Archive for Premo Mondone

Sorry, No Show Tonight!

sm_02-150x150

Even though Ken and I recorded a show tonight (long story), due to a “hiccup” in our recording software, about 2/3 of it was lost.

So, there won’t be a show tonight, but we’ll be back again next Sunday night with a new show.

Premo Mondone
Host of The Red State Town Hall Program

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Cromnibus delenda est: shutdowns are awesome when Democrats threaten them | Human Events

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

In case you had something better to do last night than follow the most disgusting new holiday tradition in America, the annual “cromnibus” spending drama – a passion play of Big Government irresponsibility in which Congress waits until the absolute last possible minute to do their jobs, then screams “By Odin’s beard, the government is about to RUN OUT OF MONEY AND DIE!!!!  We have to spend a trillion dollars RIGHT THIS INSTANT!” – the cromnibus bill managed to drag itself out of the House of Representatives, bleeding cash from a multitude of rider wounds, and is now heaving its corpulent body towards the Senate, where some Democrats have decided they do not like it very much.

After we finish this pathetic spectacle and pump that trillion dollars into Big Government’s veins, the unhappy Dems can commiserate with such dismayed Republicans as Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN), who says the House Republican leadership straight-up lied to him to get his support for a test vote that might have killed the cromnibus bill.  Stutzman says the cromnibus was supposed to survive the test vote, but then get pulled at the last minute and replaced with a far more sensible short-term bill that wouldn’t give the abject losers of the 2014 election control over the national purse until fall 2015.  Instead, the cromnibus passed the House 219-206.  Bazinga!

Republican “leaders” gave Barack Obama the sun, moon, stars, and amnesty, but that still wasn’t good enough for the Democrats who have decided to exploit the obvious weakness of GOP leaders and demand more.  The GOP leadership, meanwhile, decided to dig in its heels on a banking de-regulation measure that would chip away at the 2010 Dodd-Frank law.  Dodd-Frank is awful, and the regulation in question is a finicky bit of business that costs the private sector quite a bit of money, without really providing the sort of financial-meltdown protection it was supposed to, as explained by the Wall Street Journal:

Read the complete article via Cromnibus delenda est: shutdowns are awesome when Democrats threaten them | Human Events.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Obamacare: Medicaid and Primary Doctor ‘Access Shock,’ Tax Season Chaos – Guy Benson

burwell_USA-HEALTHCARE-OBAMA

The Obamacare losing streak continues apace, starting with another Associated Press story on why the law’s ‘access shock’ consequences are getting worse:

Primary care doctors caring for low-income patients will face steep fee cuts next year as a temporary program in President Barack Obama’s health care law expires. That could squeeze access just when millions of new patients are gaining Medicaid coverage. A study Wednesday from the nonpartisan Urban Institute estimated fee reductions will average about 40 percent nationwide. But they could reach 50 percent or more for primary care doctors in California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois — big states that have all expanded Medicaid under the health law. Meager pay for doctors has been a persistent problem for Medicaid, the safety-net health insurance program. Low-income people unable to find a family doctor instead flock to hospital emergency rooms, where treatment is more expensive and not usually focused on prevention.

That’s right, say it with me: Medicaid expansion does not reduce uncompensated care. So how will these reimbursement cuts impact doctors and patients? Surprise:

Doctors probably won’t dump their current Medicaid patients, but they’ll take a hard look at accepting new ones, said Dr. Robert Wergin, a practitioner in rural Milford, Neb., and president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. “You are going to be paid less, so you are going to have to look at your practice and find ways to eke it out,” Wergin said.

The Obama administration surveys this landscape and doggedly clings to its goal of expanding the failing program even further. Because they’re all about “what works,” or whatever:

Medicaid covers more than 60 million people, making the federal-state program even larger than Medicare. The health care law has added about 9 million people to the Medicaid rolls, as 27 states have taken advantage of an option that extends coverage to many low-income adults. Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell says expanding Medicaid in the remaining 23 states is one of her top priorities. But the fee cut could make that an even harder sell, since it may reinforce a perception that the federal government creates expensive new benefits only to pass the bill to states.

