Seriously. He does:
BLS doesn’t agree:
Since the president’s January 2009 inauguration, total private sector employment has dropped by 1.6 million, though 2.5 million jobs have been added to the private sector since the term low in February 2010.
He’s doing this for a reason. The last stimulus targeted almost exclusively the public sector. It obviously didn’t work. Unemployment rose sharply. When the public sector funding under TARP ran out, a strange thing happened. Unemployment stayed the same.
In other words, TARP spending under the public sector obviously had no real impact on the unemployment rate.
But, that’s exactly what Reid and Obama want to do again. So, they have to make a new argument. That argument is the private sector doesn’t need help. The public sector does.
On face value it sounds really stupid. Republicans will have a field day with this.
On paper, it looks really stupid.
Reality, it just IS really stupid.
Obama and Reid have declared war on the private sector in every capacity. It’s wrecked our economy for a decade to come. This is just more of the same. The Occupy Wall Street bunch are simply tools for Obama that have bought into his theme ( and been bought too ). Corporations are evil, unions are their savior. It’s sad, and it’s sick.
Just wonder how many people really believe all this crap?
Among them. the Human Rights Campaign, which was founded in 1980 and boasts more than 1 million grassroots supporters, has some of the deepest pockets. During the first quarter of the year, the Human Rights Campaign spent $480,000 on federal lobbying and employed more than 20 lobbyists. During 2010, the Human Rights Campaign invested $1.98 million on federal lobbying. The Human Rights Campaign also operates a political action committee of its own. During the 2010 election cycle, the group’s PAC raised more than $1 million and doled out about $804,000 to federal candidates.
| REPUBLICANS | |
| Biggert, Judy (R-IL) | $5,000 |
| Keating, William R (D-MA) | $4,500 |
| Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL) | $7,000 |
| Scozzafava, Dierdre K (R-NY) | $4,863 |
| Shays, Christopher (R-CT) | ($25) |
| Kirk, Mark (R-IL) | $2,000 |
Not a whole lot going on there huh? Now check out this list:
| NON-REPUBLICANS | |
| Ackerman, Gary (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Adler, John H (D-NJ) | $9,500 |
| Andrews, Robert E (D-NJ) | $2,000 |
| Arcuri, Michael (D-NY) | $10,000 |
| Baca, Joe (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Baldwin, Tammy (D-WI) | $3,550 |
| Bass, Karen (D-CA) | $2,500 |
| Bean, Melissa (D-IL) | $4,500 |
| Becerra, Xavier (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Bennet, Michael F (D-CO) | $4,462 |
| Bera, Ami (D-CA) | $3,500 |
| Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) | $1,025 |
| Berman, Howard L (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Bishop, Timothy H (D-NY) | $10,500 |
| Blumenauer, Earl (D-OR) | $2,000 |
| Blumenthal, Richard (D-CT) | $9,500 |
| Boccieri, John A (D-OH) | $9,000 |
| Boswell, Leonard L (D-IA) | $9,500 |
| Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) | $8,975 |
| Braley, Bruce (D-IA) | $6,000 |
| Capps, Lois (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Capuano, Michael E (D-MA) | $1,000 |
| Carnahan, Robin (D-MO) | $8,984 |
| Carnahan, Russ (D-MO) | $3,000 |
| Carney, John (D-DE) | $8,305 |
