Several very interesting articles today, so I’ll get right to them.
According to www.foxnews.com/politics, Democrat California Representative, Eric Swalwell, along with Republicans Steve Pearce of New Mexico and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming are “behind a proposal that would allow members of Congress to vote remotely on pieces of legislation from their home districts in a virtual setting.”
They claim that bills requiring a two-thirds majority in the House to pass are typically noncontroversial.
And here’s the rationale, which makes absolute sense. Swalwell said that “Companies and families across the country are using technology to communicate remotely. There is no reason that the legislative branch of the world's oldest democracy cannot do the same. Our bill will allow Members of Congress to work more efficiently and stay better connected to our constituents. It’s time to upgrade Congress to the 21st century."
Now, if they could enact their bill, getting the government to do something financially sensible for once, perhaps they could also teach the incumbent how to communicate by phone, email, and web conferencing, saving hundreds of millions more of taxpayer’s funds in travelling costs.
Then again, the incumbent will likely decide that travelling’s his best choice for hiding because, as Ed Rogers of The Washington Post reports, “Right now, small businesses across America are making the final determinations on how to reduce the working hours of their employees so fewer employees qualify for the mandated, employer-provided health insurance.”
Mr. Rogers goes on that, “Employers are also deciding whether it makes more economic sense to pay a fine to the government or pay for healthcare benefits for their employees. What this means is that hundreds of thousands – and perhaps even millions – of Americans will learn that they are being dismissed from their employer’s healthcare coverage.”
It’s expected that “healthcare pink slips” will begin in late summer and early fall, pushing people into exchanges, where some people will be writing health insurance checks for the first time, or facing increased health insurance costs, particularly if they are young and healthy.
The article opines that “The negative effects on personal income and the overall economy will be undeniable. Sometime next year, before the elections, the penalties associated with not having or providing health insurance will begin to pour in. Will the fines come in the mail? Will you be able to appeal? What happens if someone doesn’t pay? No one knows. Or, no one who knows is talking. The consequences of ObamaCare are being hidden.”
And finally on the subject, a Wall Street Journal article, “Health-insurance costs set for a jolt” hints at the debacle that is to come. At some point soon, it’s going to be undeniable that ObamaCare is nothing but another federal entitlement, where those who are young and healthy bear the direct cost of subsidizing those who are not.”
But, if the preceding disaster isn’t enough for the incumbent, Gideon Rachman of London’s Financial Times, wrote an article well worth reading that describes very clearly and succinctly how liberals have lost admiration for their hero.
I found it most interesting because it explains that although the incumbent walked away from myriad major issues and problems because of his constituents demands and wishes, the problems continued because the world is real and their childish fantasies aren’t.
Consequently he was forced to rely on new techniques and technologies, such as replacing troops with drones and eavesdropping electronically. But, these approaches aren’t pleasing his base who’d prefer to pretend that things like our enemies or economic problems simply go away if you ignore them and therefore, we should not get involved at all.
If you want to read the article yourself, which I think worthwhile, it's titled "FT-Obama has crumbled as fantasy hero," on Drudge.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment