#SOTU: It’s time to stop the “equal pay for equal work” lie…


Facts matter.

Independent Women’s Forum managing director Carrie Lukas tackles the oft-told-by-liberals lie that there is a “wage gap” between what women earn and what men earn for “equal work”:

Yet they [liberals] are behind the curve in using a statistic that is increasingly acknowledged as misleading. As feminist writer Hanna Rosin wrote about the 77-cent statistic in Slate:

I’ve heard the line enough times that I feel the need to set the record straight: It’s not true.

The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.” The latter gives the impression that a man and a woman standing next to each other doing the same job for the same number of hours get paid different salaries. That’s not at all the case.

She goes on to describe – as those of us on the right have countless times before – that it’s the different choices men and women make (hours spent working, industry, fields of specialty, time spent out of the workforce, etc.) that are the primary drivers of the wage gap.

We can all debate why it is that women and men make such different choices, and whether that in itself is a problem society ought to seek to solve. Yet it would be nice if first we could all agree to stop misleading Americans by repeating this statistic and pretending that the 23-cent wage gap is evidence of rampant workplace sexism. Mainstream journalists are moving in that direction; it would be nice if the president’s speechwriters would catch on.

I wish we could put this argument to rest because it has been consistently debunked over and over again but who cares about the truth when you’re trying to – almost literally – buy the women’s vote via emotional manipulation by repeating again and again the same false information about their wages in comparison to their male co-workers?  It’s bad enough when Democrat politicos keep uttering this nonsense, but the mainstream media also accepts the assertion as “fact” as this CNN piece demonstrates (hat tip):

Working women and their struggles will form a major part of President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night, CNN has learned, underscoring the important role women play both in Obama’s domestic agenda and his party’s hopes for this year’s midterm elections.

During his speech, Obama will call for an end to the wage gap between men and women. On average, women earn 77 cents to every dollar a man makes in the workplace

See? Just repeated without questioning, without analyzing. No attempt made at all by CNN to determine whether or not what the President says is factually accurate. Can’t say that I’m surprised, but it’s frustrating nevertheless.

We’ve also seen this same type of shameless pandering from Democrats when it comes to “let’s raise the minimum wage!” arguments.  Do liberals (and their allies in the press) never learn?

2014 election: #Obamacare & a stagnant economy loom large for Democrats

Election 2014

The road ahead.

The Hill has a story up today that points out vulnerable Democrats running for re-election this year will have more than just Obamacare to worry about come November:

President Obama and Democrats may not be able to rely on the economic recovery to bolster their chances in November’s midterm elections.

Even though there has been a raft of positive economic news recently, experts in key battleground states caution that other issues, notably ObamaCare, could loom even larger than the economy.

They also add that congressional races, whether for the House or Senate, can swing as easily on local priorities as on broader questions of the national economy. And in some cases, the local economic story is different from the emerging national trend.

For the GOP to wrest control of the Senate, the party needs to pick up six seats.

In Arkansas, where Republicans fancy their chances of ousting incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor, the unemployment rate has edged up over the past 12 months and, at 7.5 percent, is now above the national average.

In Louisiana, where Sen. Mary Landrieu is the Democrat under threat, unemployment has also ticked up year-on-year — but only to 6.3 percent, a figure that is relatively healthy, at least in comparison to the country at large.

A mirror image of that situation is found in North Carolina, a key battleground where the GOP is seeking to topple Sen. Kay Hagan (D). Unemployment has dropped more precipitously in the Tar Heel State than anywhere else in the country, falling a full two percentage points between November 2012 and November 2013. Yet it still remains high, at 7.4 percent.

“I think there is a general sense that the state could be doing better, but I’m not sure the U.S. Senate race is going to be a referendum on the state economy,” said Chris Cooper, a political science professor at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, N.C. “Healthcare will be huge and the real question for me is how much does the election end up being a referendum on each party’s brand?”

Democrats would of course hope that a rising economy nationally would help their brand. The national unemployment rate is now 7.0 percent which, a significant decrease from 7.8 percent a year ago. At the same time, unemployment remains elevated in historical terms, and much of the drop in the unemployment rate has come from people leaving the workforce.

