http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/13/nbcwsj-poll-shows-21-opposition-to-raising-the-debt-ceiling/
( Lame duck ..... )
and expect a real Union rebellion on Healthcare.........
http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/13/white-house-no-subsidies-for-union-health-plans/
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/13/Union-Boss-We-ll-Be-Damned-If-We-re-Going-To-Lose-Our-Health-Insurance
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/12/White-House-Scrambles-To-Silence-AFL-CIO-Obamacare-Criticism
( rebellion from labor over healthcare - White house pleas ignored ! Lame duck.... )
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/13/us-usa-congress-debt-ceiling-analysis-idUSBRE98C04620130913
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/12/2013 22:33 -0400
( Lame duck ..... )
NBC/WSJ poll shows 2:1 opposition to raising the debt ceiling
POSTED AT 8:41 AM ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY
The polling news hasn’t improved much for Barack Obama, even without a military attack on Syria in the offing. A new poll from NBC and the Wall Street Journal shows Americans lining up 2:1 against the debt-ceiling increase Obama needs, and his credibility dropping on a wide range of issues:
Americans overwhelmingly do not think Congress should raise the nation’s debt limit as President Barack Obama and Congress prepare once again to wage battle over the issue, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.By a 44-22 percent margin, Americans oppose raising the debt ceiling, which again puts the president in the difficult position of needing to make the case for an unpopular policy with a deadline quickly approaching.The poll results come as the U.S. Treasury Department says the country will reach its debt limit by mid-October. The Bipartisan Policy Center estimates the limit will be reached by Oct. 18, and the U.S. could default by Nov. 5.“People’s first instinct is how fed up they are with Washington and spending,” said Republican pollster Bill McInturff, who conducted the poll with Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart. “This is a very difficult issue in terms of public opinion.”
The NBC report also notes that the last time we had a showdown over the debt ceiling, the debate started with similar numbers — 39/28 against raising the debt limit. After a month had passed, that flipped to 31/38, after a few weeks of being a front-burner issue. This still leaves Democrats with a big problem, though, because they planned to use Republican opposition to a debt-ceiling increase as an argument for GOP irresponsibility. Harry Reid has already taken a break from his “OMG Assad is HITLER!” screechifying to call Republicans “anarchists” for that opposition, but that’s a big word to toss around when only 22% of the voters are in your corner. Republicans won’t refuse to raise the debt ceiling — they’d need a balanced budget for that, and we’re years away from one in anyone’s best plan — but the public sentiment gives them a lot more leverage to gain painful concessions from Obama before approving it.
That’s hardly Obama’s only problem, either. Remember the latest pivot to the economy yesterday? Chuck Todd says Obama’s not making the sale:
and expect a real Union rebellion on Healthcare.........
http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/13/white-house-no-subsidies-for-union-health-plans/
White House: No Subsidies for Union Health Plans
(WASHINGTON) — Low-income workers on union health plans are not eligible for the same federal subsidies available to those who buy insurance in the new state health care marketplaces, the White House said Friday.
The decision is a disappointment for labor unions, coming shortly after top union officials met for more than an hour with President Barack Obama to press their case that subsidies could be extended to union-sponsored plans.
Labor leaders have complained for months that without the subsidies, the Affordable Care Act would drive up the cost of some union plans, leading employers to drop coverage and jeopardizing health coverage for millions of union members.
The White House cited a Treasury Department letter saying there is no legal way for union members in multiemployer group health plans to receive subsidies. In a statement, the White House said it would work with unions and encourage them to offer their multiemployer plans “through the marketplace, on an equal footing, to create new, high-quality, affordable options for all Americans.”
That alternative is not ideal for unions. They would have to turn their private plans into public, competitive plans that are open to all workers, not just union members. And they would have to meet a host of complex new requirements under federal and state laws. It would take months to work out the details, and the plans would have to be approved by federal and state regulators before being deemed qualified health plans that could offer health insurance to the public.
The AFL-CIO declined to comment on the White House decision.
Earlier Friday, shortly after meeting with Obama, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told reporters outside the White House that he hoped the administration would act soon to address labor’s concerns over the new health care law. He called the meeting a “problem-solving session.”
“We’ll try to get it done in the next week,” Trumka said. “It may take a little longer to enact everything.”
Unions were among the most ardent supporters of the health law when it passed in 2010. Union officials say they still support the law’s goal of reducing health costs and providing coverage to millions of uninsured Americans. But some union leaders have complained for months that it is not being implemented fairly. Those concerns spilled out this week at the AFL-CIO convention in Los Angeles as the labor federation passed a resolution calling the impact of the law “highly disruptive” to union health care plans.
