obama thought he had sweep the matter of Benghazi under the rug...for now at least...but oh how wrong he is. And I hate to tell Obama...NO...actually I love to tell Obama...but FOX News was the ONLY news channel that reported the truth about his traitorous Benghazi actions...his ObamaCare roll out nightmare...and his IRS scandal that keeps growing in scope, albeit at times a watered down version of that truth, but hey, watered down is better than what the alphabet media gave us...as in NOT a damn thing at all.
And when O’Reilly zeroed in and asked Obama why Kathleen Sebelius had NOT been fired for the major part she played in the ObamaCare nightmare roll out, he again went the kumbaya route saying, "I'm sure that the intent is noble but I'm a taxpayer, and I'm paying Kathleen Sebelius' salary, and she screwed up. And you're not holding her accountable." Nobel my eye for she and Obama knew months before the roll out that the Healthcare.gov website was but minimally operational at best and bold-faced LIED...yet again...to the American people that all was well.
"Well, I promise you that we hold everybody up and down the line accountable," Obama answered...NO...Obama LIED again for NOT one single person has been held accountable for anything...NOT one.
And when asked if Obama thought the, “If you like your plan you can keep your plan” comment (O'Reilly should have called it what it was...an out-and out LIE) was his “biggest mistake,” Obama skirted this question by saying that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act...he now NO longer calls it ObamaCare as if we don't know why...was an ongoing process, and he was committed to getting it to work rather than dwelling on past mistakes. “I try to focus not on the fumbles but on the next play,” Obama said.
And here O'Reilly should have tossed Obama's ridiculous football reference aside as ObamaCare is beyond mere fumbles, and gone for the jugular for with ObamaCare there is much to rip apart...but Mr. Fair and Balanced didn't. Hannity would have...you can bet on that.
But really, in an interview of this sort when all is said and done the point remains that it's NOT what O'Reilly said but what he didn't say for here he had a chance to nail Obama to the wall with tough, insightful, demanding of answers questions, but instead he chose to go the soft way with beaten to death regurgitation of the same old tired questions that we've NOT only heard before but questions that actually allowed Obama to deflect them...as he's done so many times that he can do it even without his trusty teleprompter prompting him.
And while I know that 10 or so minutes do NOT an in-depth interview make...and maybe if Bill O'Reilly had more time he would have insisted on more direct answers...you still know that O'Reilly will hawk this interview ad-nauseum on his show for weeks, and Obama gets to continue to take digs at FOX News... something he loves to do every chance he gets.
So with O'Reilly hoping to end this what turned out to be a yawn of an interview on a positive touchy-feely note, he instead made all we Conservatives and TEA Partiers sick with his comment that he felt Obama’s “heart was in the right place”...for how can Barack HUSSEIN Obama's heart be in the right place when his heart is NOT with this country...with 'We the People'...or with the Constitution he took an oath to "protect and defend."
I’ve already mentioned that Obamacare is a Predator Drone that hunts down jobs. Under the Affordable Care Act, businesses must pay for the health care of full time employees, and “full time” is defined as thirty hours or more. Thus, we are already seeing employees downgraded to part-time. SeaWorld is just one example among many of declining full-time jobs and increasing part-time jobs.
Now we are getting confirmation from the Federal Reserve. As much as I would like to end the Fed, I’m pretty happy to get someone willing to collect the statements from different parts of the country about how employers view the current economy. The Heritage Foundation blog provided some quotations:
Atlanta Fed: “On balance, many firms expressed continued hesitancy caused by concerns about healthcare reform in terms of their overall hiring plans” (p. VI-3).
Richmond Fed: “Employers continued to express concern about potential cost increases related to [Obamacare]” (p. V-4).
Chicago Fed: “Non-wage labor costs also increased, with a number of contacts reporting higher healthcare premiums” (p. VII-3).
Boston Fed: “Downside risks include the upcoming costs to businesses of compliance with [Obamacare] and the trend toward office downsizing on a space-per-person basis” (p. I-3).
Philadelphia Fed: “Firms also expected to see the largest increase in health benefits costs compared with other input and labor costs in 2014” (pp. III-1 and III-2).
Cleveland Fed: “A majority of our contacts cited rising healthcare insurance premiums as a concern” (p. IV-2)
The Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank’s statement is pretty explicit. “Continued hesitancy” means people are holding off hiring. Likewise, the Boston branch’s statement about “the trend toward office downsizing on a space-per-person basis” also speaks of reduced employment (unless they are claiming that they are only putting people in smaller spaces, which I doubt).
But all of the regional Feds found people concerned about costs or reporting higher costs. This is simply not an environment in which employers want to hire new full-time employees.
Yet this President claims that he wants to address jobs and income inequality.