In spite of the strong dislike of Obamacare across many parts of the country and the fact that many states aren’t seeing the so-called “economic recovery” the Obama administration (and their allies in the mainstream media)  keeps touting, the Republicans are known for blowing elections spectacularly even when conditions on the ground favor them to win. So don’t think 2014 is a lock for the GOP in terms of winning seats in Congress.  All the same, if things keep going south for Democrats as they have been for the last several months, it might just be that the GOP picks up seats by default because so many are sick of being told one thing by Democrats and actually experiencing something much different (and not for the better) later on.

As always, stay tuned.

“Serious cuts” coming from SeaTac, WA biz as $15/hr min wage set to take effect

Minimum wage protest

Why not make it $20? $25? $30? #AskALiberal

Shocking! Via Fox News:

As talk builds on Capitol Hill over hiking the federal minimum wage, one city in Washington state is poised to set the highest rate in the nation.

On Jan. 1, an estimated 1,600 hotel and transportation workers in SeaTac, Wash., will see their pay jump to $15 an hour, a 60 percent increase from the state’s $9.32 minimum wage. 

While many workers look forward to the higher pay, employers are looking for ways to absorb the big increase in labor costs. Some plan on eliminating jobs. 

“We’re going to be looking at making some serious cuts,” said Cedarbrook Lodge General Manager Scott Ostrander. “We’re going to be looking at reducing employee hours, reducing benefits and eliminating some positions.” 

That’s in the short term. Eventually, those jobs and more are expected to return as the Cedarbrook Lodge looks to build an addition to the hotel. The plan is to increase revenue to offset the higher labor costs.

But not every employer is being so ambitious. One has told a trade group it is going to close one of its two restaurants, eliminating 200 jobs. 

The plan has also caused Han Kim — who runs Hotel Concepts, a company that owns and manages 11 hotels in Washington state — to shelve plans to build a hotel in SeaTac. The company already has three hotels in SeaTac, and Kim and a business partner were looking to build a fourth on land they own.

“Uncertainty is bad for business, and right now we’re right in that area so we’re just putting everything on hold,” Kim said.


The owner of Dollar Rental Cars told Fox News she’ll outsource some functions, change schedules and cut some staff in response to the new policy.

And guess what? Job cut backs, losses, and a halt in business expansion won’t be the only thing hitting SeaTac, WA if the minimum wage hike goes through: The prices of goods and services will also go up, which means tourists will spend less because they can’t afford the price jump the businesses had to implement in order to pay their staffs.

Talk about dumb!

This, btw, is all part of a new nationwide strategy on the part of Democrats who are trying to do their best to distract and deflect from a hellacious 2013 year for them thanks to Obamacare:

WASHINGTON — Democratic Party  leaders, bruised by months of attacks on the new health care program, have found an issue they believe can lift their fortunes both locally and nationally in 2014: an increase in the minimum wage.

The effort to take advantage of growing populism among voters in both parties is being coordinated by officials from the White House, labor unions and liberal advocacy groups.

In a series of strategy meetings and conference calls among them in recent weeks, they have focused on two levels: an effort to raise the federal minimum wage, which will be pushed by President Obama and congressional leaders, and a campaign to place state-level minimum wage proposals on the ballot in states with hotly contested congressional races.

With polls showing widespread support for an increase in the $7.25-per-hour federal minimum wage among both Republican and Democratic voters, top Democrats see not only a wedge issue that they hope will place Republican candidates in a difficult position, but also a tool with which to enlarge the electorate in a nonpresidential election, when turnout among minorities and youths typically drops off.

“It puts Republicans on the wrong side of an important value issue when it comes to fairness,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the president’s senior adviser. “You can make a very strong case that this will be a helpful issue for Democrats in 2014. But the goal here is to actually get it done. That’s why the president put it on the agenda.”

Top Republicans assert that a wage increase would dampen the economic recovery and indicated after Mr. Obama mentioned the issue in his State of the Union speech this year that they had no intention of bringing a minimum-wage increase to a vote in the House, which they control.

“Why would we want to make it harder for small employers to hire people?” Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio said.

Indeed why?

What we’re seeing here – as usual – are Democrats (who are also cranking up this rhetoric here in North Carolina) resorting to desperate attempts at vote-buying. They did it with “free” healthcare, “free” birth control, “forgiveness” of student loans, a vast expansion of the welfare state, and now this.  This party is flat out of ideas – has been for a long time, in fact – and now has few other options on the table left but to promise you “free” stuff,  higher pay (which would have to come out of someone ELSE’S pocket – surprise!) , and “protection” from the very people who have the money to spend to start up a business or expand one. You know, the people who provide employment opportunities – which this country so desperately needs right now?  It’s never occurred to these dum dums that you earn higher pay based on the type of job you have, the skill level it requires, how productive and efficient you are at it, etc.  Then again, it shouldn’t shock anyone that this bunch believes you shouldn’t have to work harder to earn more money – that instead it should just be given to you via the force of government.

