Giving the recent SCOTUS decisions some more thought last night, confirms the earlier sense that while two rulings look like Republican losses, they weren’t. And the third was a tremendous, outright, win for them as well.
As opined here before, it’s quite likely that Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, understand full well that Republicans at present have no viable alternative to the health care tax’s authorizing federal tax credits for eligible Americans living not only in states with their own exchanges, but also in the 34 states with federal marketplaces.
Therefore, to give Republicans additional time to develop a more favorable plan, such as permitting cross-border shopping for coverage, the justices left the tax unchanged for now.
As far as legalizing gay marriage across the nation is concerned, with favorability growing in public opinion, the usually conservative leaning justices support of legality also helps Republicans. By taking the issue out of discussion for the upcoming presidential contest in 2016.
And then, by curbing the EPA’s further encroachment into environmental issues without proper preparation, the court strongly backed Republican potions on the subject. In summation, making the week a 3 time Republican win –two by subtle default, and one by outright victory.
Aside from the legislative errors highlighted by the SCOTUS decisions, the administration once again illustrated its complete incapability to understand how the nation’s economy works. Especially regarding fundamental business operations.
In today’s case, another headline grabbing POTUS edict, will more than likely harm far more American workers than it will ever help.
FoxNews.com reports that, “President Obama unveiled a long-awaited plan to drastically expand the number of people eligible for overtime pay, in a move that he said would ensure "hard work is rewarded" -- but that critics warn could hurt job growth at a fragile time.
Under the proposal, salaried workers who earn nearly $1,000 per week would become eligible for overtime pay.
“The rule from the Labor Department would more than double the threshold at which employers can avoid paying overtime, from the current $455 a week to $970 a week by next year. That would mean salaried employees earning less than $50,440 a year would be assured overtime if they work more than 40 hours per week, up from the current $23,660 a year.
"We've got to keep making sure hard work is rewarded," Obama wrote in an op-ed in The Huffington Post. "That's how America should do business. In this country, a hard day's work deserves a fair day's pay."
However, while the presidential rhetoric may elate many in the category affected, their long range employment may now be quite endangered. Because businesses don’t succeed due to how hard workers endeavor, profits result from increasing sales while maximizing profitability from operations.
Which means that, in an age of rapidly advancing technology, business managers will now redouble their efforts to replace as many routine jobs as possible with automation. Hiring as few people as possible. And whereas expensive gadgetry, such as robotics, may have seemed too expensive before, increasing labor costs now make them far more attractive. Well worth the investment, especially since their cost can be paid out over time, via equipment financing arrangements expensed much like payroll.
Thus, here’s another case where the POTUS would be far better off if he stayed away from subjects he knows very little about, instead pursuing more pastimes to his capability level, such as trying to play golf in as many top-rated places as possible.
On another favorite Democrat subject, according to AFP, “Robert Redford told the United Nations on Monday that negotiations on a global deal to tackle climate change could be the world's "last chance" to save the planet.
"This December, the world must unite behind a common goal," said the American actor and producer.
"Because look, this is it. This is our only planet, our only life source.
"This may be our last chance."
What’s interesting here, is that in the actor’s plea there wasn’t one iota of information. Instead, the audience got four sentences that contained absolutely nothing whatsoever but gibberish. Which is pretty much what the global-warming argument is all about anyway.
772 reader comments followed the article, not one in agreement that a scanning of many of them disclosed.
As an example, ZigZ wrote: “Before the SUV, Coal fired electric plant, factory production,...Earth experienced 5 major Glacial Periods, or ice ages, in known Earth history. Some argue 9. Fewer point to 13. All agree on 5. Glacial Periods are separated by cleverly named Interglacial Periods defined by intermingled global warming and cooling trending to or from a Glacial Period. A far more compelling argument could be made that Earth covered with ice is the natural state than temperatures from the 1980s are. Earth will survive with or without humans.”
However, the problem here for global-warming alarmists is that ZigZ’s rationale stems from historical record, supported by facts and data. Two categories that knee-jerk zealots absolutely refuse to acknowledge.
Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, this one including extortionist-in-training, daughter Chelsea.
Philip Rucker and Rosalind S. Helderman report @washingtonpost.com, that, “When the University of Missouri at Kansas City was looking for a celebrity speaker to headline its gala luncheon marking the opening of a women’s hall of fame, one name came to mind: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“But when the former secretary of state’s representatives quoted a fee of $275,000, officials at the public university balked. “Yikes!” one e-mailed another.”
So turning to the next best option, the university paid $65,000 for Chelsea Clinton’s brief appearance Feb. 24, 201, “on behalf of her mother’s presidential campaign and family’s global charitable empire.”
The fee covered her speaking for 10 minutes, participating in a 20-minute, moderated question-and-answer session and a half-hour posing for pictures with VIPs offstage.
“As with Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches at universities, Chelsea Clinton made no personal income from the appearance, her spokesman said, and directed her fee to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.”
Which means that, if historical percentages apply, $9,750 went to the “foundation,” while $55,250.00 went into the Clinton coffers. Not bad for an hour of the kid's babble.
Mayor Bloomberg, are you reading this?
That's it for today folks.