| Carson, Andre (D-IN) | $1,000 |
| Castor, Kathy (D-FL) | $1,000 |
| Chu, Judy (D-CA) | $3,500 |
| Cicilline, David N (D-RI) | $9,118 |
| Clark, Tarryl (D-MN) | $7,948 |
| Clarke, Hansen (D-MI) | $1,000 |
| Clarke, Yvette D (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO) | $1,000 |
| Clyburn, James E (D-SC) | $5,000 |
| Coakley, Martha (D-MA) | $5,000 |
| Cohen, Stephen Ira (D-TN) | $4,975 |
| Connolly, Gerry (D-VA) | $8,135 |
| Conyers, John Jr (D-MI) | $2,500 |
| Coons, Chris (D-DE) | $4,195 |
| Courtney, Joe (D-CT) | $1,000 |
| Crowley, Joseph (D-NY) | $2,000 |
| Cummings, Elijah E (D-MD) | $1,000 |
| Dahlkemper, Kathleen (D-PA) | $1,000 |
| Davis, Danny K (D-IL) | $1,000 |
| Davis, Susan A (D-CA) | $2,000 |
| DeFazio, Peter (D-OR) | $1,000 |
| DeGette, Diana (D-CO) | $1,000 |
| DeLauro, Rosa L (D-CT) | $1,000 |
| DelBene, Suzan (D-WA) | $3,862 |
| Deutch, Ted (D-FL) | $5,900 |
| Dingell, John D (D-MI) | $2,000 |
| Dodd, Chris (D-CT) | $1,000 |
| Doggett, Lloyd (D-TX) | $1,000 |
| Doyle, Mike (D-PA) | $1,000 |
| Driehaus, Steve (D-OH) | $9,348 |
| Edwards, Donna (D-MD) | $3,500 |
| Elliott, Joyce (D-AR) | $4,500 |
| Ellison, Keith (D-MN) | $1,000 |
| Engel, Eliot L (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Eshoo, Anna (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Farr, Sam (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Fattah, Chaka (D-PA) | $1,000 |
| Feingold, Russ (D-WI) | $9,163 |
| Filner, Bob (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Fisher, Lee Irwin (D-OH) | $4,525 |
| Foster, Bill (D-IL) | $8,000 |
| Frank, Barney (D-MA) | $10,000 |
| Fudge, Marcia L (D-OH) | $1,000 |
| Galvin, Scott (D-FL) | $4,525 |
| Garamendi, John (D-CA) | $5,000 |
| Garcia, Joe (D-FL) | $5,500 |
| Giannoulias, Alexander (D-IL) | $3,135 |
| Giffords, Gabrielle (D-AZ) | $9,000 |
| Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) | $7,000 |
| Gonzalez, Charlie A (D-TX) | $1,000 |
| Grayson, Alan (D-FL) | $6,500 |
| Green, Al (D-TX) | $2,000 |
| Grijalva, Raul M (D-AZ) | $4,000 |
| Gutierrez, Luis V (D-IL) | $2,000 |
| Hall, John (D-NY) | $9,500 |
| Halvorson, Deborah (D-IL) | $8,000 |
| Hare, Phil (D-IL) | $5,500 |
| Harman, Jane (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Hastings, Alcee L (D-FL) | $1,000 |
| Heinrich, Martin (D-NM) | $9,500 |
| Higgins, Brian M (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Himes, Jim (D-CT) | $7,000 |
| Hinchey, Maurice (D-NY) | $3,500 |
| Hinojosa, Ruben (D-TX) | $1,000 |
| Hirono, Mazie K (D-HI) | $1,000 |
| Hodes, Paul W (D-NH) | $3,664 |
| Holt, Rush (D-NJ) | $4,500 |
| Honda, Mike (D-CA) | $2,000 |
| Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) | $4,500 |
| Inouye, Daniel K (D-HI) | $1,500 |
| Inslee, Jay R (D-WA) | $1,000 |
| Israel, Steve (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Jackson Lee, Sheila (D-TX) | $1,000 |
| Jackson, Jesse Jr (D-IL) | $1,000 |
| Johnson, Eddie Bernice (D-TX) | $1,000 |
| Johnson, Hank (D-GA) | $5,000 |
| Kennedy, Patrick J (D-RI) | $1,000 |
| Kildee, Dale E (D-MI) | $1,000 |
| Kilpatrick, Carolyn Cheeks (D-MI) | $1,000 |
| Kilroy, Mary Jo (D-OH) | $9,250 |
| Kind, Ron (D-WI) | $6,000 |
| Kirkpatrick, Ann (D-AZ) | $10,000 |
| Klein, Ron (D-FL) | $9,500 |
| Kucinich, Dennis J (D-OH) | $50 |
| Kuster, Ann Mclane (D-NH) | $5,000 |
| Langevin, Jim (D-RI) | $1,000 |
| Larsen, Rick (D-WA) | $4,500 |