Unions claim the new law will increase costs for health plans that are jointly administered by unions and smaller employers in the construction, retail and transportation industries. That could encourage employers to hire fewer union workers or abandon the health plans altogether and force union members to seek lower-quality coverage on the new health exchanges.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/13/Union-Boss-We-ll-Be-Damned-If-We-re-Going-To-Lose-Our-Health-Insurance
UNION BOSS RIPS
OBAMACARE: 'WE'LL BE
DAMNED IF WE'RE GOING
TO LOSE OUR HEALTH
INSURANCE!'
A leading labor union boss delivered an impassioned rebuke of Obamacare at the AFL-CIO convention Thursday, telling attendees, "we'll be damned if we're going to lose our health insurance because of unintended consequences in the law!"
Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) President Terry O'Sullivan said, "if the Affordable Care Act is not fixed, and it destroys the health and welfare funds that we have all fought for and stand for, then I believe it needs to be repealed. We don't want it repealed. We want it fixed, fixed, fixed."
O'Sullivan added: "We can't have the unintended consequences for the proud men and women that we represent to be collateral damage in the healthcare fight in this country."
Big Labor strongly backed Obamacare before its passage. Now unions say the law threatens to destroy union workers' health insurance plans if changes are not made soon.
Last week, the AFL-CIO passed a strongly-worded resolution blasting Obamacare despite the Obama Administration's attempts to quell union opposition to aspects of the government healthcare overhaul.
O'Sullivan, borrowing from Vice President Joe Biden's vulgar words whispered to President Barack Obama upon signing the bill, told the audience, "It's going to be a big frickin' deal if our members lose our health insurance!"
Republicans say union members should not be granted special breaks for the Obamacare law they fought to see pass. Sen. John Thune (R-SD) introduced a bill Monday called the Union Bailout Prevention Act to stop the White House from granting unions Obamacare waivers or special taxpayer-funded premium tax subsidies.
“Despite championing ObamaCare’s passage in 2010, union leaders are now awaking to the ugly reality of ObamaCare that most Americans have predicted all along, including higher health care costs,” said Thune. “Now that the full consequences of the Democrats’ law are nearing, these same union leaders are seeking a special backroom deal from the White House."
Obamacare's government healthcare exchanges open in 17 days.
and....
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/12/White-House-Scrambles-To-Silence-AFL-CIO-Obamacare-Criticism
( rebellion from labor over healthcare - White house pleas ignored ! Lame duck.... )
White House officials, including top Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, were on hand at this week's AFL-CIO convention to pressure union leaders not to voice their growing angst with Obamacare in the form of a strongly worded resolution blasting the president's government healthcare overhaul.
The AFL-CIO approved the resolution despite the Obama Administration's urgings.
"The nation's largest labor federation is going on the record for the very first time that Obamacare will be bad medicine for its union members," reported MSNBC's Brian Schactman. "The resolution says costs will skyrocket for insurance plans that are jointly run by unions and smaller companies, leaving workers no choice but to drop coverage."
Union leaders say they received White House calls to stop the anti-Obamacare resolution.
"My understanding is that they [Obama Administration] would have preferred that no resolution be brought to the floor," International Association of Fire Fighters President Harold Schaitberger said. "I know there have been phone calls to several leaders, particularly those directly involved in development of the resolution."
Schaitberger added: "If it's good enough for Congress to point out shortcomings, it certainly ought to be good enough for the labor movement to do it without some fear of retribution."
- See more at: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/12/White-House-Scrambles-To-Silence-AFL-CIO-Obamacare-Criticism#sthash.LsqWo0EX.dpufhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/13/us-usa-congress-debt-ceiling-analysis-idUSBRE98C04620130913
(Reuters) - Another down-to-the-wire fight, potentially more toxic than usual, is rapidly shaping up in the U.S. Congress as conservatives prepare to exploit looming fiscal deadlines to derail President Barack Obama's signature healthcare reform law.
Like previous congressional spending battles, this one involves two measures that were once relatively routine: a bill to continue funding the government to avert a shutdown, and another to increase the government's borrowing power so it can pay its debts and avoid default.
But the conflict is particularly volatile this time as, unlike the budget cuts demanded by Republicans in earlier fiscal showdowns, their demands for concessions on Obamacare on the eve of its October 1 insurance exchanges launch are non-negotiable for Democrats.
And this time, it's not just Republicans versus Democrats, but Republican against Republican. Party elders, lacking the power to make rebellious conservatives back off, have been reduced to pleading with them to do so. The conservatives, braced by the passion of Tea Party activists as the 2014 election approaches, are not inclined to cooperate.