Just how do Republicans effectively combat naked liberal appeals to the “gimme generation”?

Disturbing: Did the Census Bureau “fake” 2012 elections jobs report?

“But at least we won the election! Obama!!”

The NY Post has an explosive report in which deliberate election-year numbers fudging by the Census Bureau is alleged by an anonymous source (hat tip):

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.

The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.

Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.

And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

Intriguing. But even so,  National Review’s Jim Geraghty urges caution after talking to a Census source:

One Campaign Spot reader is a veteran of the Census Bureau, who finds some elements of the story believable, but is skeptical that this sort of dishonesty could be widespread within the organization:

I worked at the Census Bureau for 23 years and knew the people who ran the CPS Branch. It is true that the vast majority of Census employees support Obama but I have a hard time believing that they would risk their careers by deliberately manipulating the employment data. It is true that interviewers sometimes submit fake completed interviews (curbstoning) but this is usually due to pressures to meet a target of completed interviews or laziness or both. Even if there was a coordinated conspiracy to fake the unemployment numbers, doing it by having a lot of interviewers fake interviews seems to be an inefficient and risky way to do it.

Unless there is a lot more information out there that hasn’t been reported I would not believe this story. I say this as one of the few people I knew at Census who did not support Obama. I also admit that a lot of things I didn’t think possible have happened in this administration.

However, if any economic data was falsified, we can rest assured that the Obama administration will seek out the perpetrators, most likely rogue low-level employees acting on their own initiative in the Cincinnati office, just like in the IRS scandal.

If there is indeed a scandal and cover-up here, how much higher up did it go? Bring on the investigations & hearings, Congress!

So for now, the partial #shutdown is over – so what’s next?

Government shutdown

Not anymore.

Fox News reports that the partial shutdown was officially over as of last night:

For the first time since Sept. 30, the federal government will be fully open Thursday after President Obama signed a short-term bill ending the partial government shutdown and raising the debt ceiling, capping one of the most bitter and brutal political fights in recent memory.

The bill cleared the House late Wednesday on a 285-144 vote, lifted over the finish line by a large chunk of Democrats. All House Democrats voted in favor of the bill and 87 Republicans did as well. 144 Republicans voted against it.

The Senate, where the plan originated, earlier voted 81-18 for the bill. As soon as Obama signed the legislation, the White House directed all federal agencies affected by the slimdown to promptly restore staffing to normal levels.


After weeks of wrangling on the Hill, though, the bill passed Wednesday after House Republican leaders backed down on their demands that the legislation rein in ObamaCare.

To the dismay of many conservatives, the final product does not include any major provisions pertaining to the health care law. But, with the House a day earlier unable to muster support for an alternative GOP plan, House leaders agreed to go along with the bipartisan Senate bill.

President Obama, speaking between the two sets of votes, said he would sign the bill “immediately” and “immediately” begin reopening parts of the government that were closed.

He called on both sides of the aisle to work together in the future on a range of issues, including stalled immigration legislation. “We’ve got to get out of the habit of governing by crisis,” he said.

The bill puts an end, for now, to the historic showdown that has kept the government partly shuttered for more than two weeks. Putting additional pressure on lawmakers to reach an agreement, Congress was facing a Thursday deadline to raise the debt ceiling.

“We fought the good fight. We just didn’t win,” House Speaker John Boehner said in an interview with Cincinnati radio station WLW-AM ahead of the vote.

The final bill will fund the government through Jan. 15, and raise the debt cap through Feb. 7. Plus it provides back-pay for furloughed workers.

First off, the idea that Obama is truly willing to “talk” to the opposition in any serious, meaningful way is absolute BS – so when this issue pops up again, expect ZERO concessions out of either him or Harry Reid in the Senate, both of whom were largely responsible for the shutdown in the first place.

That said, I find myself in the rare position of being torn on this issue. On one hand, I wanted the GOP to fight on, to force Obama’s hand on Obamacare, but on the flip side, it was clear this issue was hurting us politically.  Call me a RINO if you want, but just remember I feel exactly the way most conservatives and Republicans feel about Obamacare. I hate it.  I also hate the idea of having more elected Democrats in government.

