Over 16,528,419 people are on fubar.
What are you waiting for?

Obama to cut medical benefits for active, retired military, not union workers

In an effort to cut defense spending, the Obama Administration plans to cut health benefits for active duty and retired military personnel and their families while not touching the benefits enjoyed by unionized civilian defense workers.

The move, congressional aides suggested, is to force those individuals into Obamacare, Bill Gertz reported at the Washington Beacon.

Gertz added:

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

Not everybody is happy with the plan, however.

Military personnel would see their annual Tricare premiums increase anywhere from 30 - 78 percent in the first year, followed by sharply increased premiums "ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels."

"According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048," Gertz wrote.

Active duty military personnel would also see an increased cost for pharmaceuticals, and the incentive to use less expensive generic drugs would be gone.

Health benefits has long been a prime reason many stay in the military - but some in the Pentagon fear the new rules will hamper recruitment and retention.

“Would you stay with a car insurance company that raised your premiums by 345 percent in five years? Probably not,” one aide said.

John Hayward of Human Events adds:

Veterans will also be hit with a new annual fee for a program called Tricare for Life, on top of the monthly premiums they already pay, while some benefits will become “means-tested” in the manner of a social program – treating them like welfare instead of benefits for military service. Naturally, this is all timed to begin next year and “avoid upsetting military voters in a presidential election year,” according to critics.

There will be congressional hearings on the new military health care policies next month. Opposition is building in Congress, and among veterans’ organizations, including the VFW, which has “called on all military personnel and the veterans’ community to block the health care increases.”

Others are concerned about the double standard being set between uniformed military personnel - who are not unionized - and civilian defense workers who belong to public sector unions.

Gertz wrote:

A second congressional aide said the administration’s approach to the cuts shows a double standard that hurts the military.

“We all recognize that we are in a time of austerity,” this aide said. “But defense has made up to this point 50 percent of deficit reduction cuts that we agreed to, but is only 20 percent of the budget.”

The administration is asking troops to get by without the equipment and force levels needed for global missions. “And now they are going to them again and asking them to pay more for their health care when you’ve held the civilian workforce at DoD and across the federal government virtually harmless in all of these cuts. And it just doesn’t seem fair,” the second aide said.

At least one Congressman is standing with the military on this issue.

“We shouldn’t ask our military to pay our bills when we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population,” said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-CA), who chairs the House Armed Services Committee.

“We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more,” he added.

McKeon will be joined by some 5 million members of 32 military service and veterans groups, according to retired Navy Capt. Kathryn M. Beasley of the Military Officers Association of America, who called the plan "a breach of faith."

The Beacon also noted the curious timing of the plan, which is set to begin next year - after the 2012 elections. Critics say this is designed so as not to upset military voters.

It's one more reason Barack Hussein Obama does not deserve to be re-elected in November.

GAS N OIL

Obama's 2% Lie

Gas prices shot up 18 cents on average nationwide over the past two weeks, according to the latest Lundberg survey.

That puts the average cost of regular gas at $3.69 a gallon. Of course, many of you around the country are already paying over $4.

President Obama, members of his administration, Democrats in Congress, and his allies on the left all make the same case: we can't "drill our way" out of this problem.

They say we use a quarter of the world's oil, but only have 2% of the world's oil reserves. So, do the math. They say it's impossible, but here's how he gets to that mythical 2%.

For simplicity, we'll call it Obama's big oil lie because that's what it is.

They're only counting proven oil reserves.

The truth is that 2% oil reserves figure is whatever the government says it is.

Here’s the official definition from the non-partisan Congressional Research service.

Proven reserves are: "certainty to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions."

The key word there is "existing" conditions.

 

The U.S. has around 20 billion barrels in proven reserves, but the amount of undiscovered so called "technically recoverable" oil is over seven times that.

 

Those are the government's own figures!

 

And we can get that oil using today's technology. In fact, the U.S. has nearly 1.5 trillion barrels of oil.