The deadline for funding the government is September 30, when a so-called "continuing resolution" enacted last March expires. By mid-October or early November, the U.S. Treasury likely will run out of borrowing authority. Without an increase of the $16.7 trillion cap that is written into law, the federal government faces an historic default on its debt that would create havoc in global financial markets.
There is increasing talk among Republicans about a whopper bill that would fund the government from October 1 through September 30, 2014, raise the debt ceiling by giving the Treasury Department enough borrowing authority to last for a year, and impose a one-year delay of Obamacare.
"Let's give them something and we get something in exchange," Tea Party Republican Representative John Fleming of Louisiana told reporters.
It's not so simple, said Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona, who spent 12 years as a House member and made his reputation as a fiscal conservative. Flake questioned his former colleague's wisdom in pushing their fight against Obamacare.
"The notion that you're going to get this (Democratic) Senate and this president to pass a repeal right now is I don't think practical," Flake said. He added, "I quit trying to understand that place (the House) as soon as I left."
FISCAL BRINKMANSHIP
Opponents to Obamacare, which will provide insurance to millions of Americans, say the law will damage healthcare as well as the nation's economy. After three years of trying and failing to repeal the law, some conservatives in the House of Representatives are willing to go for broke - literally - in their drive to prevail.
Apart from the futility of linking Obamacare to the fiscal issues, the concern of senior Republicans is that their party will take a huge public relations hit if they are blamed for the fiscal strife, as it did in the mid 1990s after successive government shutdowns precipitated by Republican budget demands.
In a CNN/ORC survey taken between September 6-8, 51 percent said Republicans would be more responsible for a shutdown, and 33 percent said Obama would take the blame.
There are risks for Democrats and Obama too. While polling results showed the public more upset with Republicans then Obama after the "fiscal cliff" fight that led to across-the-board budget cuts, Obama's Gallup approval rating started on a downward trend then from which it has yet to recover, with other polls suggesting that Americans hold all parties in Washington as well as the president responsible for "gridlock."
With the deadlines fast-approaching, the maneuvering is well underway.
The White House announced that Obama would speak to the Business Roundtable group of big-company chief executives next week. White House spokesman Jay Carney did not offer any details about what Obama will say, but he has used business groups in the past to pressure Congress to avoid fiscal brinkmanship.
"We will never accept anything that delays or defunds" Obamacare, Carney stressed again on Thursday.
In the U.S. Capitol, the top four Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate and House met in the office of House of Representative Speaker John Boehner on Thursday to try to plot out a happy ending to their government spending and debt limit challenges.
Afterward, Boehner told reporters "there are a million options that are being discussed by a lot of people."
But while Republicans control the House, Boehner does not control Republicans.
HIGH-STAKES MANEUVER
The intra-party fight on such a high-stakes maneuver as coupling Obamacare changes to the debt limit hike is seen as pushing negotiations on the legislation right up to the October or November deadline.
In the meantime, Democrats, who control the White House and the Senate, are content to demand a no-strings-attached debt limit increase and watch Republicans tear themselves apart over this legislation, as well as the more pressing bill to keep the government running beyond September 30.
"The strategy is to watch the meltdown. This is an internal Republican dilemma, and Mr. Boehner has the hardest job in the Capitol," Democratic Representative Peter Welch, of Vermont, told Reuters.
And so, as Congress revs up for yet another gut-wrenching fiscal fight, partisan participants and non-partisan observers alike see more evidence of a dysfunctional legislature that already is the laughing stock of the country.
"The anarchists have taken over," declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, referring to the fiscal fights. "We're in a position here where people who don't believe in government - and that's what the Tea Party is all about - are winning," said Reid.
Chris Krueger, of the Guggenheim Partners financial services firm, observed on Thursday: "The House Republican caucus is borderline ungovernable."
and when the Uniparty doesn't get what it wants ( more war , more for the banks , more taxpayer funding reckless spending ) .... predictable reaction......
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-12/harry-reid-proclaims-anarchists-have-taken-over
Harry Reid Proclaims: "The Anarchists Have Taken Over"
Submitted by Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
We’re diverted totally from what this bill is about. Why? Because the anarchists have taken over. They’ve taken over the House and now they’ve taken over the Senate.People who don’t believe in government — and that’s what the Tea Party is all about — are winning, and that’s a shame.- Harry Reid on the Senate Floor earlier today
The best thing about inept, crony, powerful politicians is that when they realize they are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the public they simply don’t know what to do. Ultimately, this leads to moments of public displays of dementia, such as the one exhibited by Harry Reid on the Senate Floor earlier today. I find it quite interesting that he refers to Congressional Representatives elected by the public as “anarchists” in such a demeaning manner. I suppose it’s only when things go his way that he believes in democracy.
