Stay wired and still feel great

We like to think our high-tech tools are helping us get more done faster, thanks to our 24/7 access to information and other people.

Are Postal Workers About to go Postal on Imminent USPS Benefits Default?

Are Postal Workers About to go Postal on Imminent USPS Benefits Default?
So far the beyond insolvent US Postal Service has been able to avoid outright bankruptcy simply because no major cash outflows were required by the organization. That is about to change in just under two weeks when the USPS is due to make a $5.5 billion payment for retirement accounts. The problem: the USPS does not have the money and needs a bailout. The bigger problem: the USPS needs Congressional action to authorize this latest and so far greatest USPS bailout, however with Congressional recess imminent this won't happen. So are several hundred thousand postal workers about to go postal once they realize that (earmuffs time for all those who love chanting ideological slogans, but have yet to graduate to the abacus) math matters, and every "welfare-funding" entity in the US is ten times broke over? And maybe most importantly: just how will the postal labor union vote in the upcoming election if indeed they suddenly are denied what they had been lied to for years is rightfully theirs? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/are-postal-workers-about-go-postal-imminent-usps-benefits-default

Future Arrives to Diversify Small-Town USA

Future Arrives to Diversify Small-Town USA
America's extremist government works non-stop to make the U.S. a "world nation" everywhere, even in small towns. http://www.amren.com/news/2012/07/future-arrives-to-diversify-small-town-usa/

NPR: Let’s Subsidize Really Bad Choices

NPR: Let’s Subsidize Really Bad Choices
NPR’s All Things Considered featured a woman who is, apparently, both selfish and stupid, imploring listeners to support her in her conscious choice to have three kids out of wedlock with three different men, two of whom are incarcerated felons. The woman, Jennifer Stepp, is an unattractive, overweight white female who calls herself a "victim of youthful optimism." Oh give me a break. She may not be too smart, but she knew what she was doing when she took her pants off for the only local guys who were willing to overlook her obesity. She says she kept thinking "the relationships would last," but I’d be willing to bet this woman never had an exclusive relationship with any one of the guys she slept with. In other words, she chose to deliberately get pregnant by the most expedient method possible: sleeping with ghetto criminals looking for a quick, easy lay. Maybe she said she was on the pill, too, but we’ll never hear the other side of the story. A lot of people still somehow believe these women are "victims," and think they simply were too dumb to make "the right choice." Bollocks. Just because she’s a white woman doesn’t mean she didn’t see how the game works. You have kids, you qualify for WIC, TANF, Section 8 housing, etc. She was acting in her own interest. She deliberately created a family (sort of), headed solely by her, and is getting "help" from the government in doing so. Essentially, she’s getting paid to have illegitimate children. http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/07/17/npr-lets-subsidize-really-bad-choices/

High Court Ruling Will Provoke States to Nullify ObamaCare

High Court Ruling Will Provoke States to Nullify ObamaCare

Written by  Raven Clabough

Despite Thursday’s controversial Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare, states retain the right and authority to nullify the healthcare law, and the state of Missouri, among many others, is undertaking efforts to do just that. According to Missouri legislators, regardless of the High Court's ruling, Missouri voters will maintain the opportunity to vote for or against the so-called Affordable Healthcare Act in November. And Missouri is not the only state seeking to circumvent ObamaCare.



November’s vote will be the second time in two years that Missourians have voted regarding Obama's signature legislation. CBS News explains:

In August 2010, Missouri became the first state to officially snub the new federal law through a referendum when 71 percent of voters approved a proposition barring the government from requiring people to have health insurance. The Missouri law set up a direct conflict with a federal provision requiring most people to have health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

