◼ When the questions needed to be asked and answers needed to be given, both the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were nowhere to be found. - IBD Editorial
...Obama seemed more outraged that the rumored successor to Clinton at State was being criticized for parroting an obvious lie than by the terrorist attack that killed a U.S. ambassador, two former Navy SEALs and another diplomat. He and his administration knew that very night, the night he flew off to Las Vegas to campaign, that terrorists killed the four Americans, yet he sent his U.N. ambassador out to lie for him.
Does Obama really expect us to believe "she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her" when the CIA station chief and the National Counterterrorism Center chief had said it was an organized terrorist attack with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades and there was in fact no mob?
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Friday, November 16, 2012
Obamacare implementation could spell trouble for Democrats in 2014
◼ The good news for Democrats is that Obamacare will now be implemented. But the bad news for Democrats is also that Obamacare will now be implemented. - Philip Klein/Washington Examiner @philipklein
President Obama's re-election ensures that his signature health care law will not be repealed before its major provisions go into effect. But that also means, to borrow a phrase from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Americans will begin to find out what's in the law.
Starting Jan. 1, several key provisions of the health care law will kick in. Americans will only be allowed to contribute $2,500 to flexible spending accounts, which allow participants to pay for medical expenses on a pretax basis. Also, from then on, the accounts can only be used to pay for drugs with a prescription, excluding over-the-counter drugs, which still may be legitimate medical expenses and were previously allowed.
The new year will also ring in a wave of new tax increases. One is the Medicare tax hike on individuals earning more than $200,000 and married couples earning more than $250,000. Another is the 3.8 percent tax on interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents. On top of that, there will be a 2.3 percent tax increase on medical devices. These will be on top of any tax hike that comes out of current end-of-the-year negotiations between Republicans and Democrats to avoid the "fiscal cliff."
Most of the major provisions of the health care law go into effect in 2014. During that year, individuals will be forced to purchase government-approved insurance policies or pay a tax. The tax will hit 6 million uninsured Americans, most of them middle-class, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Employers who have at least 50 workers could have to pay a $2,000-per-employee fine for not providing health insurance. As Zane Tankel, who owns 40 Applebee's locations in the New York area, recently explained on Fox Business, this provision will force him to hold off on expanding or hiring, and even to re-evaluate his current workforce. Business owners throughout the nation have echoed his thinking.
In addition, 2014 will usher in the expansion of Medicaid and the creation of new exchanges. On these exchanges, eligible individuals will receive government subsidies to purchase government-designed insurance plans administered by private companies. These two components are projected to cost $1.7 trillion over a decade.....more at the link
President Obama's re-election ensures that his signature health care law will not be repealed before its major provisions go into effect. But that also means, to borrow a phrase from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Americans will begin to find out what's in the law.
Starting Jan. 1, several key provisions of the health care law will kick in. Americans will only be allowed to contribute $2,500 to flexible spending accounts, which allow participants to pay for medical expenses on a pretax basis. Also, from then on, the accounts can only be used to pay for drugs with a prescription, excluding over-the-counter drugs, which still may be legitimate medical expenses and were previously allowed.
The new year will also ring in a wave of new tax increases. One is the Medicare tax hike on individuals earning more than $200,000 and married couples earning more than $250,000. Another is the 3.8 percent tax on interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents. On top of that, there will be a 2.3 percent tax increase on medical devices. These will be on top of any tax hike that comes out of current end-of-the-year negotiations between Republicans and Democrats to avoid the "fiscal cliff."
Most of the major provisions of the health care law go into effect in 2014. During that year, individuals will be forced to purchase government-approved insurance policies or pay a tax. The tax will hit 6 million uninsured Americans, most of them middle-class, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Employers who have at least 50 workers could have to pay a $2,000-per-employee fine for not providing health insurance. As Zane Tankel, who owns 40 Applebee's locations in the New York area, recently explained on Fox Business, this provision will force him to hold off on expanding or hiring, and even to re-evaluate his current workforce. Business owners throughout the nation have echoed his thinking.
In addition, 2014 will usher in the expansion of Medicaid and the creation of new exchanges. On these exchanges, eligible individuals will receive government subsidies to purchase government-designed insurance plans administered by private companies. These two components are projected to cost $1.7 trillion over a decade.....more at the link
It´s clear from Obama´s indignant tone at Wednesday´s press conference that he has no intention of reconciling differences with Republicans over fiscal policy.
◼ Watch Out, Speaker, Obama Still Channeling Saul Alinsky - IBD Editorial
His mentors counseled to never compromise with "the enemy."
....This isn't your Bill Clinton Democrat back in the Oval Office, one who'll listen to reason, compromise, cut a deal. No, this is a different Democrat entirely, far more radical, much more doctrinaire in his leftist beliefs. And now very angry, seeking "revenge."
His mentors counseled to never compromise with "the enemy."
....This isn't your Bill Clinton Democrat back in the Oval Office, one who'll listen to reason, compromise, cut a deal. No, this is a different Democrat entirely, far more radical, much more doctrinaire in his leftist beliefs. And now very angry, seeking "revenge."
Petraeus to testify behind closed doors on Benghazi Friday
◼ The hearing to be held by the House Intelligence Committee is closed to the public and the media. Petraeus is expected to answer questions about the CIA's knowledge and handling of the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. Two of those Americans were with the CIA. - CBS News
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calf., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Wednesday that Petraeus was "willing and interested" to talk to the committee, CBS News reported earlier Wednesday.
