Obamacare Strikes Again

This post is a continuation of sorts to my last blog where I explained that Obamacare is going to make me less healthy as well as make me go bankrupt. In the ongoing saga that is now my quest to be a good citizen and pay for health insurance, I have come across a few more stumbling blocks.

First, at my work we had a meeting to discuss the changes that were coming due to new health care regulations (Obamacare). Because our current provider (Anthem) was going to increase the rates by 100% the company decided to switch insurance providers to help control cost. Now, I don't use the company insurance because it is expensive, even though people have tried to tell me to join a "group" because that way premium costs can be shared and rates go down. Unfortunately, that doesn't work for me because MY rates just get jacked up so I can subsidize all the older and less healthy people I work with. So as I am sitting in this little meeting I'm handed a sheet of paper that goes over two different types on insurance, one that is only good to use in the state of Virginia and another one that can be used nation wide. While all this coverage is being explained to me I am under the impression that because of the higher deductibles the rates will be a bit cheaper. However, the coverage still requires child dental insurance, mental health coverage, maternity, mammograms and other services I don't need but are now required by law. When I look on the paper it says that the cheap plan (the Virginia only plan) for Employee and Spouse is...$150---PER WEEK! So, my current insurance cost for the entire month is less than one weeks worth of insurance through work! So, on your standard 4 week month that would cost me $600. And on top of all that, the $600/month insurance premium is subsidized by my employer at $200/month. So, thanks to Obamacare which was fed to us as something that was going to lower rates, reduce the deficit and get everyone covered with insurance has caused our work rates to skyrocket. Also, the company in years past has been paying about $150 towards everyones insurance, but because of Obamacare they had to increase it to the $200 because the rate increases were so high.

Now, as was stated in my last post about this topic, Anthem has notified me that I can pay just under $400 a month for my own private insurance, which sounds pretty cheap in comparison. However, it is still more than I can afford. Because Anthem and the government know that everyones rates are going through the roof, my Anthem notice said that I may be eligible for a government subsidy to help reduce my rates. But there is a catch, according to my employer I am not actually eligible for the subsidy. There is something interesting that is apparently built in the law that says if your employer provides you with 'affordable' health insurance you are not eligible for a government subsidy. Now because the company I work for pays $200 towards their offered insurance plans the government considers it "affordable" and I will not be able to receive the subsidy. I'm sorry, but an insurance rate of $600 a month for 2 people with no preexisting conditions, no health complications, and under 30 is insane. And it is most certainly not "affordable."

So, to sum this whole thing up, I'm screwed. I can pay $400 (280% increase) for private insurance with Anthem, I can pay $600 (428% increase) for my work insurance, or I can take the gamble and pay $200 for the year as a penalty and not have any insurance. As things stand now, the government has literally caused me to lose my insurance. The law that was supposed to get everyone coverage is driving me out because of the massive rate increases and by being locked out of getting a subsidy.

Here is the sad thing, millions of American's new this was going to happen. By adding required benefits to insurance plans and insuring more people, why would anyone think that premiums will go down. People did (not me) because the government told us, and it was a flat out lie! If anyone sat down and though about it, cost reduction made no sense. How can people be required to pay for more services but lower their monthly premium?. We forgot about common sense and now I, and I suspect I'm not alone, am paying the price.

With the Republican controlled Congress coming next year, the first thing on the agenda should be to get rid of Obamacare. Remove the required benefits and allow me to have the insurance of my own choosing, because our health care legislation is quite literally bad for my health.

Great News Thanks To Obamacare

I have written on this subject before, about a year ago. I was notified by my health insurance provider, Anthem, that my insurance does not meet the requirements under Obamacare and that in 2015 I will need to choose another plan. The current insurance I pay for is essentially in case of a disaster.