Aside from that, I think we can all agree on at least one thing: Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Peter King (R-NY) both should frankly be embarrassed at how they acted, how they treated colleagues in both the House and Senate  with such utter contempt and disdain over sincere attempts at resolving the issue. Nice way to totally abandon any attempt at unity, guys. Well done. NOT.


#Obamanomics nightmare headline: “Labor participation at lowest rate since 1978”

Read it and weep, ladies and gents:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The official U.S. unemployment rate is falling, but that’s not necessarily a good thing.

That’s because the slice of Americans involved in the labor force has shrunk to a level not seen in 35 years.

The labor force participation rate — the percentage of people over 16 who either have a job or are actively searching for one — fell to 63.2% in August. The last time it was that low was in August of 1978.

In the latter half of the 20th century, the rate rose steadily for decades as more women were entering the workforce, eventually peaking at 67.3% in 2000. But the number has been on the decline ever since — a trend that was accelerated by the Great Recession.

Economist say there are several reasons for the decline, including the retirement of the baby boomers and fewer students who also work. But the main reason for its recent fall is a lack of good jobs.

“We know there’s a lot of hardworking people that want to be productive, we just don’t have work for them to do,” said Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute.

Schierholz said the labor force participation rate would be going down anyway as the baby boomers retire. But she said that since the recession, between two-thirds and three-quarters of the drop can be attributed to the lousy job market.

“We’re operating way below potential,” she said.

Um, can someone say “understatement of the decade”?  This is utterly pathetic.  That promise he made prior to being elected the first time around about “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” takes on a whole new meaning in this context, doesn’t it? Sad – and disgraceful.


Says it all.
(Graphic via @SooperMexican)


Illinois employing temp workers for $9/hour to help people sign up for #Obamacare – Updated

Via CBS DC (hat tip):

CHICAGO — Working on a tight timeframe, Illinois is building an 800-person army of temporary workers to help people sign up for health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

The “in-person counselor” jobs, located in every corner of the state, range from a $9-an-hour part-time evening job in Clinton County to a $45,000-a-year project coordinator position in Chicago for someone with experience in community organizing and public speaking.

The workers will help consumers apply for coverage, and will answer questions and explain differences between the insurance policies offered on the new online marketplace. They will help consumers figure out if they’re eligible for Medicaid or for new tax credits that will help many people pay for coverage.

Job applications are being collected online and anyone hired will get three days of training about health insurance, enrollment rules and other complicated aspects of the health law. Illinois must act quickly to be ready for Oct. 1, the first day of enrollment for the law’s new insurance opportunities.

Training began at the end of July and, so far, about 120 people have gone through the program, said Mike Claffey, a spokesman for Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn.

Each in-person counselor must complete state and federal training and a fingerprint-based background check to become certified by the Illinois Department of Insurance. The training involves one day of online work and two days of in-person education.

Trainers are faculty from the University of Illinois at Chicago’s School of Public Health who “have extensive experience in health care economics, insurance practices, outreach and training, health literacy and system navigation,” Claffey said.

How ironic is it that temporary employees are being hired in Obama’s home state to help naive people sign up for so-called “healthcare coverage” pushed for by President Obama himself and shoved down the throats of the American people by Congress that has, in effect, severely crippled our nation’s economy by way of hampering job creation beyond part time workers? You really can’t make this stuff up.


ObamaCare: Bad for your wallet … and your health.


Phineas Butts In: These “in person” counselors are the same as the Obamacare navigators, which I wrote about a few weeks ago. On top of all the other problems already experienced with Obamacare’s rollout, there are serious questions about the navigators (Three days training? For this morass of a bill? Really??): state attorneys general in particular have pointed out the serious risk of identity theft and to people’s privacy in general. What was it Max Baucus called this? Oh, yeah…

"Train wreck"

“Train wreck”

Is #ObamaCare turning the US into the “United States of Part-Timers”?

Sure as heck sounds like it. Via Fox Business’ Elizabeth MacDonald:

Part-time work accounted for a whopping 77% of the jobs the U.S. economy created from January through July, according to household survey data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Specifically, this data show that the U.S. economy has created 953,000 jobs so far in 2013. Of that sum, 731,000 were part-time jobs versus just under a quarter, 23%, or 222,000, full-time jobs.