In any event, his display is a total embarrassment and his pathetic ramblings are merely more evidence of “the people’s” recent grassroots political victories. I suppose it’s also anarchic to want to not start World War III, right Harry? Enjoy!
Perhaps the following from the Ludwig von Mises Institute will help claify a few things for Mr. Reid,
Few political ideologies are as misunderstood as anarchism. Confusion is so widespread, in fact, that those ignorant of this intellectual tradition often use the word “anarchism” as a synonym for “chaos.” Some of the confusion may arise from the fact that anarchism is today often solely associated with the anti-private-property anarchists of the nineteenth century, such as the followers of Mikhail Bakunin.
Indeed, this variety of anarchism was so dominant through the first half of the twentieth century that Ludwig von Mises, writing inLiberalism, mockingly asked “[c]an it, then, be assumed, without falling completely into absurdity, that, in spite of all this, every individual in an anarchist society will have greater foresight and will power than a gluttonous dyspeptic?”
Writing in 1927, Mises’s experience with anarchists was with those who sought to tear down every form of human institution, from the market to the family to religious groups. Not surprisingly, Mises was somewhat skeptical that a society scraped bare of all tried and true human institutions would enter a phase of utopia.
In the libertarian tradition, however, the anarchist society is merely the society in which individuals are not governed by a state built on monopolized violence and coercion, but instead govern themselves through organizations into which they have entered voluntarily. Among such institutions can certainly be found churches, schools, families, professional associations, markets, and tribes.
Anarchists and others may debate the value of such institutions, but the libertarian anarchist does not by force oppose a person’s membership in any such institution or organization. What is opposed by the anarchist libertarian is the type of civil government known as “the state” which exercises a monopoly on the means of coercion. It is this monopoly, perhaps more than anything else, which characterizes the state, its lack of voluntary association, and its claim of a right to employ unchallenged force over all individuals who just happen to live within a certain geographical area.
Indeed, anarchists do not even necessarily oppose the use of coercion, for certainly a criminal who has stolen from someone else could rightly be forced to pay restitution.
At this point, the student of anarchism will begin to ask himself: “Fair enough, the state is bad, but what would a legal system look like under an anarchic system? How would property owners and employees interact? What would be the role of parents and families?”
Fortunately for us, these are not questions we have suddenly come up with ourselves, but have long been asked by libertarian theorists. And as we begin to look more deeply into the anarchist tradition, we find that it is not new, nor is it undeveloped in its thought.
While we can look back to Étienne de La Boétie to find some early writings on the subject, the nineteenth century produced numerous serious anarchist thinkers from Molinari to Proudhon in Europe and Spooner and Tucker in the United States. These nineteenth-century theorists would eventually be popularized and employed by Murray Rothbard in what has come to be known as anarcho-capitalism, the anarchist tradition of private property and free association.
To offer a truly detailed exploration of the answers offered to these questions, David Gordon will next week offer a new coursethrough Mises Academy on the history of anarchist thought, and will examine for six weeks the intellectual tradition of anarchism, and the tradition’s importance to the political debate today.
Indeed, anarchism’s importance in the political realm is perhaps greater than ever, and its continued relevance again came to the fore in May when Kelefa Sanneh, writing in The New Yorker, discussed the influence of anti-capitalist anarchist David Graeber who has become prominent in the Occupy Wall Street Movement. In his article, however, Sanneh, could not ignore Murray Rothbard, whom Sanneh describes as “one anarchist who could be considered influential in Washington” and as “Ron Paul’s intellectual mentor, which makes him the godfather of the godfather of the Tea Party.”
One can certainly debate Rothbard’s anarchist influence among Tea Partiers themselves, but the importance of Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalist thought within the larger libertarian movement is noteworthy.
And yet this divide between the pro-private-property anarchists like Rothbard, and the anti-property-anarchists of David Graeber’s school continues to cause confusion about what anarchism is.
Writing in the upcoming September issue of The Free Market, David Gordon notes:
Graeber does not agree that if we got rid of the state, people would live under free enterprise capitalism. He follows Karl Polanyi’s contention in his book The Great Transformation (1944) that the free market depends on a rigid framework of laws and institutions to force people into the behavior that the capitalist system requires. In particular, Graeber thinks that capitalism is based on debt peonage and slavery and views debt cancellation favorably.
If some anarchists believe that the free market cannot exist without the state, and others believe that the state is the great enemy of free markets, then what is anarchism?
If all anarchists truly are united by opposition to a coercive state, then perhaps the question is irrelevant. For as libertarian anarchists know, a stateless society is likely to naturally produce widespread, complex, and successful markets. The anti-capitalist anarchists will simply be proven wrong, although they might perhaps be thanked for their service in opposing the state.
No comments:
Post a Comment