Now there is a reason I chose this particular insurance plan. I am 25 years old, my job requires me to work on my feet (which is much healthier than sitting at a desk), I eat organic foods, and I go to the gym for 2 hours a day, 5 days a week. I have no preexisting conditions, I don't smoke and I don't drink. Essentially, the definition of healthy living. My wife is the same, no health issues, eats well, and exercises regularly. She is in graduate school so children aren't in the picture any time soon. Because of this, our insurance rate is very low, less than $150 a month for the both of us.

Yesterday I received a notice from Anthem that my insurance will be canceled on December 1, 2014. Also, I am required to sign up for a plan that is in compliance with Obamacare regulations. Essentially, I need to pay for additional benefits that I don't currently need. Some of those requirements are prescription drug coverage and maternity coverage. As stated previously, no preexisting conditions and no children, but I am required to pay for it anyway.

Now, because of our current situation, me being the primary income because my wife is in school (she gets a small stipend), our budget is tight. Also, we track every dollar we spend and that way we know exactly what we can afford. I work on commission, so my pay varies from month to month. I have to pay the monthly bills with my income, which includes rent, utilities, phone, insurance, and student loans. Because of my pay fluctuation, the rate I was paying for insurance fit within our budget and we had nothing to worry about. An increase will be difficult to handle.

When Anthem sent me my notice yesterday in the mail reminding me that if I like my insurance plan I CAN'T keep it, they sent me a quote for a new policy. According to Anthem, this is one that most closely aligns with my current coverage, but has those essential benefits required under the new law. When I read the rate increase, the word "shock" is an understatement. My insurance premium for a plan that Anthem says is most like mine, but includes everything required under the law, will increase my premiums by 275%. THAT IS ALMOST TRIPLE WHAT I PAY NOW! I stared at the statement not knowing what to do. My monthly rate was quoted at almost $400 a month. For me! Never been to the hospital for anything. The only time I was every sick and needed medication was when I had strep throat 15 years ago! I've never been seriously ill, never broken a bone in my body and have only gone to the doctor for physicals (when my wife makes me). But now, due to President Obama's "landmark achievement" I suddenly need to pay an exorbitant amount for health insurance.

I have no idea how I will be able to afford this. My current policy has been working fine, mostly because I'm perfectly healthy. My income isn't stable and I have plenty of other bills that need paying. I can't fathom how one day I have insurance and am paying a manageable low premium, and then the next day I will need to pay almost 3x as much even though nothing my health condition hasn't changed.

This is actually going to make my health worse. Yes, Obamacare has the potential of making me less healthy! The reason is that in order for me to exercise daily, I need to purchase a gym membership. One months health insurance premium costs the same as an entire year at the gym. Also, in order to be healthy, I pay more for organic foods which are more expensive. If I am having to trim areas in my budget, looks like grocery may need to go down, meaning buying less healthy organic foods.

So, thank you President Obama, your defining legacy (healthcare reform) is going to cause me, and many more like me, to have to strain my budget for something I don't want, and don't need.

The truly amazing thing is that the President knew this was going to happen. He blatantly lied to the American people saying that premiums wouldn't change and that those who liked their coverage could keep it. None of that has come true. Sadly, I am in the age group that is getting the shortest end of the stick. Now, because the insurance premiums are so insane for my wife and I, on my Anthem notice was a little box on the back side of the paper saying that if I make less than 39k a year, I can get a government subsidy!

First off, they knew the insurance rates would be astronomical, which is why the subsidy is there. Secondly, as someone who doesn't want to rely on federal assistance, this may be my only real option. Obamacare is going to generate major dependence because of individuals like myself who can't afford his health insurance requirements. It's insane. My choice is either strain my budget and pay for it all myself, or become dependent on the government to subsidize part of my premium. It's forced dependence.

No matter how any of this plays out in the end, it's worse than my current situation. I like my insurance and I can afford it. Next year, either I will have a hard time making ends meet or I will be dependent on the government. Man I love the USA! The last option before me is one that I am seriously exploring, not getting insurance. I've been paying my own insurance for about 4 years now and have had no reason to use it. So, given the option between being dependent on the government or paying a 'tax' for not being covered, I think I'll take the tax.

