LAR: Obama's tenuous truce with the ChurchInbox x
11:47 AM (2 hours ago)  | | |||
 |
Feb. 13, 2012
Obama's tenuous truce with the Church U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on new HHS rule: "[W]e we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders… is unacceptable and must be corrected."
Is There Even One Patriot in the U.S. Senate? Obama has torn through the separation of powers with his radical 'recess' appointments. What is the Senate going to do about it?
Indiana's Right to Work Law Could Boost State's Competitive Standing and Transform Midwest Indiana's new 'right-to-work' could have a transformative impact on the entire Midwest region where organized labor has traditionally held considerable sway and influence.
Gasparino: A 'deadbeat' bailout "We're teaching a generation of home-owners that there are no risks to their decisions because the government will bail them out." Obama's tenuous truce with the Church
By Robert Romano
In response to the Obama Administration's supposed modification of its rule mandating religious-affiliated institutions to provide contraceptive services that violate their doctrines, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) adopted an old Reagan mantra — trust but verify.
"[W]e reserve judgment on the details until we have them," Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of the USCCB said immediately after Obama spoke on the issue. Obama had promised a new regulation will be issued "to address the religious objections of the non-exempted religious organizations," according to a White House fact sheet.
Call it a tenuous truce.
At least it was, until the Conference took a look at some of those details when the finalized regulation was released hours after Obama delivered his speech. It had originally objected to the regulation because it would force all private health plans to carry contraception, forcing employers, employees, and students to pay for them even if they had religious objections.
The Church wanted "a conscience exemption for all of these stakeholders — not just the extremely small subset of 'religious employers' that HHS proposed to exempt initially."
The Catholic Church had cast a wider net than Obama could handle, seeking an exemption not just for their institutions, including charities, schools, and hospitals — but for every individual. In essence, the Conference had put the ball back in Obama's court — placing the onus of proof on the Administration. It was up to Obama to show that those with objections under the finalized regulation would not be forced through their premiums to pay for services that violate their religious beliefs — a violation of the First Amendment.
Obama fell way short of their demands, said the Bishops: "we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders — for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals — is unacceptable and must be corrected."
In fact, Obama has not changed a thing about his plan. He merely issued a press release and promised there would be another regulation that would — perhaps this time he means it — take into consideration everyone's objections. As the rule stands right now, after the one-year grace period stipulated in the regulation, come Aug. 2013, religious-affiliated employers will be required to pay for this coverage — or else drop coverage all together and face a fine. For everyone else, the rule goes into effect Aug. 2012.
Get full story here. Is There Even One Patriot in the U.S. Senate?
By Bill Wilson As originally published in the Washington Examiner.
In late December, Barack Obama announced that he believed the U.S. Senate was in recess and that he had the right to plant four people into sensitive governmental positions without Senate concurrence. Coming as it did during a time when the American public had checked-out for the holidays the move by Obama received only the expected level of opposition.
But the implications of what Obama has done and the failure of anyone in the Senate to respond in an effective way will have devastating consequences for the United States.
In short, Obama staged a radical coup, he has transformed the Constitution of the United States without so much as whimper. The facts are as clear as glass.
Our government was established on the principle of separation of powers. The three branches of government — the executive, legislative and judicial — were meant to be co-equal. This has meant that one branch did not have the right or power to impose its will on another. Obama has changed that. He has asserted the right of the executive to dictate terms to the legislative. If this is allowed to stand, the United States will be entering the land of Third World, dysfunction and dictatorship.
Get full story here. Indiana's Right to Work Law Could Boost State's Competitive Standing and Transform Midwest
Indiana's new "right-to-work" could have a transformative impact on the entire Midwest region where organized labor has traditionally held considerable sway and influence, according to policymakers and lawmakers who support the legislation.
The law will prohibit union contracts from requiring non-union members to pay representation fees. Not a long ago, it would been unthinkable for a rust-belt state to enact this kind of policy change, but Indiana is under severe economic pressure.
"I see two main arguments for passing the law," Rep. Jerry Torr, the Republican House sponsor, said. "Right-to-work offers freedom for individuals to choose whether or not to associate with labor unions. I am also convinced we'll see more employers look at Indiana when they consider expanding or moving their operations. This will mean more job opportunities for the quarter million or so Hoosiers who are unemployed."
More than a decade has passed since Oklahoma lawmakers approved the last right-to-work legislation in 2001. Indiana will become the nation's 23rd right-to-work state.
Bill Wilson, President of the pro-free market group, Americans for Limited Government hailed passage of the law stating, "Indiana has struck a blow for the right of their citizens to choose whether to join a labor union or not. There is simply no longer any place for compulsory union membership in this nation."
In a strategy reminiscent of what transpired in Wisconsin last year over different labor legislation, House Democrats staged repeated boycotts in an effort to deny a quorum and delay action on the proposal.
Wisconsin's state Senate Democratic caucus likewise staged a walk out aimed at scuttling reforms advanced by Republican Gov. Scott Walker that curtailed public employee benefits and collective bargaining.
Get full story here  ALG Editor's Note: In the following featured column from the New York Post, Charles Gasparino makes the case against bailing out homeowners who are late on their payments via the $26 billion settlement between banks and the government:
A 'deadbeat' bailout
By Charles Gasparino
It's hard to imagine a less-deserving group of victims: people who gambled during the housing bubble by purchasing homes with borrowed money that they knew or should have known they couldn't afford, but who are now able to stay in the homes they should have never bought because of what amounts to paperwork errors on the part of the nation's big banks.
But that's essentially what went down yesterday, thanks to the Obama administration's latest re-election gimmick — the nationwide mortgage-foreclosure settlement.
Everyone — from the president, to officials at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to at least some of 49 state attorneys general who cobbled together the pact, including New York's Eric Schneiderman — took the all-too-familiar class-warfare route in selling the deal to the public and national media. They'd like us to believe that the nation's largest banks are finally paying for their bad behavior during the housing bubble and its aftermath, when millions of Americans either lost or were in jeopardy of losing their homes.
That's because the banks will cough up $26 billion for various abuses, including illegal foreclosures. Many "victimized" home-owners will get relief, mostly in the form of refinancing of underwater mortgages. So, they can stay in their homes, at least for a while.
It's such a win-win, the administration is boasting, that even those people not part of the specific victimized class will benefit because the deal creates a stronger housing market. If banks can't foreclose on properties, the theory goes, they can't depress housing prices more by selling these properties on the cheap.
Problem is, almost all of the "logic" behind the deal isn't logic, but a combination of half truths and outright lies. Even worse, the settlement will likely prolong the housing slump and set the stage for it to happen again.
Take the "victims," who faced eviction from their homes because of the banks' supposedly corrupt foreclosure practices. These home-owners didn't really own their homes; many, in fact, barely plunked down a downpayment for a mortgage.
Get full story here. |
No comments:
Post a Comment