November’s vote would focus on the healthcare law provision that requires states to create a health insurance exchange by 2014. The ballot measure would prohibit Missouri’s governor or any other official from taking steps to establish the exchange without the expressed consent of the people through vote or through a state law.
In a similar expression of opposition, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has already declared that he will not establish a healthcare exchange in his state.
"We're not going to start implementing Obamacare," Jindal said during a conference call with Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. "We're committed to working to elect Governor Romney to repeal Obamacare."
Yahoo News reports, “Several Republican governors, including both Jindal and McDonnell, have put off setting up the exchanges in the hope that the law will be repealed or struck down by the Court.” Now that the court has issued a ruling in favor of the healthcare law, however, Jindal continues to contend that he will not be complying with the law.
"Here in Louisiana we have not applied for the grants, we have not accepted many of these dollars, we're not implementing the exchanges," Jindal said. "We don't think it makes any sense to implement Obamacare in Louisiana. We're going to do what we can to fight it."
McDonnell was not quite as adamant on the conference call, asserting that his administration will have to determine the approach that would be best for Virginians. He did add, however, “But I agree absolutely that the priority right now is to elect a new president and a new Senate so this law can be repealed."
Options remain for Republican lawmakers following the Supreme Court ruling. In his opinion for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.

Since Chief Justice John Roberts called the individual mandate that is so integral to the healthcare law a “tax,” Republicans are now afforded the option of using a procedure known as “budget reconciliation” to formulate a repeal bill that requires just a simple majority to pass.
States may also fall in line with Louisiana and Missouri and nullify ObamaCare. In the 1798 Kentucky Resolutions, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers … a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”
The Tenth Amendment Center indicates that the states have a number of methods by which they may nullify a law, including through state law, a statement amendment, or a voters' referendum.
The Nullification Project notes:
After today’s Supreme Court ruling on "Obamacare," it remains clear that the people cannot rely on the high court to uphold the principles enshrined in the Constitution. In such cases, the Founders, particularly Thomas Jefferson, have provided We the People and the States, a final check on the power of the three branches of the federal government: Nullification.”
A growing number of Americans have become aware of this option and are coordinating efforts to encourage their state officials to nullify ObamaCare. The Nullification Project is in fact intended to raise funds to deliver a copy of the book Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, written by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.,  to each of the 50 governors. Project officials say, “It is our hope that the book will inspire them to continue the fight against government overreach — from every branch.”
Likewise, Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) is encouraging states to nullify the healthcare law by refusing to implement it. He stated in a press release,

This government takeover of health care remains as destructive, unsustainable, and unconstitutional as it was the day it was passed, unread, by a since-fired congressional majority. Now as then, our first step toward real health care reform and economic renewal remains Obamacare’s full repeal, down to the last letter and punctuation mark.

I urge every governor to stop implementing the health care exchanges that would help implement the harmful effects of this misguided law. Americans have loudly rejected this federal takeover of health care, and governors should join with the people and reject its implementation.

State nullification proved successful in defeating the Real ID legislation passed under George W. Bush. Led by Maine in 2007, half the states in the country passed resolutions and laws refusing to implement Real IDs, citing funding and privacy concerns.
And states should not fear the consequences of nullification. As per Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling, Congress is not permitted to penalize states that refuse to implement ObamaCare. In the majority decision, Chief Justice Roberts stated, “What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding."
However, he added, “Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the [law] to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use.”
Meanwhile, Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey contends that states that utilize nullification to reject ObamaCare are simply responding to a rebellious federal government that refuses to act within its constitutional limits:

Who is really behaving lawlessly here? A federal government that refuses to operate within its delegated powers, and rips authority away from the states and the people? Or the states, working through legitimate democratic processes, saying, "No! We don’t accept this"? I would argue it’s the federal government that’s in rebellion, and it’s time for the states to put a check on illegitimate federal power.

Lawmakers Compromise Over Transportation, Student Loans Bill

Lawmakers Compromise Over Transportation, Student Loans Bill

Written by  Brian Koenig

Battling over a transportation bill that now also addresses student-loan interest rates, congressional lawmakers are scrambling to appease their constituents in a legislative boondoggle littered with election-year politics. Aimed for final passage this week, the legislation would — among a slew of other provisions — extend federal highway funding, prevent new student-loan interest rates from doubling, and renew and revise federal flood insurance.