| Larson, John B (D-CT) | $2,000 |
| Lassa, Julie (D-WI) | $9,500 |
| Leahy, Patrick (D-VT) | $3,000 |
| Lee, Barbara (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Lentz, Bryan (D-PA) | $3,000 |
| Levin, Sander (D-MI) | $4,000 |
| Lewis, John (D-GA) | $1,500 |
| Lieberman, Joe (I-CT) | $1,000 |
| Loebsack, David (D-IA) | $8,000 |
| Lofgren, Zoe (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Lowey, Nita M (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Lujan, Ben R (D-NM) | $1,000 |
| Lynch, Stephen F (D-MA) | $1,000 |
| Maffei, Dan (D-NY) | $8,000 |
| Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY) | $2,000 |
| Markey, Betsy (D-CO) | $9,142 |
| Markey, Edward J (D-MA) | $1,000 |
| Marshall, Elaine (D-NC) | $2,500 |
| Massa, Eric (D-NY) | $3,000 |
| Matsui, Doris O (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| McCarthy, Carolyn (D-NY) | $3,500 |
| McCollum, Betty (D-MN) | $1,000 |
| McGovern, James P (D-MA) | $1,000 |
| McMahon, Michael E (D-NY) | $9,500 |
| McNerney, Jerry (D-CA) | $10,000 |
| Meek, Kendrick B (D-FL) | $4,500 |
| Meeks, Gregory W (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Merkley, Jeff (D-OR) | $5,000 |
| Mikulski, Barbara A (D-MD) | $2,000 |
| Miller, Brad (D-NC) | $2,000 |
| Miller, George (D-CA) | $3,000 |
| Mitchell, Harry E (D-AZ) | $8,571 |
| Moore, Dennis (D-KS) | $2,000 |
| Moore, Stephene Ann (D-KS) | $3,500 |
| Murphy, Christopher S (D-CT) | $6,000 |
| Murphy, Patrick J (D-PA) | $8,832 |
| Murphy, Scott (D-NY) | $15,000 |
| Murray, Patty (D-WA) | $8,073 |
| Nadler, Jerrold (D-NY) | $2,500 |
| Napolitano, Grace (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Neal, Richard E (D-MA) | $1,000 |
| Norton, Eleanor Holmes (D-DC) | $1,000 |
| Nye, Glenn (D-VA) | $4,500 |
| Olver, John W (D-MA) | $1,000 |
| Pallone, Frank Jr (D-NJ) | $1,000 |
| Pascrell, Bill Jr (D-NJ) | $1,000 |
| Pastor, Ed (D-AZ) | $1,025 |
| Payne, Donald M (D-NJ) | $1,000 |
| Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) | $5,000 |
| Perlmutter, Edwin G (D-CO) | $5,500 |
| Peters, Gary (D-MI) | $10,000 |
| Pingree, Chellie (D-ME) | $4,500 |
| Pougnet, Stephen P (D-CA) | $9,400 |
| Price, David (D-NC) | $1,000 |
| Quigley, Mike (D-IL) | $4,500 |
| Rangel, Charles B (D-NY) | $2,500 |
| Reid, Harry (D-NV) | $5,846 |
| Reyes, Silvestre (D-TX) | $1,000 |
| Richardson, Laura (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Rothman, Steven R (D-NJ) | $1,000 |
| Roybal-Allard, Lucille (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Rush, Bobby L (D-IL) | $1,000 |
| Ryan, Tim (D-OH) | $1,000 |
| Salazar, John (D-CO) | $5,500 |
| Sanchez, Linda (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Sanchez, Loretta (D-CA) | $7,500 |
| Schakowsky, Jan (D-IL) | $1,000 |
| Schauer, Mark (D-MI) | $8,316 |
| Schiff, Adam (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Schrader, Kurt (D-OR) | $8,758 |
| Schultz, Debbie Wasserman (D-FL) | $2,000 |
| Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) | $2,500 |
| Schwartz, Allyson (D-PA) | $1,000 |
| Scott, Robert C (D-VA) | $1,000 |
| Seals, Dan (D-IL) | $4,593 |
| Serrano, Jose E (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Sestak, Joseph A Jr (D-PA) | $4,455 |
| Sewell, Terri (D-AL) | $1,000 |
| Shea-Porter, Carol (D-NH) | $7,500 |
| Sherman, Brad (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Sires, Albio (D-NJ) | $1,000 |