"It's just on Benghazi. Our hearings are on Benghazi and the intelligence that preceded Benghazi and the intelligence that determined security," she told reporters.
Meanwhile, the House Intelligence Committee will hear from him at 7:30 a.m. on Friday, an hour that is extremely uncommon for a congressional meeting.
◼ CNN: Petraeus will Amend His Testimony on Benghazi – He Knew it Was a Terror Attack Almost Immediately (Video) - CNN
A source who spoke to Gen. Petraeus told CNN’s Barbara Starr the former CIA Director wants to clear up some misconceptions. He wants to tell Congress that he knew almost immediately that Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group was responsible for the preplanned attack on the Consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans. The question of their motivation is where the confusion lies according to the this report. Initially, there were up to 20 intelligence reports that blamed the YouTube video as the motivation. Those reports were disproven in time, but supposedly not before Petraeus had testified before Congress on the 14th, three days after the attack.
He also reportedly had his own talking points separate from Susan Rice’s talking points which came from someone else in the administration, an account that seems to be at odds with a CBS report, Thursday that revealed “CIA talking points” for Susan Rice that characterized the Benghazi attack as “spontaneously inspired” by protests. (Uh huh.)
◼ CNN: PETRAEUS TO TESTIFY HE KNEW LIBYA WAS TERRORISM 'ALMOST IMMEDIATELY' - John Nolte/Breitbart
There’s no question that at first a “fog of war” excuse made perfect sense. But what’s also not in question is that as the days and weeks passed, the White House moved further and further away from what the President said on “60 Minutes” — which means that as those 20 or so reports were being “disproved,” the Administration was moving further and further away from the truth.
How did that happen?
The other issue, and this is something I’ve been pushing for weeks now, is that both White House spokesman Jay Carney and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told the media repeatedly that there was absolutely no evidence that Libya was premeditated.
Now we know there was.
It’s one thing to say you believe the attack was over a video, it’s an entirely different tightrope to walk when you’re saying in no uncertain terms that there’s “no evidence” of a terror attack.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calf., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Wednesday that Petraeus was "willing and interested" to talk to the committee, CBS News reported earlier Wednesday.
"It's just on Benghazi. Our hearings are on Benghazi and the intelligence that preceded Benghazi and the intelligence that determined security," she told reporters.
Meanwhile, the House Intelligence Committee will hear from him at 7:30 a.m. on Friday, an hour that is extremely uncommon for a congressional meeting.
◼ CNN: Petraeus will Amend His Testimony on Benghazi – He Knew it Was a Terror Attack Almost Immediately (Video) - CNN
A source who spoke to Gen. Petraeus told CNN’s Barbara Starr the former CIA Director wants to clear up some misconceptions. He wants to tell Congress that he knew almost immediately that Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group was responsible for the preplanned attack on the Consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans. The question of their motivation is where the confusion lies according to the this report. Initially, there were up to 20 intelligence reports that blamed the YouTube video as the motivation. Those reports were disproven in time, but supposedly not before Petraeus had testified before Congress on the 14th, three days after the attack.
He also reportedly had his own talking points separate from Susan Rice’s talking points which came from someone else in the administration, an account that seems to be at odds with a CBS report, Thursday that revealed “CIA talking points” for Susan Rice that characterized the Benghazi attack as “spontaneously inspired” by protests. (Uh huh.)
◼ CNN: PETRAEUS TO TESTIFY HE KNEW LIBYA WAS TERRORISM 'ALMOST IMMEDIATELY' - John Nolte/Breitbart
There’s no question that at first a “fog of war” excuse made perfect sense. But what’s also not in question is that as the days and weeks passed, the White House moved further and further away from what the President said on “60 Minutes” — which means that as those 20 or so reports were being “disproved,” the Administration was moving further and further away from the truth.
How did that happen?
The other issue, and this is something I’ve been pushing for weeks now, is that both White House spokesman Jay Carney and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told the media repeatedly that there was absolutely no evidence that Libya was premeditated.
Now we know there was.
It’s one thing to say you believe the attack was over a video, it’s an entirely different tightrope to walk when you’re saying in no uncertain terms that there’s “no evidence” of a terror attack.
UNION STRIKE KILLS THE TWINKIE
◼ Twinkies Maker Hostess Going Out of Business - nbcdfw.com
“We deeply regret the necessity of today’s decision, but we do not have the financial resources to weather an extended nationwide strike,” Hostess CEO Gregory F. Rayburn said in announcing that the firm had filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to shutter its business. “Hostess Brands will move promptly to lay off most of its 18,500-member workforce and focus on selling its assets to the highest bidders.”
Hostess Brands Inc. had earlier warned employees that it would file to unwind its business and sell off assets if plant operations didn't return to normal levels by 5 p.m. Thursday. In announcing its decision, Hostess said its wind down would mean the closure of 33 bakeries, 565 distribution centers, approximately 5,500 delivery routes and 570 bakery outlet stores in the United States.
Hostess suspended bakery operations at all its factories and said its stores will remain open for several days to sell already-baked products....
A union representative did not immediately return a call from The Associated Press seeking comment on the company's announcement....
The company, founded in 1930, was fighting battles beyond labor costs, however. Competition is increasing in the snack space and Americans are increasingly conscious about healthy eating. Hostess also makes Dolly Madison, Drake's and Nature's Pride snacks.
If the motion is granted, Hostess would begin closing operations as early as Tuesday.
"Most employees who lose their jobs should be eligible for government-provided unemployment benefits," Hostess said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)