Tear Down This Wall (cartoon)

The Great Unknown: ObamaCare cost unclear amid changes to the law

President Obama’s health care law has been delayed and changed so many times that the official budget scorekeepers can no longer keep track of what the law costs.
The changes, and the overall uncertainty regarding the price tag, are raising concerns about whether the law even has enough revenue coming in to pay for the program.
“Right now the savings that was projected to pay for all this spending is not being collected as originally projected," said Charles Blahous, of the Mercatus Center. He estimated the law will eventually cost $200 billion a year by 2020.
The unilateral changes to the law – and specifically delays of the requirement that certain employers provide health coverage to workers – are the subject of a recently announced lawsuit by House Speaker John Boehner.
But apart from that, the changes have caused problems for the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which typically keeps track of what laws cost. Joe Antos, of the American Enterprise Institute, noted the office has said they won’t do “new estimates” of the law anymore.
"Their ability to say this was a benefit to the federal budget is going to become more and more dubious as the years pass,” said Jim Capretta, of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
In the case of the employer mandate, the provision was delayed from 2014 until 2016 for employers with fewer than 100 workers. For larger companies, it was delayed by one year, and they were allowed to only have to cover 70 percent of their workers.
Further, individuals were given until April 15 to enroll in a health plan through the ObamaCare exchanges, and many will likely be able to skirt the law’s prescribed fine for going three months without insurance. 
Antos said he thinks it would be "politically impossible for the IRS to come after those same people -- millions of people -- and say you owe us money because you didn't sign up in time to have insurance.”
The cost of just those two changes will likely cut into revenue.
"There was about $100 billion that was supposed to come in over the next 10 years from penalties on individuals, if they did not carry health insurance, penalties on employers, if they do not offer health insurance, and to date, those penalties have not been enforced,” Blahous said.
The law also counted on more than $700 billion in cuts to Medicare, including up to $150 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, but the president set those aside at the behest of Senate Democrats who feared angering seniors in an election year.
Capretta said it is "very dubious that some of these Medicare cuts can be sustained over a long period of time."
He also noted that even more Medicare cuts are planned but wonders if the impact will cause some of them to be pulled back as well.
"In fact, the actuaries who look at the numbers for the Medicare program have said that this cut is so deep that about 15 percent of the hospitals will drop out of the Medicare program by the end of the decade," he said.
With 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day for the next 20 years or so, that might be politically impossible to sustain.
And a 40 percent tax on expensive health plans, like those unions enjoy, is set to take effect in 2018, and would raise another $80 billion or so -- if it survives. It is vehemently opposed by unions, and employers are steadily adjusting their health plans to avoid the tax, suggesting the $80 billion may never materialize.
Bob Rusbuldt, president of the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, said, "No company is going to pay a 40 percent excise tax on that excess premium. They are just not going to do it."
So the question becomes, what happens when projected cuts to pay for the law don’t materialize?
"If one tax is eliminated … what takes its place?” Rusbuldt asked. “You either have to reduce benefits and services and administrative costs, or you have to put in a different tax."

The case for Obama’s impeachment: The Constitution’s remedy for a lawless, imperial president

( Bailey) Do you believe that if he was a republican president he would have been impeached a long time ago. But my question is how do you go about impeaching a King?

The next time you hear politicians denounce Barack Obama as a lawless, imperial president with a scandal-riddled administration, ask them what they’re going to do about it. Their gnashing of teeth over Obama’s self-granted omnipotence is repetitive.
Let’s agree with our ninth president, William Henry Harrison, who said there is nothing more corrupting, nothing more destructive than the exercise of unlimited power. We understand the problem. The only way for politicians to fix it is with a little less talk and a lot more action.
The Constitution provides the remedy for a president who commits “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It’s impeachment.

The only thing necessary to transform America into something unrecognizable is for good men to do nothing!