| Slaughter, Louise M (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Smith, Adam (D-WA) | $3,500 |
| Speier, Jackie (D-CA) | ($500) |
| Sutton, Betty Sue (D-OH) | $7,500 |
| Thompson, Mike (D-CA) | $1,000 |
| Titus, Dina (D-NV) | $9,542 |
| Tonko, Paul (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Towns, Edolphus (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Tsongas, Niki (D-MA) | $3,500 |
| Van Hollen, Chris (D-MD) | $2,000 |
| Velazquez, Nydia M (D-NY) | $1,000 |
| Walz, Timothy J (D-MN) | $8,000 |
| Watt, Melvin L (D-NC) | $1,000 |
| Weiner, Anthony D (D-NY) | $2,000 |
| Welch, Peter (D-VT) | $1,000 |
| Woods, Anthony (D-CA) | $4,891 |
| Woolsey, Lynn (D-CA) | $2,000 |
| Wu, David (D-OR) | $3,758 |
| Wyden, Ron (D-OR) | $2,000 |
| Yarmuth, John A (D-KY) | $6,000 |
Now, we can assume one of two things is going on here. Either 200 individual Republicans are so prejudiced they will not accept cash from a PAC.
OR
The heads in charge of Human Rights Campaign are more interested in raising donations for Democrats than they are advocating human rights. I mean think about it, giving blindly to the minority party just doesn’t get a whole lot accomplished in DC. There are 246 Non-Republicans in DC right now. There are 213 in that list right there. That’s an 88% hit ratio. There are 287 Republicans in DC right now, six are in that last up there. That’s about a 2% hit ratio.
Maybe.
Just maybe.
If the heads of Human Rights Campaign weren’t so prejudiced they’d get more accomplished?
22
Oct
I don’t think anyone ever assumed Harry Reid is a modest man. But, he recently had this to offer:
Just curious:
Pete Stark did his best in his effort to win the honor of most unhinged Representative. It’s damn good too. Hank Johnson going into obsessive detail over his concern of Guam tipping over ranks right up there as well. Nancy Pelosi confidently assuring us that once we pass health care reform we’ll find out what’s in it is a personal favorite of mine, but didn’t seem to get much traction with the public. Harry Reid confidently assuring us that losing 36,000 jobs could have been much, much, worse was pretty good as well.
Now, Ciro Rodriguez has jumped into the fray with his latest town hall chat:
Clue, perhaps?
H/T: Big Governmant and Dave the Sage at ConstitutionClub.
OK, so some economist said a whole bunch of people might lose their jobs. Then, the actual numbers came in less than what might have been.
Harry Reid was thrilled. You can see the excitement in his eyes. You can hear it in his voice:
Now, this is where it gets dicey. The immediate assumption by Harry and supporting media is that since things didn’t get worse, they have to be getting better. Yeah. History, please:
| Year | February | March | Change |
| 2000 | 4.1 | 4 | -0.1 |
| 2001 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 0.1 |
| 2002 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 0 |
| 2003 | 5.9 | 5.9 | 0 |
| 2004 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 0.2 |
| 2005 | 5.4 | 5.2 | -0.2 |
| 2006 | 4.8 | 4.7 | -0.1 |
| 2007 | 4.5 | 4.4 | -0.1 |
| 2008 | 4.8 | 5.1 | 0.3 |
| 2009 | 8.2 | 8.6 | 0.4 |
Six out of the last ten years, that’s 60 percent, March was worse than February. To put it in a little more perspective, since Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi took over the spending process in Congress, they’re 0 for 2.