If Congress does not reach a decision by Saturday, the federal government’s ability to administer road, mass transit, and other transportation-related programs will be vanquished, along with its authority to impose the gasoline taxes that subsidize most of those programs.
Congressional leaders in both the House and Senate reached a deal Wednesday on the transportation and student loan provisions of the legislation, deciding that combining them into one bill will help expedite the legislative process. In terms of the highway portion of the bill, Republicans folded on a provision that would force federal approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, and another that would prohibit the government from imposing regulations on toxic ash emitted by coal-fired power plants.
Meanwhile, Democrats offered a compromise that would grant states the authority to opt out of spending funds on nonroad-related projects, such as bike and pedestrian paths. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Wednesday morning that “it is clear that there are significant reforms in this bill, which will reduce the number of programs funded out of the highway bill, streamline the regulatory process and allow us to focus our highway dollars on fixing America’s highways, not planting more flowers around the country.”
Naturally, the sensitive subject of government-subsidized student loans — an especially tense discussion during a down economy — has prompted lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to advocate a measure to prevent interest on Stafford loans from doubling to 6.8 percent. To curtail rising government costs, the increase was approved five years ago, but few lawmakers are willing to risk losing November votes from the 7.4 million students — along with their parents — who are projected to receive loans during the next 12 months.
To pay for the $6-billion price tag, lawmakers are proposing a raise in premiums for federal pension insurance and a six-year cap for loans on part-time students attending four-year schools. “Sen. [Harry] Reid and I have an understanding that we think will be acceptable to the House. That may or may not be coupled with the highway proposal over in the House,” said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
The student-loan interest debacle has even lured in President Obama and presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The President has been canvassing across states accusing Republicans of stalling the vote. However, while some GOP lawmakers have rejected the rate freeze, Romney and many GOP congressional leaders have hailed it.
"We’re pleased that the Senate has reached a deal to keep rates low and continue offering hard-working students a fair shot at an affordable education," the White House affirmed in a statement this week. "We hope that Congress will complete the legislative process and send a bill to the president as soon as possible."
In the end, though, the question lies with the efficacy of federal-subsidized student loans and whether the federal government even has the constitutional authority to grant them. The fact is government subsidization in education wasn’t always the norm, and according to many economists, Stafford loans have only exacerbated the progressive rise in higher-education costs, as they curb the pricing power of consumerism.
"Just think of all this willingness to want to help every student get a college education," asserts Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who graduated from Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania, a school with an annual tuition cost now exceeding $42,000 a year. "I went to school when we had none of those. I could work my way through college and medical school because it wasn't so expensive."
Economist Thomas Woods, a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, explains in his book Rollback that such government interference is unconstitutional, and that the root of the problem lies with student loans subsidized by the federal government:

Of course, it is the subsidies themselves that push tuition costs ever higher. Here’s the obvious point everyone pretends not to realize: colleges know the students have access to low-interest loans courtesy of government. Aware that prospective students enjoy artificially increased purchasing power, college administrations raise tuition (and cut back their own aid programs) accordingly. When tuition thus continues to rise, as any fool could predict, we hear huzzahs for the government — for however could students pay this high tuition without government assistance? It is the classic case, as Harry Browne said, of the government breaking your leg, handing you a crutch, and saying, “See?  Without me you couldn’t walk.”

Of course, considering the November elections are only months away, the big picture is not readily acknowledged by most lawmakers, including the two presidential candidates. As usual, political expediency triumphs over statesmanship. Consequently, the legislation now toiling in Congress is being propagated as a bill that will safeguard public-sector jobs and keep interest rates low for students pursuing higher education.
In effect, both parties have compromised on the bill, and neither side is fully content with the result. But election-year politics have seemingly trumped any motivation to remain poised on some of the more polarizing issues of the day.

 ^{Photo: Capitol Building in Washington DC via Shutterstock}

Supreme Court Ruling on ObamaCare to Boost Insurance Premiums

Supreme Court Ruling on ObamaCare to Boost Insurance Premiums

Written by  Brian Koenig

Now that the Supreme Court has delivered its final verdict on ObamaCare, which upheld the law’s contentious individual mandate, insurance providers and industry groups are warning of even greater premium increases on Americans’ health plans. While President Obama touted the law as a cost-savior for the healthcare industry — going so far as to call it the “Affordable Care Act” — insurance premiums have consistently risen ever since the law was enacted.



