Sequester: Debbie Wasserman Schultz claims her staff is being “priced out” of getting a good meal due to budget cuts
When Debbie Wasserman Schultz was asked about how the sequester was affecting the legislators’ office budgets she claimed that her staff was being “priced out” of getting a good meal in town because of the rising prices.
Apparently what she is saying is that while prices are rising the sequester makes it impossible for lawmakers to give out raises to compensate for inflation. Welcome to the real world Ms. Schultz, what the hell do you think the private sector has been going through for years now?
Many of us who still have jobs haven’t seen a pay increase in years even as prices on virtually everything have been rising, but now suddenly that Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s staff members–who make between $60,000 and $160,000–are seeing less expendable money in their pockets it is a problem? (And do they not get a per diem?) This just shows us the disconnect between people who are making their living on the backs of the taxpayer and the real world and what we are all going through, and we expect them to be able to fix a problem they created in the first place?
She also failed to take into account the effect Obamacare is having on the food and services industries. Restaurants and bakeries are among the industries feeling the most pain from this dreadful law and they are compensating for this by laying off waitstaff or cutting their hours, and raising the prices of food, so perhaps it is time for Ms. Schultz to look in the mirror and take responsibility for once in her life.
We have been told time and time again that in order to get out of this economic crisis we would all have to sacrifice, so Ms. Schultz it is time to eat your peas, right Mr. President?
Obamacare to cost small business 65% of its profits
It cannot be questioned that Obamacare is going to hit small businesses the hardest, just take this case as one example:
Baked in the Sun does about $8 million in annual revenue, however margins for bakers are tight so their annual profit is only about $200,000. Because the business has over 50 employees, they will be required to offer health insurance to their employees or pay a fine for not doing so.
The owners estimate that the cost of compliance would be $108,000 per year plus $10,000 in overhead to manage the plan. The cost of paying the fine for not offering insurance would be $130,000. So they have a choice between losing 64% or 65% of their annual profits.
65% of their profits taken away due solely to Obamacare. That is quite a hit, don’t you think? Needless to say this leaves Baked in the Sun with only a few options if the company wishes to remain in business and turn a respectable profit: They can either decide to willfully be in violation of the healthcare law and pay a much smaller penalty than the $130,ooo it will cost to be in compliance with the law, they can reduce their costs by laying off employees, or they can raise the price of their goods to compensate for the additional costs of remaining in business. None of these options are particularly attractive, are they? And this is bound to happen to all small businesses with a small profit margin. This will not be an isolated example of what is to come as Obamacare becomes fully implemented.
And, according to the article linked above, Five Guys has also announced they would have to raise prices due to the soon to be incurred costs of complying with Obamacare. This is going to be the norm in the new America, we are all going to have to pay higher prices for goods and services and we have Barack Obama and the Democrats to thank for this, and of course the Republicans didn’t help by nominating the father of Obamacare, Mitt Romney, as their presidential candidate.
Elections have consequences and we are going to get what we deserve. If Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are the best presidential candidates America has to offer we are already doomed.
DHS to ease passport controls to Saudi nationals but will not offer the same benefit to United States veterans
The Department of Homeland Security has decided to designate some Saudi Arabian travelers as low risk passengers which means after the DHS has determined that they feel certain Saudi Arabians are low risk they will not have to go through the rigorous airport security checks that most of us are forced to go through.
That is all very well and good, after all if a person is a frequent flyer and the government has done an assessment and finds no threat why should they have to go through the airport security checks every single time they fly? That is until you remember how thorough the federal government actually is–after all they did ignore all the warning signs in the case of the Fort Hood terrorist, Nidal Hasan, and allowed him to serve in the United States military alongside the very people he despised. But we are supposed to trust them on this because we are supposed to believe they are competent.
But let us put that aside for the purpose of this post and pretend the government knows what it is doing. I know it is tough, but bear with me.
Sequester: Funding for music, cookbooks, and iPhone apps but no funding for veteran tuition assistance
As I have written about in the past the Obama regime has cut tuition assistance for our veterans siting the sequester as the reason the cuts were needed–we simply do not have the money to help out heroes better themselves, that is the position of the Obama regime.
Yet the federal government has still been able to pay for services such as education assistance for Pakistanis, helping to ease the human-elephant conflict in Africa, and taxpayer subsidized haircuts for Senators so I suppose this just shows us that the money is there for programs the Obama regime does want to support, he has just chosen not to support our veterans.
But it gets worse still.
When Harry Reid heard the tragic news that seven marines in Nevada died while on a training mission in Nevada his first thoughts were not with the fallen or their families, instead he saw it as an opportunity to win political points on the sequestration:
Mr. President, it’s very important we continue training our military, so important. But one of the things in sequester is we cut back in training and maintenance. That’s the way sequester was written…. These men and women, our Marines were training there in Hawthorne. And with this sequester, it’s going to cut back. I just hope everyone understands the sacrifices made by our military.
Harry Reid would be well served to remember that Barack Obama has wanted cuts in defense all along, and in fact sequester was the president’s idea in the first place, before he opened his mouth.
I find his politicizing of these deaths to be disgusting and irresponsible; Harry Reid should be ashamed of himself but then again, the end justifies the means…..
Sequester: While veterans lose tuition assistance Pakistan receives education assistance
As part of the sequester cuts the Pentagon has stopped giving tuition assistance to the military, yet the government is still funding higher education for Pakistanis.