That’s zero percent. Nevermind that, everyone should party since only 36,000 more people lost their jobs “today”.
People all over the country are really bothered by the fact that Senator Jim Bunning shut down the federal government. I mean, people are really bothered by this:
Just a few more months of his idiotic ranting and he is finally finished!!
and
Jim Bunning has the intelligence of a dead gnat, and that’s being kind to the dead gnat.
But, none of these people seem to want to wonder how it is that something with the intelligence of a dead rat can run circles around Harry Reid and the other fifty-nine members of the super-majority.
Think about it. 60 vs 1, 1 wins.
What this episode is doing is hammering the final nail in the concept that we’ll have any chance at a balanced budget in our lifetime.
What happened here is the Democrats pandered to the voters by passing PAYGO. Steny Hoyer was giving speeches in DC about how important PAYGO is:
In simple terms, it’s pay-as-you-go. No program would be funded unless it was paid for. Not borrowed, but paid for. Then, Harry Reid immediately tried to just ram a bunch of unfunded bills through the Senate without debate or a roll-call vote. In that case, it only takes one person to demand a vote. Harry Reid, knowing the Republicans love nothing more than making his life a living hell, went for the only option available to allow a Republican to shut him down. Senator Bunning did just that.
No sooner than the Democrats whine and complain because Jim Bunning demanded they stick to their promise of a balanced budget, Steny Hoyer went on the offense demanding the Democrats do exactly what Jim Bunning did.
And everyone picked on Bunning.
We won’t get any kind of balanced budget in our lifetime due to that. There’s no point in it. Not one single media source gave a crap about the fact the Democrats are ignoring the very tool they passed to balance the budget.
Not one.
Partisan politics is all they care about. The Democrats know they can do anything they want with media cover. The Republicans know they’ll get crucified for trying. So, who exactly is supposed to lead this effort to control spending. Obama? LOL. Yeah, right.
Come next spring I don’t want to hear one damn word from any Democrats about balancing a budget. If they were unwilling to do it when they could have, there’s no reason to expect any group without a huge majority to try and pull it off.
11
Feb
President Obama is complaining because the minority party is holding up 200 of his judicial appointments.
That is true. What is also true is some Senators are publicly complaining about the practice:
Well, actually, that’s what Ted Kennedy said in 2005 when Bush did what Obama’s threatening to do now. Another Democrat who had an opinion:
“The president has the right to make this recess appointment, but it’s the wrong decision. It only diminishes John Bolton’s validity and leverage to secure America’s goals at the U.N. John Bolton has been rejected twice by the Senate to serve as our Ambassador to the United Nations. This is not the way to fill our most important diplomatic jobs.”
Well, that was John Kerry complaining about Bush too. Let me look a little further:
It’s an unnecessary result, and the latest abuse of power by the Bush White House. ..
Harry Reid
“It’s sad that even while the president preaches democracy around the world, he bends the rules and circumvents the will of Congress in appointing our representative to the United Nations.”
Frank R. Lautenberg.
On and on it goes. The Democrats were totally appalled at the gall of Bush making a recess appointment. Now, the Democrats are totally appalled that the Republicans have somehow figured out how to do exactly what they were doing four years ago.
Here’s a way to put an end to this abuse.
- During the recess, Obama needs to appoint every single one of the 200.
- During the next recess, Obama needs to appoint every single one of them.
- During the recess after that, Obama needs to appoint every single one of them.
Once the tactic becomes moot, so will all of the unnecessary drama. There’s no point in Obama whining about it like a little kid. It just makes him look petty and weak. He is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Someone needs to remind him of that sometime.
