On television, summer reruns are becoming a thing of the past. Noting a jump in demand for fresh entertainment in the hot months, TV execs are responding with original programming.
In Washington, however, suing Obamacare gets played over and over and over again, whatever the heat index. These summer reruns don't get much audience, but that hasn't deterred the House Republicans. This is their latest attempt — they've tried more than 40 times — to wreck the Affordable Care Act. This suit revolves around the president's decision to delay the employer mandate.
That show wasn't so hot the first time around.
The employer mandate requires medium and large employers to provide health coverage to their workers or pay a penalty. It was to go in effect Jan. 1, but the administration extended the deadline to give companies more time to get with the program.
The complaint, as stated by House Speaker John Boehner, is that President Obama changed the health care law without a vote by Congress. Obama was illegally "waiving the employer mandate and the penalties for failing to comply with it."
You've got to give him credit for twisting the plot. It happens that House Republicans last year themselves voted to delay the employer mandate and, by extension, penalties for failing to comply with it.
Call it "Blue Is the New Red" — or should that be the other way around?
And by the way, the mandate is constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court said so.
You'd think our elected officials would have the decency to not waste legal resources — taxpayer dollars, actually — suing over an action they've supported. Obviously, this is a case not of picking and choosing objections to Obamacare but of hurling lawyers at it with a water cannon. Whatever happened to summer vacations?
As the story of Obamacare develops, the townspeople originally hostile to the health reforms are warming up to the newcomer. Hardly a week goes by without another fear about his getting shot down by reality.
For example, average premium costs are not spiking; they're rising more slowly than before the law. Healthy young people are not refusing to obtain coverage; they're signing up. Meanwhile, the great majority of the newly insured say they are happy with their coverage.
Now it appears that federal spending on health programs is growing more slowly than earlier predicted, and cost savings written into Obamacare are part of the reason. We're talking $1.23 trillion in lower expected spending for the 10 years starting in 2010, the amount supplied by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
So polls show a national audience increasingly content — and given the mud thrown at it, pleasantly surprised — with Obamacare. Republicans won't seriously dismantle the reforms, but that doesn't mean they can't make a show of hammering at the law.
Call it "Bad Breaking."
To be fair and balanced, let it be noted that respectable legal scholars stand on both sides of the debate over the delayed mandate. Some say Obama exceeded his authority. Others say he just did it to implement a program that Congress approved, which is part of his job description. As a similar example, George W. Bush waived a penalty for poor elderly people who missed the deadline for re-enrolling in the new Medicare drug benefit. No one complained then.
The broadcasters and cable channels are hollering for new material because their audiences want it, and audiences feed their bottom line. Members of Congress don't have to care about audience interest, because they get paid anyway, by the public.
Hence the reruns of the Obamacare demolition derby in which Obamacare never really gets hurt, and people don't really watch. Not very entertaining.
(A member of the Providence Journal editorial board, Froma Harrop writes a nationally syndicated column from that city. She has written for such diverse publications as The New York Times, Harper's Bazaar and Institutional Investor.)
Last Updated on Friday, 18 July 2014 09:52
To The Daily Sun,
News from the U.S. Senate: Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) has a bill that would override the ban on late-term abortions. The bill has support of two-thirds of Senate Democrats.
This is horrific news as the bill would allow women to have abortions, that is to kill their babies, late in pregnancy. After five months into her pregnancy, an infant is formed and has arms, legs, a heartbeat, and can FEEL whatever is happening to it. This is murder in the first degree. Please, pregnant women, do not kill your babies. In this pro-choice world, you still have the choice to have the baby, to preserve life.
Life is precious, and the life of a baby is the most precious of all.
Last Updated on Thursday, 17 July 2014 11:14
To The Daily Sun,
On Saturday, July 26, the Lakes Region Rotary Club will be once again host a car show spectacle at the Weirs Beach Lobster Pound. We are fortunate to have O'Reilly Auto Parts as our featured sponsor and expect to rival the great turnout we had last year when we had 150 show cars of all types and vintages on display.
With more than 700 spectators roaming around admiring the cars, it was truly a great day. This year we have added some food and ice cream vendors and will once again be awarding prizes for best in show. All the proceeds from the event go to local charities with the featured recipient this year being the Boys and Girls Club. Show time is from 10-2. Show cars are encouraged to get there earlier to get set up.
We hope to see lots of people and cars at the show. Parking will be available for spectators directly across the street from the show.
Lakes Region Rotary Club
Last Updated on Thursday, 17 July 2014 11:10
To The Daily Sun,
First, the only response I can make to Bernadette Loesch's letter of last week is: Best to get your facts straight.
