From North Carolina’s mostest beautifulest bloggess,
January 11, 2013 at 10:58 am
Via Fox Business (bolded emphasis added by me):
Dan Drennen says his franchisees are sitting on their hands. According to the general manager of Visiting Angels Living Assistance Services, multi-unit franchisees are withholding expansion in the face of the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate.
Drennen said single owner deals continue to come in, as Visiting Angels has 437 franchise locations, and near 420 individual franchisees. But for many of those nearing the 50-employee level, where the employer mandate kicks in and health-care is a requirement or a $2,000 annual penalty per employee is due, they’re staying put.
“Everyone is in a holding pattern,” he said. “In the last year, we have between 30 and 40 [multi-franchise] deals that have been held off, because it’s not a perfectly clear picture.”
Paul Mangiamele, CEO of Bennigan’s, said he has several multi-store agreements with franchisees that have been shelved since the ACA became law. Bennigan’s franchises cost $35,000 in fees to open per location, Mangiamele said. If someone signs a five- store deal with the franchise, Bennigan’s charges $35,000 for the first store, and a $10,000 deposit upfront for the remaining four locations.
So the expansion slowdown not only halts job growth under the Bennigan’s name, but withholds the company from collecting about $100,000 in fees.
“This very mandate will stifle the growth that the administration touts it will help,” Mangiamele said. “It’s puzzling how this makes sense for anyone in D.C. These are jobs that would impact high unemployment.”
A lot more at the link.
It wasn’t like this was a hard one to figure out: health care costs money, and imposing new regulations which both add costs to health insurance plans and require businesses which had not previously provided health insurance to provide such has to increase the costs of doing business. Back in 1993, when President Bill Clinton put his wife in charge of creating a national health care coverage system, Hillary Clinton was told that her plans would devastate small businesses, to which she famously replied, “I can’t be responsible for every undercapitalized small business in America.” At least Mrs Clinton was being (uncharacteristically) honest with that response; the Obama Administration sold what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by claiming it would reduce costs. That was a lie, and unless they are actually stupider than I think, they knew it was a lie. That they knew was documented on the old site back in 2010:
In another health care shocker, Democrats admit — quietly, to themselves — that ObaminableCare will not cut costs
Well, maybe I have to be careful on copying too much from articles in The Philadelphia Inquirer, but I can get away with more when it comes to Sharon’s site!
We’re not surprised Democrats are backpedaling on the strongest claims made about Obamacare: That it would cut the cost of medicine and improve the deficit.
Our lovable lefty Perry claimed repeatedly that the CBO said it would reduce the deficit in the first decade. This was always a sham claim, since Obamacare takes in 10 years worth of payments from taxpayers but only pays out 6 years of benefits. Even Democrats can improve costs when they aren’t paying for things.
This is just the latest example of how the Democrat agenda is coming back to bite ‘em in the ass, and I can’t say “I told you so” enough. I’m hopeful November is just the start.
The Weekly Standard article that Sharon linked — yes, it’s copyrighted — has more details, but, in the end, it tells us that the Democrats are admitting (privately, of course) that you can’t increase the number or people covered, maintain high quality for those covered, and still cut costs, which is what common sense conservatives had been saying all along.
Of course, just because the Democrats are admitting it to themselves doesn’t mean that Perry will quit using his standard claims!
And while Sis noted that some companies are holding back on business expansion, others are cutting hours to keep employees from qualifying for health insurance:
By Rick Moran
An Omaha-based Wendy’s franchisee is cutting all non-management workers’ hours to part time in order to avoid paying health insurance to its employees.
The cost of Obamacare was cited as the reason:
The company has announced that all non-management positions will have their hours reduced to 28 a week. Gary Burdette, Vice President of Operations for the local franchise, says the cuts are coming because the new Affordable Health Care Act requires employers to offer health insurance to employees working 32-38 hours a week. Under the current law they are not considered full time and that as a small business owner, he can’t afford to stay in operation and pay for everyone’s health insurance.