Read complete article via Obamacare: Medicaid and Primary Doctor ‘Access Shock,’ Tax Season Chaos – Guy Benson.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Half of the Senators who voted for Obamacare won’t be part of new Senate | WashingtonExaminer.com

The last to fall...

The last to fall…

On Dec. 24, 2009, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed President Obama’s healthcare law with a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority, triggering a massive backlash that propelled Republicans to control of the House the following year. On the Senate side, going into this year’s midterm elections, 25 senators who voted for Obamacare were already out or not going be part of the new Senate being sworn in next month. After Democratic losses on Nov. 4 and Saturday’s defeat of Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., the number has risen to 30. In other words, half of the Senators who voted for Obamacare will not be part of the new Senate.

To be sure, it isn’t fair to attribute all of the turnover in the chamber to Obamacare. In some cases — such as John Kerry leaving his seat to become secretary of state, or Robert Byrd passing away — Obamacare clearly had nothing to do with the departures. Additionally, some outgoing pro-Obamacare votes were replaced by new Democratic senators (although that tended to be the case in heavily Democratic states).

That having been said, many senators who voted for Obamacare lost re-election battles in which they were hit hard for their support for the law and other Democrats were forced to retire because they had no hope of getting re-elected given their support for the law. A total of 16 Senators who voted for Obamacare either failed to win reelection or declined to run for reelection and had their seats turned over to Republicans.

The following is an updated breakdown of senators who voted for Obamacare and will not be part of the next Senate.

Lost and replaced by a Republican:

Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska

Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark.

Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo.

Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La.

Russ Feingold, D-Wis.

Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.

Arlen Specter, D-Penn.

Read complete article via Half of the Senators who voted for Obamacare won’t be part of new Senate | WashingtonExaminer.com.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Jeff Sessions: Obama Is Giving Cash Benefits to Illegal Immigrants | National Review Online

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) seized on a White House admission that beneficiaries of President Obama’s immigration orders will receive tax credits, a sign that the orders amount to more than an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

“This is yet one more illustration of the enormous cost inflicted by the President’s illegal action,” Sessions told National Review Online in a statement. “He has now launched a new $100 million facility and staffing operation to provide illegal immigrants with the exact benefits rejected by Congress – including work permits, Social Security and Medicare. These credits will cost American taxpayers billions every year and represent an enormous cash transfer from American workers to lower-wage illegal workers. These tax credits are not refunds, but a direct cash payment from the Treasury to illegal immigrants – at a time when the Treasury is running huge deficits.”

Read complete article via Jeff Sessions: Obama Is Giving Cash Benefits to Illegal Immigrants | National Review Online.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Obama Kills Tax Cut Because It Didn’t Help Illegals | The Daily Caller

usbordersign

President Barack Obama quietly killed a draft tax-cut because the GOP leadership wouldn’t agree to his demand that valuable tax breaks be given to millions of illegal immigrants, according to a Politico article about the secret negotiations.

Just before Thanksgiving, “the deal fell apart just as it seemed to be coming together… [because] Republicans worried undocumented immigrants targeted by [Obama’s Nov. 21 amnesty] would begin claiming the credits,” Politico reported.

The GOP leadership’s reluctance to award tax-breaks to illegals suggests top leaders may use the required December budget bill to deny funds to operate Obama’s promised amnesty. So far, GOP leaders have not said if they will block the amnesty funds — despite growing GOP grassroots pressure — partly because Democrats are threatening to block the complete budget if the amnesty is blocked.

The now-dead tax bill, dubbed the “tax extenders package,” is a grab-bag of tax breaks that are usually passed late in every congressional session. If the bill is not passed, businesses and voters will both face tax increases.

This year’s draft bill was expanded to include more tax-breaks for businesses, and was reputedly valued at more than $400 billion over 10 years.

Politico’s report said Democratic senators initially offered to approve the GOP’s demand for business-boosting tax cuts if the GOP agreed to extend the popular Earned Income Tax Credit for poor Americans.