Yet again you have made the accusation that red-leaning states make it difficult to vote. I have disproven your accusations in a previous letter, including citations, yet you continue to make them. On the other hand, if you meant to say right-leaning states make it more difficult for ineligible voters to vote, then I would agree with you. Otherwise, give it a rest, Bernadette. No one is buying what you're selling. Saying it again and again isn't going to change the truth one bit.
Second, I'm not sure I can adequately respond to Mister Veverka's latest round of character assassination without taking up copious amounts of column inches. He expresses nothing new, disparages those who do not agree with his beliefs, and makes endless accusations without one shred of proof. But then, that's how he does it — make the accusation and expect everyone to take it on faith because, after all, he knows "the truth" better than everyone else. Facts need not apply. Frankly, he is boring because he never really says anything new. It's just endless bigotry from a close-minded progressive mouthpiece incapable of expressing any original thought. Does he really think anyone other than his fellow travelers take him seriously?
At times it seems their dislike and, dare I say, hatred of those who disagree with their political beliefs is almost pathological. Their inability or unwillingness to see or at least try to truly understand others' point of view is disturbing, to say the least.
Dale Channing Eddy
Last Updated on Thursday, 17 July 2014 11:07
To The Daily Sun,
Social Security (SS) is INSOLVENT. The Congressional Budget Office just calculated that in LESS the 20 years the benefits for EVERY RECIPIENT will need to be CUT by a STAGGERING 25 percent. When polled, almost NO ONE says they will agree to a benefit cut. There is not even enough money to pay for the coming gap by taxing every dollar earned from one to a billion. That makes things rather interesting, because SOMEONE is going to pay, and pay BIG for the MASSIVE shortfall of money. It is either workers of beneficiaries.
Even worse, a staggering percentage of retired Americans already depend on SS for more than half their income. The amount of the imbalance is breath taking, but in keeping with every hair brained program dreamed up by Democrats. The fact that SS is bankrupt should surprise NO one, given it's origins in the lower bowels of the Democratic Party and we all know what is in a BOWEL.
It is not that confiscating money for a working lifetime from pay checks is a bad idea to assure people save money to retire on. The problem of our never ending SS bankruptcies stem from the absolute, INSANE, STRUCTURAL DESIGN of the SS system to FAVOR GOVERNMENT over the beneficiaries. Any private enterprise running a pension system that even remotely looked like what SS does would be incarcerated with the keys thrown away. Social Securit's design is an absolute slap in the face to every black worker because they have life expectancies far SHORTER than every other race. The shorter you live, the less you collect and the more GOVERNMENT BENEFITS. Why in hell aren't Democrats SCREAMING RACIAL OUTRAGE at those that designed SS demanding the program cease? That means screaming at themselves.
The Australians, the U.K. and the Chilean's all grew a BRAIN concerning their pension program challenges. Are those countries all smarter than U.S.? Chile changed their national pension plan 21 years ago. It covers tens of millions of workers. There was much angst and uncertainty when the new program was first introduced. Pensions became "individualized" from "GOVERNMENTIZED" and options to invest in several stock market indices were offered. The president urged every Chilean to leave the old program, similar to ours, and like ours yielded almost NO RETURN — after accounting for ravages of inflation. Those who wanted to stay in the old program could. Of course the people who made the change from investing in long term, low return, government debt (the same way we do) into the vibrancy of the Chilean BUSINESS ENGINE began receiving pensions TWICE what those who failed to change did. COMMON SENSE hit the masses. Even what we could call here the hardest of the donkey knot heads saw the LIGHT. Today, 93 percent of Chileans are invested in their equity market through their SS pensions. That investment produces average pensions DOUBLE EACH MONTH what ours is for same wages earned during a lifetime. EAT YOUR HEART OUT!
The CRITICAL calculation to produce MUCH HIGHER monthly income isn't just how much you CONTRIBUTE or earn but what the PROJECTED RETURN is over the very long holding period for such assets. Further, the monies contributed and earned are the property of the BENEFICIARY, NOT THE GOVERNMENT! Democrats LOVE our SS because it keeps TENS of MILLIONS more in poverty and government DEPENDENT allowing them to SCREAM INEQUALITY with the need for even MORE GOVERNMENT WELFARE. Which in the end only increases GOVERNMENT POWER and dominance over a greater percentage of the electorate. That is all any Kool-Aid blooded Democrat LIVES for — more government power and HIGHER taxes on EVERYTHING including PAYROLL TAXES. Which of course in the end leads to BANKRUPTCY EVERY PLACE in every government run program over and OVER.
WE have an opportunity and a SCREAMING NEED to CHANGE our SS system to one that does not REQUIRE BENEFIT CUTS to beneficiaries or increases to payroll withholding taxes or increases in the earnings taxed under SS. All we need to do is follow the lead of Chile and Australia. They grew BRAINS and discovered COMMON SENSE!
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00