America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the industry’s chief lobbying group, issued a statement following the ruling, stressing the importance of “secure, affordable coverage choices,” but saying that “major provisions, such as the premium tax, will have unintended consequences of raising costs and disrupting coverage unless they are addressed.” AHIP CEO Karen Ignagni suggested that due to the inflated costs, “it’s time for people to roll up their sleeves and look very carefully at those provisions.”
Proponents of the law claim ObamaCare will eventually lead to a sharp reduction in insurance premiums because there will be an overall larger pool of insured Americans. FamiliesUSA, an advocacy group for the healthcare industry, called the Supreme Court’s ruling a “clear, unambiguous and complete victory for long-overdue health care reform.”
The group added that the law’s new regulations on insurance providers will also help consumers. "No one will be denied health coverage or charged a discriminatory premium due to a pre-existing condition, such as children with asthma or diabetes,” it said in a press release. “People with major health problems, like those in car accidents, will be protected against arbitrary lifetime or annual limits in how much insurance companies will pay for needed care.”
"The premiums paid for family health care rise by more than a thousand dollars simply to pay for the costs that have not been paid by the uninsured," FamilyUSA’s executive director Ron Pollack echoed in an interview with Fox News. "So as those people get coverage, our premiums will go down."
AHIP counters those claims, citing a study by the Urban Institute that shows premiums for single policy holders, aged 18 to 34, will boost by $1,400, from $3,600 to $5,000 a year.
According to a September 2011 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit research group, annual premiums for employer-sponsored family health coverage spiked to more than $15,000 last year, up a sizable nine percent from the previous year. The premium increase inflated much more quickly than employee wages (2.1 percent) and general inflation (3.2 percent).
Commenting on the analysis, president of the Health Research & Education Trust — which helped administer the study — Maulik Joshi said provisions in the law that will be implemented in the future could add to these costs, as he averred, "survey findings related to the impact of early provisions in health reform provide valuable insight for employers, providers, consumers, and policymakers as they prepare for additional provisions to take effect by 2014."
Further, AETNA, the country’s fourth largest insurance provider, disclosed that its health plans increased from one to two percent. “While rate increases are never easy, our rates are based on actuarially sound data and reasonable projection of future cost, which will impact approximately 16,000 customers,” the company affirmed in a recent statement. “Our Medical Loss Ratio is at 86.7%, which is higher than any of the filed rates by our competitors. Medical loss ratio is the percentage of health insurance premiums that insurers use to provide health care to their customers.”
Also disconcerting is the potential for Americans to drop or lose benefits through their employer-sponsored health plans. Fox Business explains why:

An estimated 134 million Americans with full-time employment have health coverage through their companies. But about two-thirds of those firms could decide that, under Obamacare, their premiums are too expensive, according to a study by insurance broker Willis Group. Kevin McCarty, Florida insurance commissioner and president of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, is among those who are "concerned about the potential for increased health insurance premiums and continued disruption to the stability of the marketplace" as a result of the ACA.

For companies that want to drop their own health insurance plans, the ACA offers an easy out: Pay a $2,000 penalty per employee. That's far less than the $10,000 average cost of a health care plan. And that's particularly true if you are a low-income or part-time worker at a company like McDonald's or Walmart that doesn't need to offer a Cadillac health plan to keep employees.

Reporting on the Kaiser study back in September, The New American explained that many employers are transitioning their workers to less comprehensive plans with higher out-of-pocket costs (higher co-pays, deductibles, and co-insurance) to curb rising premiums. As a result, 31 percent of insured employees in 2011 had at least a $1,000 deductible, up from 27 percent in 2010 — which many critics are attributing to the president’s healthcare overhaul.
"Without any real national discussion or debate, there’s a quiet revolution going on in what we call health insurance in this country," says Drew Altman, president and CEO of the Kaiser Foundation. "Health insurance is becoming less and less comprehensive … And we expect that trend to continue."
^{Photo: Senior couple shocked by the high cost of their medical bills via Shutterstock}