This first-half trend held last year. Based on that federal survey, from January to July 2012, the U.S. economy created 1.4 million jobs. Of that sum, 53% were part-time jobs, 764,000, versus 658,000 or 47%, full-time jobs, reports FOX News analyst Steve Joachim.

While the federal government and the White House are reporting the U.S. economy has been adding on average 200,000 jobs a month so far this year, a closer look at government data shows the majority of jobs created are part-time, lower-wage jobs, typically in the retail or restaurant industry, providing the reason why median household income continues to decline.

A rising number of companies are citing health reform as the reason for the growing part-time workforce (see list at bottom). The new health-reform law defines a full-time worker as one who works on average 30 or more hours per week. Those workers must be given health-care coverage or the employer faces government fines and penalties.

As a result, the U.S. workforce is restructuring toward “29-ers”, companies and economists report, or employees working just under that threshold. An estimated 1,200 companies and a growing number of unions have either sought or won temporary waivers from health-reform mandates.

GOP members of the House Ways and Means Committee report that under President Barack Obama, since January 2009 the country has added seven times more part-time jobs versus full time jobs, a net total of 270,000 full-time jobs versus 1.88 million part-time jobs.

The U.S. now has a historically low labor force participation rate, with 116.1 million full-time workers and a record 28.2 million part-time jobs.

As if this news isn’t depressing (along with the news Phineas wrote about earlier regarding UPS and their spousal health coverage decision that will impact 15,000), the Free Beacon has this report: Number of Long-Term Unemployed ‘Unprecedented’ Under Obama.

The “summer of wreckovery” continues … :(

I think it’s time for another Beer Summit – and President Obama is NOT invited. First round’s on me …

Part-time help

Nothing wrong with part-time work … unless that’s not what you’re looking for. Thanks, Obama! (Photo via APS)

The Obamacare Chronicles: Labor votes for Obama, labor gets its thank-you

**Posted by Phineas

“But at least we won the election! Obama!!”

“But at least we won the election! Obama!!”

In the form of having their hours of employment cut to avoid the (delayed) employer mandate in Obamacare:

The predictions and fears of the Affordable Care Act’s adversaries have begun to materialize, specifically fears that the law will encourage employers to demote their employees to part-time positions in order to evade federal health care requirements. Popular clothing company Forever 21 is the first of what might be many companies to limit its non-management workers’ hours to 29.5 a week, just below the 30-hour minimum that the ACA deems full-time work.

Explaining that the company “recently audited its staffing levels, staffing needs, and payroll in conjunction with reviewing its overall operating budget,” Associate Director of Human Resources Carla Macias informed employees that effective August 31, they will no longer be full-time employees of Forever 21.

It is a move that will likely harm the reputation of the company, will absolutely harm the economic circumstances of its employees, and will function as a tangible example of the Affordable Care Act’s consequences and shortcomings.

Although the ethical nature of Forever 21’s decision is debatable, it is both rational and understandable. A company that boasts regularly low prices and frequent, sensational sales, Forever 21’s competitive success is largely dependent upon its ability to maintain low manufacturing and operational costs. The ACA is an undeniable burden on this principle, and Forever 21’s management has the prerogative to take any legal measures necessary to avoid raising the costs of its products.

Contra Ms. O’Neill at Policymic, who does a good job with the economics of Forever 21’s dilemma, I don’t think the ethics are debatable at all. Forever 21’s management owes a fiduciary responsibility to the company’s owners to return the most profit at the least cost while staying within the law and the laws of good business. This is their primary duty. They owe their employees nothing more than what is required under law and the overall decent treatment again dictated by good business sense. (Happy employees leading to less turnover and higher productivity.)

What they do not owe their employees is anything that actually harms the business. As the article reports, Forever 21’s business niche is as a provider of low-cost clothing, presumably mainly to a budget-conscious student and working-class clientele. To do this, they have to keep costs down. Obamacare makes this impossible with regard to health care benefits (1), so the managers are faced with three choices:

  1. Pay for insurance as required under Obamacare and accept a lesser profit margin in a business that’s already low-margin, thus betraying their primary duty to their owners;
  2. Pay for insurance as required under Obamacare, but increase prices to the consumer, thus hurting Forever 21’s competitiveness and probably lessening profits, again violating the main reason any business exists;
  3. Adapt by controlling expenses, in this case by reducing employee hours to avoid the employer mandate’s tripwire.