That's enough to fuel the present needs in the U.S. for around 250 years, according to the Institute for Energy Research.

Former President of Shell Oil on FBN earlier today on how we could easily get back to producing 10 million barrels a day:

"The best source for new oil is the world's largest consumer economy: this country. We could go back to 10 million barrels if we had the permitting that would enable it to happen. We have the oil. There is more oil in this country that we're not allowed to get at than oil we're allowed to get at.”

But much of the oil is off limits thanks to the policies of this President:

-The outer Continental shelf.

-The Arctic National Wildlife Reserve in Anwar.

-And Shale Oil where the United States has the largest deposits in the world estimated by the government to be over 2 trillion barrels.

Even when the production is not in this country, the President will do anything he can to stop it, like blocking the Keystone pipeline.

Also, what the President is refusing to acknowledge is the United States is in the middle of an oil boom thanks to new technology like deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

So the President needs to stop with the 2% lie.

 

The solutions are right in front of us, but this administration flatly refuses to explore them.



Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/willis-report/blog/2012/02/27/obamas-2-lie#ixzz2BPlZAEz3

Obama's Real Unemployment Rate Is 14.7%, And A Recession's On The Way

WASHINGTON - MAY 07:  U.S. President Barack Ob...

President Barack Obama (R) walks out to speak with by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, Director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer, Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke and Director of the National Economic Council Larry Summers. (Image credit: Getty Images North America via @daylife)

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported last Friday that 114,000 new jobs were created last month, according to its Establishment Survey of business payrolls that has been emphasized by the Obama Administration.  That is pitifully weak, especially for what is supposed to be the fourth year of a recovery (the National Bureau of Economic Research scored the recession as officially over in June, 2009).

As economist John Lott noted at FoxNews.com on October 5, the working age population grew by 206,000 last month.  With two-thirds of those working as would be expected during a normal recovery, 138,000 new jobs would have been necessary in September just to keep pace with population growth.


Indeed, the working age population has increased by 8.4 million since President Obama entered office.  With the same labor force participation as on Inauguration Day in January, 2009 (which would be closer to a real recovery), that would require 5.5 million new jobs just to keep up with the aforementioned population growth.  But a generous reading of the data is that during President Obama’s entire term in office, a grand total of only 787,000 jobs have been created overall on net.  And all of that net growth came in the last month.  As of August, 2012, the economy was still suffering a net loss of jobs during Obama’s entire Presidency up to that point.

Moreover, the BLS also reported on Friday that the number of full time jobs declined by 216,000 last month, as Lott also noted.  The unemployment rate declined to 7.8% only because of a reported surprise September spurt of 873,000 jobs in the separate Household Survey of families across the nation.  That reported increase is anomalous for the reasons discussed below.

But even the actually story the BLS is telling is not good.  In addition to all of the above, the supposed September increase in Household Survey jobs was mostly in what the BLS calls part time work for economic reasons.  The BLS explains, “These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.”  That applied to 582,000 of the supposed new jobs reported by the September Household Survey, and a total of 8.6 million Americans last month.

As the Wall Street Journal editorialized last weekend,

“Working part time is certainly preferable to not working at all, but it’s tough to pay the mortgage, energy, medical and grocery bills with a 20-hour-a-week job.  The job market has been bad for so long that people are settling for any paycheck they can get.  One suspect in this shift to part-time work is the cost of providing health insurance, especially with ObamaCare looming.”

The BLS reported 12.1 million still unemployed in September, another 8.6 million employed part-time for economic reasons, and another 2.5 million marginally attached to the labor force.  The latter “were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the [September] survey,” even though they “wanted and were available for work,” according to the BLS.

All of these are counted in the U6 unemployment rate as also reported by the BLS.  Because the primary change during the month was that 582,000 on net shifted from unemployed to employed part time for economic reasons, this U6 unemployment rate remained unchanged last month at 14.7%.  The total suffering this U6 unemployment was 23.2 million.