And quite frankly, if his slate of nominees are anything like his choice of White House staff, it would do him more harm than good if he did get them appointed. Republicans shining the spotlight on them then would mean a lot more to the general public.
26
Jan
A full year into Obama‘s four year term, he’s still passing the buck:
“Today’s report from C.B.O. confirms that the recession inherited from the Bush Administration continues to erode the budget’s bottom line,” said Representative John M. Spratt Jr., the Democrat of South Carolina who is chairman of the House Budget Committee.
From the start of his administration, Obama promised to cut the $1 trillion deficit he inherited in half by 2012.
President Obama’s team may well have prevented the collapse of the nation’s banking system from a crisis the president inherited,
On and on and on it goes. Can’t blame Democrats because Obama inherited this mess. Only problem with that scenario is it was the Dems, not Bush, that created the mess in the first place.
That’s what’s happened since Nancy Pelosi and the Dems took over the spending and budgeting process. The economy was cruising along in one of the longest growth periods in the history of the planet. Then thing got bumpy in 2007. The big spike around January 2009 was not the beginning of the chart, it’s the MIDDLE of the chart. Obama was part and parcel to the problem as a member of the controlling party. The mess he’s complaining about is the mess him, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid created with their spending plans.
Where it gets really pathetic is Obama blaming the minority party in Congress for not allowing the Democrats in Congress to spend the money as they see fit now. That’s what this is all about. So, if the President can’t control what Congress is doing in 2009 and 2010, how was the President in 2007 to blame for what that Congress did then?
Seems kind of obvious, in-your-face kind of stuff to me. But, no one in media can see that. They just keep repeating the Democrat Holy Grail over and over and over, “it’s Bush’s fault”. Meanwhile, they lost two Governor’s races and a long-time solid blue Senate seat. Last week the 12th incumbant Democrat retired rather than face the voters again. Was that a clue that the blame game wasn’t working any more? No, they blamed those losses on, you guessed it, the economy they inherited.
And the media sang backup.
Now Obama is saying he wants to freeze federal growth after spending a trillion dollars to stimulate it. But, he’s not sure he can do that. It may not be possible due to, drum roll please, the economy he inherited.
That would be yet another campaign promise broken.
And the media will blame it on the economy he inherited.
And the Democrat losses in November will multiply.
And Obama will blame it on Bush.
And the media will back him up.
16
Jan
Transparency is a word that wasn’t used a whole lot up until a couple of years ago. Convinced Bush and his cronies were making all the important decisions behind closed doors, Obama started preaching about the need for transparency. A lot of people took it to mean that if elected, Obama would open his doors to anyone so that they could see how honest and forthright he truly was. Very quickly Obama assured people that’s not what he had in mind. The culmination of that was Joe Biden having a meeting on transparency. That meeting of course, was closed to the media. People immediately started saying things to the effect of “WTF”. How can you possibly have a closed door meeting on transparency. It’s simple. Let’s go back to what Obama actually said about transparency:
I do not believe that government should stand in the way of innovation, or turn back the clock to an older era of regulation. But I do believe that government has a role to play in advancing our common prosperity: by providing stable macroeconomic and financial conditions for sustained growth; by demanding transparency; and by ensuring fair competition in the marketplace.
No guarantees he would be transparent there.
We must investigate rating agencies and potential conflicts of interest with the people they are rating. And transparency requirements must demand full disclosure by financial institutions to shareholders and counterparties.
No guarantees he would be transparent there.
I fought in the Senate for the most extensive ethics reform since Watergate. I have refused contributions from federal lobbyists and PACs. And I have laid out far-reaching plans that I intend to sign into law as President to bring transparency to government, and to end the revolving door between industries and the federal agencies that oversee them.
He doesn’t say WHICH government he expects to be transparent now does he?
In the more than two centuries since then, we have struggled to balance the same forces that confronted Hamilton and Jefferson – self-interest and community; markets and democracy; the concentration of wealth and power, and the necessity of transparency and opportunity for each and every citizen.