Rep. Ted Poe of Texas wants to know why:
Why are we funding education programs for our Benedict Arnold ally when we can’t fund — or don’t fund — the education for our military? And to Pakistan of all places, where hatred for America is at its highest. Washington should watch its spending and prioritize,” Poe said on the floor Monday. “It’s time, Mr. Speaker, to sequester Pakistan
The answer is simple Mr. Poe: Barack Obama has ordered federal agencies to make the sequester as painful as possible on the American people and he is doing this by cutting the programs which he knows are most popular with the American people. This is being done in order to gain support for repealing the sequester cuts.
American veterans must suffer so the Obama regime can drum up this support for Barack Obama’s political motives because he cares more about Democrats gaining power in 2014 than he does about the American people or our veterans.
Dianne Feinstein’s “assault weapons” ban will not be included in the Senate’s gun control legislation
Harry Reid has informed Dianne Feinstein that her assault weapons ban will not be included in the gun control legislation that he will bring forward in the Senate.
An assault weapons ban won’t be in the gun-control legislation that Democrats bring to the Senate floor next month, a decision that means the ban’s chances of survival now are all but hopeless.
The ban is the most controversial firearms restriction that President Barack Obama and other Democrats have pressed for since an assault-type weapon was used in the December massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. Rejection by Congress would be a major victory for the National Rifle Association and its supporters and a setback for Obama and the provision’s sponsor, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
In a tactical decision, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., concluded that including the prohibition in the gun bill would jeopardize the chances for passage of any firearms legislation at all, taking away votes that would be needed to overcome Republican attempts to block the Senate from even taking up the issue.
It turns out that there is not nearly enough support for the ban to even bring it forward:
Reid told reporters that “using the most optimistic numbers,” there were less than 40 votes for Feinstein’s ban. That is far less than the 60 votes needed to move contested legislation in the chamber, which has 53 Democrats plus two independents who usually back them.
This is only a small victory however and we should not sit back thinking we won a major victory of any kind. The ban can still be added as an amendment and voted on separately, and while this might mean the assault weapon amendment will not pass the legislation still includes a ban on magazines over 10 rounds.
While the article I linked to above claims that the assault weapons ban is the most controversial aspect of Dianne Feinstein’s legislation I beg to differ because banning 10 round magazines is basically a ban on all handguns.
This may be a watered down version of gun control legislation, but it is still control and it is still an attack on the second amendment and it still must be defeated.
GOP “autopsy report” contains a plan to protect the establishment candidates against challengers in the primaries
It looks as though the Republicans still haven’t learned their lesson even after foisting Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney–the establishment’s preferred candidate in each of these cases–upon the American people.
As I first wrote about here, Karl Rove has created a Super PAC aimed at quelling all opposition to the Republican establishment in the primaries to ensure their preferred candidate wins the nomination in every race possible. (Read non-Tea Party.)
Now, according to this story, the GOP may be taking it to the next level:
Tucked in near the end of the 97-page report, formally known as The Growth and Opportunity Project, are less than four pages that amount to a political bombshell: the five-member panel urges halving the number of presidential primary debates in 2016 from 2012, creating a regional primary cluster after the traditional early states and holding primaries rather than caucuses or conventions.
Each of the steps outlined in the GOP report would benefit a deep-pocketed candidate in the mold of Mitt Romney. That is, someone who doesn’t need the benefit of televised debates to get attention because he or she can afford TV ads; has the cash to air commercials and do other forms of voter contact in multiple big states at one time; and has more appeal with a broader swath of voters than the sort of ideologically-driven activists who typically attend caucuses and conventions.
The recommendations are also a nod to the party’s donor class. Several donors bluntly told RNC Chair Reince Priebus at meetings right after the election that they wanted Iowa, with its more conservative base, to have less of a role in the process.
There you have it, the GOP power brokers want conservatives to have a smaller role in the process. Feeling used yet? If not, read on.
Sequester? Government to spend $1.5 million to decrease human-elephant conflict in Africa
The Obama regime has cancelled White House tours and veterans are being denied tuition assistance and the sequester is being blamed for these cuts.
Yet despite these cuts Michelle Obama’s 50th birthday bash is still on, His and Her Majesty are planning their August vacation at Martha’s Vineyard on the taxpayer dime, the Senate is still receiving taxpayer funded hair cuts, and we are still giving money to Africa to decrease the conflict between humans and elephants on that continent.
The grant award for 2013 is estimated at $1.5 million to continue efforts to protect African elephants and their habitat, according to federalgrantswire.com.
The funds will go to “any African government agency responsible for African elephant conservation and protection and any other organization or individual with demonstrated experience in African elephant conservation,” the grant description states.
The description also notes that no documentation or credentials are required to apply for the grant.
You have to prioritize when spending cuts are on the table and Barack Obama did instruct government agencies to make the spending cuts as painful as possible on the American people so I guess this news isn’t surprising. Everything is proceeding according to the plan…..
Sequester? While veterans lose tuition assistance the Senate keeps taxpayer funded haircuts
Over the last 15 years the taxpayers have been on the hook to the tune of $5 million for Senate haircuts. Admittedly that is a paltry sum when compared to the $16 trillion debt the United States has incurred during that same time period, but don’t you find it interesting the federal government did not see fit to stop subsidizing elitist haircuts before cutting tuition assistance for United States veterans?
But then of course Barack Obama did tell federal agencies to make the sequester cuts as painful as possible, and when he said this he wasn’t talking about making it more painful on the ruling class elites so I am not surprised by this news in the least. In fact I only would have been surprised if the elitists had not put themselves ahead of those who chose to defend our freedom and our liberties.
After all, you have to have priorities, right?
America's Watchtower 