To be clear, “high crimes and misdemeanors” are not necessarily ordinary criminal offenses. Our Framers used the term to signify a dereliction of duty, and the first duty of the president is to enforce our laws and preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton described impeachable offenses as those “which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” He explained that they are “political” offenses “as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
No serious person who is paying attention can deny that Obama and his administration have abused and violated the public trust and disregarded the Constitution. Let me count the ways.
Without notifying Congress as required by law, he set free terrorist prisoners at a time of war when they can return to the battlefield to kill our troops.
In violation of our Constitution, he regularly ignores court orders, changes laws by executive fiat, and refuses to enforce laws he doesn’t like, including our immigration laws.
When Congress declined to pass amnesty for illegal immigrants’ offspring, he unilaterally enacted his own version of it, which created the current crisis on our border as illegal youth pour into our country to receive what he illegally promised them.
He committed fraud on the American people when he promised that if we liked our health care plan we could keep it.
He got us into a war in Libya without Congressional approval. When our ambassador begged for security at the consulate in Benghazi, he was ignored and then murdered when the consulate was attacked as predicted. Americans were left behind to die, as the president did nothing to rescue our people there. Afterwards, he helped spread the lie that a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video was to blame for this highly organized, premeditated terrorist attack.
Obama’s IRS targeted his political opponents for harassment. Then the agency lied to and stonewalled Congress and likely destroyed subpoenaed evidence, while Obama falsely declared there’s no corruption there, not even a smidgen.
From the VA scandal to his unconstitutional recess appointments, to his DOJ wiretapping reporters and giving guns to Mexican drug cartels, to violating religious freedom exercised by businesses and ignoring in-house illegal fundraising, the list of abuse goes on and on.
Barack Obama’s administration is proving itself a festering boil of scandal. The Constitution is rock solid in holding the president responsible for the executive branch. He can’t just vote “present” while shrugging and feigning ignorance about all these abuses of the public trust, any more than a mob boss can claim innocence because he didn’t personally do the hit. The buck stops with the guy at the top.
Impeachment is the ultimate check on an out-of-control executive branch. It is serious, not to be used for petty partisan purposes; and it is imperative that it becomes a matter of legitimate discussion before the American people lose all trust in our federal government.
Impeachment requires moral courage to advance what is right, and it requires political will. A complacent or disheartened electorate may silently endure these abuses from the administration, the permanent political class is only too happy to maintain the status quo, and the mainstream media is not a fair watchdog. So, the nation’s last line of defense is for We the People to rise up and say, “enough is enough.”
Obama’s lawless encouragement of illegal immigration should be the tipping point for that political will because it impacts all Americans – native-born and legal immigrants of all backgrounds who followed the rules and now watch rewards go to rule breakers while they’re forced to compete for limited jobs and resources. It’s the tipping point because the forgotten working class is hurt most by this lawlessness; and these good Americans deserve the strongest, most effective tool to defend the livelihoods they’ve so honorably built!
Some are arguing for cautious inaction and dismiss even a discussion of impeachment. With Obama’s poll numbers in the tank and his liberal policies exposed as failures, why rock the boat? But that argument misses the point.
The president is radically changing the way the executive branch does business. He is setting a dangerous precedent that will fundamentally change us. With his “pen and phone,” he’s abrogating Congressional authority in violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers. He’s making himself a ruler, not a president. We had a revolution back in 1776 because we don’t like kings.
Some argue we should wait for midterm elections and hope a big victory by Republicans in both Houses of Congress will rein in Obama.
Been there, done that in 2010. If Congress refuses to use the power the Constitution gives it, Barack Obama will continue to rule however he wants.
Some argue that at best the House might vote for articles of impeachment, but the Senate is unlikely to convict. But that is no argument against holding a president accountable and sending the people’s message to all successors.
Obama can keep laughing and say, “so sue me” to the House’s tepid lawsuit threat. Let’s hear him laugh off impeachment. At the very least, despite his mocking the Constitution, this Constitutional process will put him on notice.
The only thing necessary to transform America into something unrecognizable is for good men to do nothing! If not these violations and the president’s promise to continue to “go it alone” in ignoring the separation of powers and rule of law, what will it take for you to take a stand? How bad does it have to get?
We live in an America where the NSA spies on our communications, the IRS targets us because of our political beliefs, the border is overrun by foreign nationals, terrorist leaders are released to the battlefield, our health care is taken from us and we’re forced to buy a plan we don’t want and can’t afford, Catholic nuns are targeted by the government simply because they adhere to their Catholic faith, the Justice Department arms Mexican drug lords, and the president keeps a “kill list” of people he’s authorized to be executed on sight.
If you’re comfortable with all that, then by all means sit back and hope for the best. Those concerned about America want change. That comes with healing the injuries done to society by an unchecked president; that starts with impeachment.  
Sarah Palin first made history on December 4, 2006, when she was sworn in as the first female and youngest governor of Alaska. In August 2008, Senator John McCain tapped Palin to serve as his vice-presidential running mate in his presidential campaign, making her the first woman to run on the Republican Party's presidential ticket. She is a contributor for Fox News where she offers her political commentary and analysis across all Fox News platforms.