There are 11 Wendy’s restaurants in the metro. “It has a huge effect on me and pretty much everybody that I work with,” says Growbeck, who understands the reasoning and says other part-timers at other fast-food restaurants are facing the same problem. “I’m hoping that I can get some sort of promotion because then I would get my hours, but everybody is shooting for that because of the hours being cut.”
Burdette says the decision affects around 100 employees. It was a tough one and he understands why people are upset, but the hour reduction is effective in two weeks for all non-management. Management employees will continue to have benefits as they are officially full time.
A business, trying to cut the costs of doing business. Only a liberal could be surprised; conservatives understand these things instinctively.
Kate of Victory Girls noted Brent Musberger’s fawning over Katherine Webb during the BCS National Championship Game. Donald Douglas noted that Miss Webb wasn’t offended at all. Your Editor would point out that Miss Webb has entered, and won, beauty pageants, so it would seem evident that she enjoys being judged on her physical appearance.
From The Pirate’s Cove:
By William Teach January 12, 2013 – 8:11 am
Leave it to Sheriff Joe Biden (who resembled Barney Fife when it came to monitoring the Stimulus spending) to use poor metaphors
(The Hill) The vice president downplayed harsh criticism the National Rifle Association has made about the administration’s gun violence task force.
Vice President Biden said Friday that his task force on gun violence recognized there was “no silver bullet” that would solve the problem and downplayed harsh criticism from the National Rifle Association about the administration’s efforts.
“We know that there is no silver bullet,” to stop gun violence, Biden said, ahead of a Friday meeting with video game manufacturers and retailers. He did not elaborate further.
He’s also “shooting for Tuesday” to deliver his panel’s recommendations. Rather violent rhetoric, wouldn’t you say?
More at the link. The esteemed Mr Teach also noted how Hollywood and the video game industry have reacted when the Vice President dared to suggest that violent video games and movies might play a role in real violence in society. he didn’t go far enough, in my view, in noting the rank hypocrisy of the Hollywood liberals, who are signing up left and left to jump on the President’s gun control bandwagon, the Second Amendment be damned, but are so adamant about protecting their First Amendment rights.
The Lonely Conservative noted that President Obama is the best gun salesman we’ve ever had!
At Le*gal In*sur*rec*tion, William Jacobson noted that NBC’s David Gregory will not be prosecuted for possession of a high-capacity ammunition magazine he displayed on television, and that the Acting District Attorney, Irv Nathan, who chose not to prosecute Mr Gregory for displaying that magazine did just the opposite concerning Army veteran James Brinkley, and that Mr Nathan personally knew Mr Gregory and his wife.
From Robert Stacey Stacy McCain:
Rush Limbaugh sparked criticism this week by pointing to an article in the British Guardian newspaper as evidence of “a movement to normalize pedophilia.” Limbaugh’s liberal critics are ridiculing his contention, but the movement he described is very real.
In 2002, Judith Levine published Harmful to Minors, a book which stirred a massive controversy because of its claims that the dangers of pedophilia were exaggerated. I covered the controversy in a long article for The Washington Times:
[Levine] said, “The research shows us that in some minority of cases, young – even quite young – people can have a positive sexual experience with an adult. That’s what the research shows.”
Featuring a foreword by Clinton administration Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders, Ms. Levine’s book endorses a Dutch law, passed in 1990, that effectively lowered the age of consent to 12. Ms. Levine cites research about “happy consensual sex among kids under 12,” and writes: “America’s drive to protect kids from sex is protecting them from nothing. Instead, often it is harming them.” . . .
A 1998 “meta-analytic” study in an American Psychological Association (APA) journal argued, among other things, that “value-neutral” language such as “adult-child sex” should be used to describe child molestation if it was a “willing encounter.” . . .
Ms. Levine’s book favorably cites the Rind study and, in a telephone interview, she defended the study as “methodologically meticulous.” But Baltimore psychologist Joy Silberg, whose clinical practice involves treating child-abuse victims, says the study is “horribly flawed.”
“I can’t call it science,” she said.
One co-author of the 1998 study was Robert Bauserman, now employed by the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. As early as 1989, Mr. Bauserman had written about “man-boy sexual relationships” in Paidika. He also co-authored a 1993 article with Mr. Rind about “adult-nonadult sex.”