But GOP leaders stepped back from the deal because they recognized that Obama planned to award the EITC money to illegals covered by his Nov. 21 executive order.

Senate leaders — such as Nevada Sen. Harry Reid and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer — then agreed to trade the business-tax breaks for tax breaks that would boost revenues for state and local governments.

But other Democratic senators denounced the deal, and also refused to reform the EITC system to exclude Obama’s illegals.

According to the IRS, two parents with three or more children would receive up to $6,143 in 2014 if they earn less than $46,997. Parents who earn less than the income threshold would get $3,305 if they have one child, and $5,460 if they have two children.

Most illegal immigrant households have very low income, and pay little in taxes. For example, in 2011, roughly 22 percent of immigrant households — both legal and illegal — were classified as living in poverty. In contrast, only 13 percent of American households were in poverty.

Also, the EITC program is already poorly monitored and may be subject to large amounts of fraud, according to critics.

Read complete article via Obama Kills Tax Cut Because It Didn’t Help Illegals | The Daily Caller.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

How low can it go? Oil, gas prices in freefall as OPEC reels from US fracking | Fox News

crudeoil_prices

Drivers paying less at the pump due to free-falling oil prices can thank the U.S. energy boom for generating shale oil – and weakening OPEC’s ability to keep the cost of a gallon of gas high.

In just a matter of months, the price of a barrel of oil has dropped from more than $100 to about $70, and gas is now cheaper than it has been in years. But a recent report conducted for the American Petroleum Institute claimed oil would cost twice as much as it does now if it weren’t for America’s fracking boom, which wrings oil and natural gas out of shale miles underground.

But the next question could be whether the fracking industry can survive the low prices it brought.

“The shale boom is on a par with the dot-com boom,” Russian oil baron Leonid Fedun of OAO Lukoil told Bloomberg. “The strong players will remain, the weak ones will vanish.”

OPEC, the cartel of oil-producing nations that has historically been able to calibrate the price of oil – and ultimately gasoline – by increasing or decreasing supply, announced Thursday that it won’t fight the price skid by cutting production this time. That likely means prices will continue to fall, and the more costly production technique of fracking could become cost-prohibitive, say experts.

Drivers have benefited in recent months from the falling prices, the API study found.

“This reduction in petroleum product prices have saved U.S. consumers an estimated $63 to $248 billion in 2013 and estimated cumulative savings of between $165 and $624 billion from 2008 to 2013,” stated the report.

Read complete article via How low can it go? Oil, gas prices in freefall as OPEC reels from US fracking | Fox News.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Four words that could deep-six Obamacare

supremecourt2

WASHINGTON — The most serious challenge to President Obama’s health care law since it survived the Supreme Court by a single vote in 2012 isn’t a balky website, public opinion or the Republican takeover of Congress. It’s the Supreme Court — again.

In a case likely to be heard in March and decided in June, the justices will dissect the meaning of four words on page 95 of the 906-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — four words that could render health insurance premiums unaffordable for millions of Americans.

Here’s a look at the issues in King v. Burwell:

Question: Why the fuss over four words?

Answer: The law states that tax credits will be available through so-called exchanges, or online marketplaces, “established by the State.” When it was being crafted, it was assumed that all 50 states would create their own exchanges. After it passed in March 2010, it became clear that many states would rely on the federal government to operate them, as the law allows.

In 2012, the Internal Revenue Service made the subsidies available in all states. The law’s challengers claim they cannot be offered in exchanges operated by the federal government. Thirty-six states fit into that category. Without subsidies, insurance costs would skyrocket.

Q: What’s more important — the plain meaning of those words, or the context?

A: That depends on whom you ask. The challengers say the plain meaning is clear: Subsidies can be offered only in state exchanges. If that’s what Congress wrote, they say, the Supreme Court cannot change it, and the IRS cannot extend tax credits to federal exchange customers.

The administration and other proponents say the words must be read in the context of a law clearly intended to make health insurance more widely available and affordable. Even the suspect words appear in a subtitle of the law that reads, “Affordable Coverage Choices for All Americans.”

Read complete article via Four words that could deep-six Obamacare.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share