He clearly states that he expects YOU to be transparent as a citizen. However, as Clinton clearly demonstrated, Presidents are not citizens.
So, there you have it. Obama said he expected business to be transparent, citizens to be transparent, some agencies to be transparent, and some government to be transparent. He never stated HE would be transparent, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t be either. So, having closed door meetings to discuss transparency makes all the sense in the world. If anyone infers otherwise, Obama supporters will think of clever insults to taunt you.
OK, Paul Krugman thinks this bill is far from perfect, but is a huge step in the right direction. He’s an economist. He should know. I’m not an economist. I’m an employer. Different view of things obviously. Here’s what I see:
The Senate health care bill includes a well-known “employer mandate” provision that would require employers to either offer a “qualified” health plan and pay 60 percent of the premium or pay an annual tax penalty of $750 per full-time employee.
What is less well-known is that the provision would also tax companies even if they do offer insurance — but only if they hire people from low- and moderate-income families who qualify for, and elect to accept, premium subsidies. And the tax penalty for hiring those employees — arguably the people who need jobs the most — would be a whopping $3,000 per employee per year.
The combination of this tax penalty and the rules for determining who qualifies for premium subsidies would encourage companies to engage in some new and repulsive forms of employment discrimination.
Who Would Qualify for a Subsidy?
There are two criteria for qualifying for a subsidy under the Senate bill:
- First, family income — not how much this employee is paid by this company, but total family income — would have to be below four times the federal poverty level (FPL). The FPL depends primarily on family size[1]; for 2009, four times the FPL would be $43,320 for a single adult with no children and $88,200 for a family of four (regardless of whether it is a single parent with three children or two parents and two children).
- Second, the premium share to be paid by the employee would have to be more than 9.8 percent of family income.
OK, first of all, either I pay a certain percentage of an employee’s health insurance, or I pay a $750 fine. No brainer. Assuming my portion of their health insurance is less than $65 a month, I just pay the fine and go on. Since they did have insurance, but now don’t, this doesn’t seem intuitive to me. However, that’s not the end of it. If an employee’s premium THEY are paying falls OVER 9.8% of their FAMILY’S income for the month, I could be “taxed” up to $3,000.
OK, raise your hands employers and human resource staff, how many of you have even the faintest idea how much your employee’s FAMILY earns? This is where it becomes beautiful. The IRS has to tell the employer which employees are eligible EACH MONTH.
Got that? Let me repeat that part again:
The IRS has to tell the employer which employees are eligible EACH MONTH.
How does the IRS know this?
Beats me.
The family’s income has to be less than four times the national poverty level. That’s $88,200 for a family of four. That sounds kinda crazy at face value, but there’s a fairly simple rule of thumb an employer can follow when trying to budget using this amazing scheme. There are only two states in the United States that have median household incomes that exceed four times the national poverty level, and one of them’s not even a state. DC and Connecticut. All the rest you can pretty much assume that if you’re in a position where it’s questionable whether you can provide health insurance or not, you can safely assume you’re in that 9.8% category.
Now, what this is all leading to is what I assumed would happen when this debate began. An employer is forced to limit exposure. The only way an average employer can do this is to limit bodies. Currently, due to the nature of work, we have a huge majority of part-time workers. This will no longer be economically feasible. Rather than having a staff of 219 staff, we’ll have a staff of about 60.
The immediate effect of this reform in this case will be 159 people losing their current health insurance, as well as their jobs. Thinking about hiring a part-time kid during summer break? Forget it unless their family’s fairly wealthy. In my case, that never happens.
For what it’s worth, this isn’t a scare tactic, this is a business decision. It’s not speculation. If the health care bill passes as presented, we will immediately start preparing for it by switching to a full time employment status only and laying off the rest.
You think 10% unemployment is bad, just wait.
Is this what health reform advocates had in mind? Is the change people wanted?