You can read the whole thing. The point is that, more than a decade ago, there was a clearly identifiable movement within academia that was attempting to normalize “adult-child sex.”
Rind and Bauserman were part of it, and Bauserman’s history of association with the Dutch pedophile journal Paidika should raise red flags. Indeed, the Guardian article that caught Limbaugh’s attention actually cites a Paidika contributor:
A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them.
A lot more at the link.
One wonders just what will become of Dr Bauserman and his employment by the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, now that this has been made public. In 1998, Dr Bauserman collaborated with Bruce Rind from Temple University and doctoral student Philip Tromovitch on a controversial study concerning child sexual abuse, which concluded than not all victims of child sexual abuse were significantly harmed, though it did conclude that a potential lack of harm should not be the basis for altering the law.
Mr McCain’s story is particularly noteworthy in Pennsylvania, as the last of the trials due to the Philadelphia grand jury’s report concerning sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is scheduled to begin on Monday, and convicted child molester and former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky’s motion to be granted a new trial occurred on Thursday. A study like the ones conducted by Dr Rind and Dr Bauserman might have been considered a legitimate avenue of inquiry a decade ago, but the tolerance of society for such questions may very well have declined. At the very least, the researchers would have to be so squeaky clean as to have absolutely no hint at all about themselves of even remotely condoning such activity . . . and Dr Bauserman’s having written in Paidika precludes him from such a description.
On The Colossus of Rhodey, Hube noted that MSNBC is far more partisanly Democratic than Fox News Channel is partisanly Republican.
Bridging the Gap has now gone five months and four days without a new story. We are disappointed.
On TRUTH BEFORE DISHONOR, Foxfier noted that “the polite refusal of conservatives) to inject politics into everything puts us at a bit of a disadvantage.”
Finally, on Red State, Brian Sikma noted how the Obama Administration’s policies work:
A settlement forced by the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency on a Wisconsin power company has forced an employer to prepare to cut jobs and spend millions paying for the Obama Administration’s green energy agenda. The EPA has entered into a consent decree with the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPS) after federal regulators alleged that two of the company’s coal-fired power plants were in violation of the Clean Air Act. The company disputes the claim.
Under the leadership of Obama appointed EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, the federal agency has been on a crusade to fundamentally reshape portions of the economy. In addition to using its regulatory power to wage war on coal fired power plants, the EPA has pushed an aggressive green energy agenda that has been criticized by some experts as long on politics but short on science.
In Wisconsin, that dual thrust has collided as Wisconsin Public Service Corporation prepares to spend $300 million to upgrade two power plants, pay a $1.2 million fine to the EPA, and spend no less than $6 million on specific green energy projects outlined by the Obama EPA.
The company has already indicated they are likely to lay off workers and possibly shutter the two power plants. Ironically, in making their case to the EPA, company officials noted that fulfillment of a large part of the EPA’s regulatory imposition would be accomplished by plant upgrades they were already working on.
Administrator Jackson has used the Clean Air Act as justification for her war on coal fired power plants. But at least one former EPA administrator believes the Act is being used today for something it was never intended for. William Reilly, who led the EPA under President George H.W. Bush, told The New York Times in 2011, that Jackson is trying to use “the Clean Air Act to try to accomplish something for which it was never designed, the control of carbon dioxide.”
Jackson has said herself that she views her role and the EPA’s role as an activist one, focused on changing the way Americans get their energy. The EPA seeks to use its position to “level the playing field,” to quote Administrator Jackson, between green energy sources and traditional energy sources. Many forms of green energy are not completely commercially viable at this time with cost savings and reliability issues dogging them.
More at the link. But Barack Hussein Obama told us, before he was ever elected, under his plan, “electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket.”
We elected that nincompoop, and then four years later, we re-elected him. When the workers at those power plants, like the workers at Golden Guernsey dairy, lose their jobs directly due to actions by the Obama Administration, and they want to lash out, to rail against their bad luck, I would say, go upstairs, and look in the bathroom mirror: if you voted for Barack Obama, the person you should blame for your misfortune is looking right back at you.