In the end, they still probably harm their business, assuming a higher instance of unhappy employees, but it’s the least harmful option that also meets management’s primary responsibility — to create a profitable business for the owners. It is, in fact, the unquestionably ethical choice.

As I’ve said before, I feel sorry for anyone seeing their hours cut, but don’t blame the company, which is simply making a rational choice. Instead, lay the blame directly where it belongs, with the Democrats who voted for it and their Leftist and Big Business enablers who shoved this anti-constitutional monstrosity down our throats, thus creating the perverse incentives that lead to Forever 21’s decision.

And, to the extent that any of you seeing your hours cut voted for Barack Obama and the (Social) Democrats, blame yourselves, too.

Elections, as they say, have consequences.

via Bryan Preston

(1) And maybe their other costs, too, as their suppliers will likely have to meet Obamacare’s mandates and thus pass the costs along in the form of price increases.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

More businesses vowing to cut hours due to high costs of implementing #Obamacare

The fascists on the far left will blame the businesses for being “stingy”, but the real blame sits with the current occupant of the Oval Office, who rammed this monstrosity of a bill through Congress, and down the throats of the American people. Via the NBC News Investigations page:

Employers around the country, from fast-food franchises to colleges, have told NBC News that they will be cutting workers’ hours below 30 a week because they can’t afford to offer the health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

“To tell somebody that you’ve got to decrease their hours because of a law passed in Washington is very frustrating to me,” said Loren Goodridge, who owns 21 Subway franchises, including a restaurant in Kennebunk. “I know the impact I’m having on some of my employees.”

Goodridge said he’s cutting the hours of 50 workers to no more than 29 a week so he won’t trigger the provision in the new health care law that requires employers to offer coverage to employees who work 30 hours or more per week. The provision takes effect in 16 months.

Luke Perfect, who has worked at Goodridge’s Kennebunk Subway for more than a decade, said it was “horrible” to learn he was among the employees whose hours would be limited, and that it would be a financial hardship. “I’m barely scraping by with overtime,” he said.

The WH, of course, is in sheer denial mode:

The White House dismisses such examples as “anecdotal.” Jason Furman, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisors, said, “We are seeing no systematic evidence that the Affordable Care Act is having an adverse impact on job growth or the number of hours employees are working. … [S]ince the ACA became law, nearly 90 percent of the gain in employment has been in full-time positions.”

I don’t even know if that’s true or not (probably not, knowing the spinmeisters and liars in this administration), but even if it is it doesn’t change the fact that a startling number of employers across the country will have no choice but to cut back full time hours to part time in order to be able to stay in business.  The article continues:

But the president of an influential union that supports Obamacare said the White House is wrong.

“It IS happening,” insisted Joseph Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which has 1.2 million members.  “Wait a year. You’ll see tremendous impact as workers have their hours reduced and their incomes reduced. The facts are already starting to show up. Their statistics, I think, are a little behind the time.”

In a letter to Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, Hansen joined other labor chieftains in warning that the ACA as presently written could “destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week that is the backbone of the middle class.”

NBC News spoke with almost 20 small businesses and other entities from Maine to California, and almost all said that because of the new law they’d be cutting back hours for some employees – an unintended consequence of the new law.

At St. Petersburg College, a public university in Florida where most of the faculty is part-time, 250 have had their hours reduced for the fall term because the college said it can’t afford to offer them health insurance.

St Petersburg’s president, Dr. Bill Law, said providing health care for the 250 adjunct professors would cost more than $777,000 dollars a year. “The cost associated with making a part-timer benefits-eligible really is not available to us as a public college,” said Law.

“I don’t think anyone [passed the law] so they could make our life worse,” said Law. “They did it because people need access to health care.”

No, buddy, they did it because they knew it would – over time – prove be a failure, and one that they hope will eventually lead to their ultimate goal: A single payer healthcare coverage system that benefits NO ONE … outside of Uncle Sam.  Oh, but if you have an Obama-favored business, or you happen to be a member of Congress or work for members of Congress, you’re fortunate enough to earn waivers or partial waivers or delays in implementation, or …

As my co-blogger Phineas so succinctly put it in a post earlier this month:

(1) [Obamacare is something f]or which no Republican member of Congress voted. This anti-constitutional fiasco is a wholly-owned Democrat operation, and we need to remind people of that at every opportunity between now and election day in 2014 and 2016.

D*mn straight.


ObamaCare: Bad for your wallet … and your health.