Obama Cartoon

Texas Gov. Perry: Illegal immigrant surge a 'humanitarian crisis' Obama can stop

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Wednesday on “Hannity” that President Obama needs to act now to stop the surge in illegal immigrants flooding across his state’s border, calling it “a humanitarian crisis that he has the ability to stop.”
The Republican governor spoke out after meeting with Obama in Texas Wednesday afternoon. Both sides called the meeting “constructive” and said they agreed philosophically. However, Perry said he is concerned that Obama did not indicate he will take the immediate action he requested: to use his power as commander-in-chief to send the National Guard to secure the border.
“You know, I was like, Mr. President, you can deal with this. You can unilaterally direct the Department of Defense to put those troops on the border…” he said, later adding, “The president needs to understand that the single most important thing that he can do is put the National Guard on the border to coordinate with local law enforcement, with state law enforcement, with the border patrol…”
Obama said Wednesday that he is open to the National Guard suggestion, but that he believed it would only be a temporary fix. 
Perry also criticized the fact that Obama is not visiting the border on his trip to Texas so he can witness the crisis first-hand. Obama said in a press conference Wednesday that doing so would be engaging in political “theater” and not productive.
“I said Mr. President, I really want you to come and see this,” Perry said. “I said this is important for you to absorb as a father, but more importantly as the president of the United States to see the humanitarian crisis.”
Perry said Obama’s refusal to do so is no different than the criticism President George W. Bush received when he chose to fly over New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina instead of visiting the city on the ground. He said Obama sending Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson is not enough.
"I'm pretty sure that if George Bush had said 'well I sent my FEMA director multiple times' he still would have been criticized greatly," Perry said. "Because you need to go. That's what governors do, that's what presidents do. When there are natural disasters, when there are crises like these, a president needs to be there to show the American people number one that he understands."
In the press conference, Obama called on Congress to approve the more than $3 billion in emergency funds he requested to help with the crisis, but Perry claimed less than $100 million of those funds would be going toward border security.
“It’s the same president that said Al-Qaeda’s on the run and I don’t know whether he’s inept, or there’s something else going on, as I’ve said before,” he said. “But the fact is, the border is not secure.”
Perry said that if the National Guard was made available to help secure the border, it would send a powerful message to Central America.
“That’s the most humane thing we can do,” he said.

EPA claims it has the power to garnish wages without court approval

Government out of Control

The Environmental Protection Agency has quietly claimed that it has the authority to unilaterally garnish the wages of individuals who have been accused of violating its rules. 
According to The Washington Times, the agency announced the plan to enhance its purview last week in a notice in the Federal Register. The notice claimed that federal law allows the EPA to "garnish non-Federal wages to collect delinquent non-tax debts owed the United States without first obtaining a court order." 
The notice went on to say that the EPA had fast-tracked the new rule, enabling it to take effect September 2 unless the agency receives enough adverse public comments by August 1. The EPA said the rule was not subject to review because it was not a "significant regulatory action."
The EPA has claimed this new authority by citing the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, which gives all federal agencies the power to conduct administrative wage garnishment, provided that the agency allows for hearings at which debtors to challenge the amount or the terms of repayment schedule. 
The plan has drawn protests from conservatives, including Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., who told The Washington Times, "The EPA has a history of overreaching its authority. It seems like once again the EPA is trying to take power it doesn’t have away from American citizens.”
The conservative Heritage Foundation claimed that the rule gives the EPA "unbridled discretion" over the process of challenging fines.  David Addington, group vice president for research at Heritage, told the Times that the rule not only puts the burden of proof on the debtor, rather than the agency, but also allows the EPA to decide whether a debtor even gets a chance to present a defense before picking whomever it chooses to serve as a hearing officer.
The amount of money the EPA has collected in fines has increased steadily since President Barack Obama took office. In 2012, the agency took in $252 million in fines, up from just $96 million in 2009.

Concerns raised over strains on US military bases housing more than 2,700 unaccompanied minors

More than 2,700 unaccompanied minors who came across the southern U.S. border illegally are now being housed and cared for at military bases in California, Texas and Oklahoma, raising concerns about overburdening the facilities.
On Tuesday, the Pentagon – which provided the 2,700 figure -- confirmed it was in discussions with the Department of Health and Human Services to take on additional unaccompanied minors. But neither agency would reveal how many children were being discussed or what military facilities could be impacted.
"We're proud to be able to support them in this regard, but it is a temporary mission," Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby said.
Kirby said the Pentagon has reached a mutual agreement with HHS to care for the children for 120 days, but there already is some dispute about that timeframe. 
Rep. Jim Bridenstine, R-Okla., said, "There are rumors ... that they've already had requests from HHS to have, you know, a new 120-day period beyond the first 120-day period."
Bridenstine, a Navy pilot, said he's growing more concerned that the situation is actually beginning to impact the military's first priority: readiness.
"We have barracks that troops need to use to train, and it certainly doesn't help when our military bases are being used as refugee camps," he said.
Bridenstine added that he was turned away when he tried to get a firsthand look at the situation at Fort Sill in Oklahoma and was told to make an appointment for three weeks later, despite his objections.
He has criticized plans to hold a "media tour" for journalists on Thursday.  Restrictions include bans on recording devices, asking questions and talking with staff. 
"When the government tells you, 'You can tell a story, but you have to tell the story that the officials in the United States government will tell you that you can tell,' that is not within the keeping of the Constitution," he said.
The administration has said there are critical reasons for the restrictions.
According to the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: "In order to protect the safety and privacy of the children, it has long been HHS's standard policy to not allow recording devices in Office of Refugee Resettlement shelters for minors. Children in these shelters are especially vulnerable.  ...  They may have been trafficked or smuggled."
In addition to the burden on military facilities, Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., a physician, has raised health concerns. 
In a letter to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Gingrey cited concerns about swine flu, Ebola virus and tuberculosis and asked the agency to "take immediate action to assess the public risk posed by the influx of unaccompanied children..."

Cartoon