Moreover, even this doesn’t nearly fully account for the 8.2 million Americans who have given up hope during the Obama term of office, and dropped out of the work force altogether.  When you are considered out of the work force, you are no longer counted as unemployed, even though you still do not have a job, and you still want and are available for work.

The U6 unemployment rate counts only 2.5 million of those 8.2 million who have given up hope and dropped out during the Obama years.  The ShadowStats website, which counts the long term discouraged workers the government doesn’t count, reports the total rate for the unemployed and underemployed (part time for economic reasons) as 22.8%.

Of the 12.1 million the government does count as unemployed, a record 40.1% are long term unemployed for more than 6 months.  Despite the President’s rhetoric on the campaign trail about manufacturing coming back under his policies, manufacturing jobs declined by another 16,000 last month, making a total decline of 38,000 in the last two months.

 

 

Moreover, the forced shift to unwilling part time work is a major contributing cause to declining real family incomes.  So is the shrinking labor force, with more and more people giving up the search for work.  In August, the labor force participation rate for men was the lowest on record, which goes all the way back to 1948.  The overall labor force participation rate had declined all the way back to September, 1981, before the Reagan recovery.

In addition, the jobs being created are not replacing the incomes of the jobs being lost.  As economist John Lott also reported at FoxNews.com on October 3, “Mid-wage occupations accounted for 60% of the jobs lost during the recession, but low-wage occupations accounted for 58% of hiring during the recovery.”

As a result, since President Obama entered office, annual median household income has declined by $4,019, or 7.3%.  Moreover, the decline has been greater since the recession supposedly ended in June, 2009, than it was during the recession.  In the three years from June, 2009, until June, 2012, median household income declined by 6%.

All of this is causing an increase in inequality in America rather than a decline, as higher income workers are not being forced into part-time work, dropping out of the work force, or suffering mid-wage jobs being replaced by low-wage jobs.

The reported, supposed, spurt of 873,000 new jobs in the September Household Survey is anomalous and dubious for several reasons.  It is wildly inconsistent with the more reliable Establishment Survey of 114,000 new jobs, based on business records, which is why the media has always focused on that number.  It is wildly inconsistent with GDP growth as well, reported as 1.3% in the second quarter, and in decline over the past two years.  Creating 873,000 jobs a month would reflect economic growth 3 to 4 times as large, at least.

The economy supposedly creating 873,000 new jobs in September, while losing 216,000 full time jobs, is also quite doubtful.  The loss of 16,000 manufacturing jobs in September, totaling a loss of 38,000 over the past two months, raises similar doubts.  Indeed, the reported September Household Survey increase of 873,000 jobs is inconsistent with the Household Survey’s reported decline of 119,000 jobs in August and 195,000 jobs in July.  The Obama Administration, and its party controlled media allies, totally ignored the Household Survey as too unreliable in those months.

All of this contradicting data, and much more, is instead consistent with the more grim reality that the economy is sliding back into renewed, double dip, recession.  Real GDP growth has been in long term decline under President Obama, from 2.4% in 2010, to 2% in 2011, to only 1.6% in the first half of 2012, and 1.3% in the second quarter.  During the first 3 years of Reagan’s recovery, economic growth was nearly 3 times as large.

The record low labor force participation rates mean that nearly 25% of Americans from 25 to 55 are not working.  Economist David Malpass in the weekendWall Street Journal for September 29-30 notes the Commerce Department reporting that “orders for durable goods fell 13.2% in August” and “inflation adjusted personal income fell 0.3%,” which Malpass terms “bright red recession flags.”  He adds that “Inflation-protected Treasury bonds have a negative yield for the first time in history,” which indicates “a market expectation of negative real growth.”

Malpass summarized Obama’s economic policies as “His plan is to move the economy ‘forward’ by keeping the current policy framework in place and adding higher tax rates on income and capital gains.”  Indeed, now scheduled for January 1, under current law, are increases in the top tax rates for virtually every major federal tax, as the Obamacare tax increases become effective, and the Bush tax cuts expire, which Obama refuses to renew for the nation’s successful small businesses, job creators, and investors.  But the current policy framework has not worked.  And those tax rate increases are unambiguously recessionary.  That is why Malpass rightly concludes, “the new Commerce Department numbers, combined with [Obama’s] stay-the-course approach, point to recession in 2013.”

 

5 Effects Obamacare Will Have on Working Americans

Obamacare will certainly have a negative impact on every American, but here are five ways it will harm working Americans:

  1. Two-thirds of American employees’ wages will decrease as employers deal with increasing costs. Heritage’s Drew Gonshorowski explains the results of an Urban Institute study: “The Urban Institute claims that mid-size firms will see spending per person increase by 4.6 percent, while large firms will see spending increases by 0.3 percent per person. According to the U.S. Census, this accounts for 65.1 percent of employees—or roughly 79 million—in the U.S. who are employed by medium- or large-size firms. The study suggests: ‘Any increase in employers’ health-related costs will be offset by decreases in other compensation—whether wages or other benefits.’ This means that individuals in mid- and large-size firms will receive less in take-home wages (or other benefits) and pay a greater proportion of their compensation to health care due to Obamacare.”
  2. Loss of existing insurance coverage. Because of Obamacare’s high costs, experts predict that employers will stop offering employees health coverage, forcing employees into the new government-run exchanges. Although estimates vary, it is likely that millions of Americans will lose their current coverage. For instance, the non-partisanCongressional Budget Office estimates that between 5 million and 20 million Americans will lose employer-sponsored coverage, the American Action Forum estimates 35 million, and McKinsey, a consulting firm, estimates that 30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering coverage after Obamacare takes full effect in 2014.
  3. Premiums in the individual market are set to skyrocket. Obamacare’s new, extreme insurance rules and regulations will have dire effects on the cost of coverage that individuals and small businesses purchase on their own. As Forbes columnist and health policy analyst Avik Roy has pointed out in recent articles, “Obama adviser Jonathan Gruber has estimated that, by 2016, the cost of individual-market health insurance under Obamacare, relative to what it would have been under prior law, will increase by an average of 19 percent in Colorado29 percent in Minnesota, and 30 percent in Wisconsin. A prestigious actuarial firm, Milliman, has estimated that individual-market premiums in Ohio could increase by 55 to 85 percent.”
  4. Full-time workers turned part-time to avoid the employer mandate. As Heritage predicted, businesses have already begun limiting the hours their employees can work, turning full-time workers into part-time workers, to avoid paying the employer mandate penalty or providing costly insurance coverage. For example, one of the nation’s 30 largest employers, Darden Restaurants, is experimenting with keeping employees under the 30-hour threshold established for Obamacare’s mandate. According to theOrlando Sentinel, “In an emailed statement, Darden said staffing changes are ‘just one of the many things we are evaluating to help us address the cost implications health care reform will have on our business.’”
  5. The heavy burden of 18 taxes and penalties. Obamacare imposes 18 new taxes and penalties that will cost Americans over $836 billion between 2013 and 2022. These taxes will either hit consumers directly or be passed on through higher prices. For example, the infamous individual mandate to purchase health insurance will be imposed on 6 million Americans in 2016, many of whom are the working middle class. Nearly 70 percent of payers will be below 400 percent of the federal poverty level, and even those below the poverty level could be forced to pay the mandate tax.

Obamacare must be repealed in order to protect hard-working Americans from its harmful and far-reaching effects.

last post
11 years ago
posts
4
views
1,831
can view
everyone
can comment
everyone
atom/rss

other blogs by this author

 11 years ago
JUST A BLOG
 15 years ago
interesting view :-)
official fubar blogs
 8 years ago
fubar news by babyjesus  
 13 years ago
fubar.com ideas! by babyjesus  
 10 years ago
fubar'd Official Wishli... by SCRAPPER  
 11 years ago
Word of Esix by esixfiddy  

discover blogs on fubar

blog.php' rendered in 0.0586 seconds on machine '180'.