The amazing thing is the bit of irony in this situation. The Presidents mission was to decrease the amount of people who are uninsured. Well Mr. President, in my situation, the exact opposite happened.

Warlord in Chief

By now, unless you've had your head in the sand, you've heard of ISIS (or ISIL). They are an 'extremest' terrorist organization operating in Syria and Iraq. They have been leaving a trail of destruction and death in their wake as they overtake cities that were once occupied by American forces. With the new 'threat' abroad, President Obama has decided that he may take action. As is custom for this President, he will not commit ground troops but instead intends to begin bombing Syria. With this new plan being tossed around, President Assad told President Obama to seek permission to begin bombing first. However, on Tuesday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki emphatically rejected that condition, telling reporters "We're not going to ask permission from the Syrian regime."

Now you can think what you want about Assad, but we have just told him that we will not seek permission or even notify him when we start blowing up his country. It has now become the job of the President to send bombs to foreign nations to kill 'radical extremists' that currently pose no threat to American soil.  Also, no matter how much we do not approve of Assad, he is still the leader of Syria. We have created this tangled web of alliances with radical groups throughout the Middle East. We support guerrilla organizations and influence the overthrow of governments, inadvertently creating a power vacuum where these more radicalized groups come in and take control.

This outcome is what happens when the President himself has the power to essentially declare war. We have granted him the authority to bomb foreign nations and pick which foreign regimes to overthrow. This is not the role of the executive envisioned by the founders and that power is not to be found anywhere in the Constitution. And there is good reason for that, the modern presidency essentially has the power of the British monarch from the 1700s. This is exactly what the founders were trying to prevent.

We have created a new kind of Executive, one that the writers of the Constitution never imagined. The government we now possess is much similar to the government we broke away from. The powers granted to those who hold office far exceed their original limits.We have become what W. F. Buckley refers to as a 'crown' government. Or maybe more accurately what George Mason called an "elective monarchy." We have vested almost all power to one central office.

We have created an executive office that our Constitution was meant to prevent. The president is granted powers over social issues, economic affairs, as well as the US military. And amazingly, most of this usurpation of power only started 60-70 years ago. The modern presidency will likely only increase in power, therefore making our congressmen virtually useless. We are in a sense evolving backwards. We created a government that was divided and checked against each other, with the primary role going to congress to create laws. We broke away from a monarch that had excessive power over its people. In modern times instead of American's being ruled by a British monarch, we willingly vote in our own.

The Cult of the Presidency

A few years back I purchased a book by Gene Healy, Vice President of the Cato Institute, entitled "The Cult of the Presidency." I am currently in the process of re-reading that book because it's that good. It is perhaps the single most important book I've read in regards to how I view the Executive Office. The book was written during the Bush years, so it's not an Obama bash fest like many books out now. It goes through the history of the Presidency, and in doing so calls out those who in the Bush administration pushed for a massive Executive expansion, mostly justified by John Yoo.

For those who are interested in learning more about the history of the Presidency, and the theories behind what powers the president wields, this is an excellent book likely the most well written book on the subject.

As I'm reading this book again I got to thinking about all the things the President does that are just blatantly unconstitutional. Mostly, the President's expansive war powers, which came with the stamp of approval from John Yoo in the Bush administration. Going back to the original intent of the Executive office, the nature of his authority is apart of the name, Preside. The role of the President is to enforce the laws passed by congress. We commonly hear that all three branches of government were created with checks and balances but, they are not equal. The Legislature was always intended to wield more influence than the President or the Supreme Court. Primarily because that is where the laws were made, the President just enforced them and the courts determined constitutionality.

Sadly, we have come so far from this view of the presidency it is almost impossible to go back. We as a people seem to believe that we have and should have a closer connection to the President than our own locally elected representatives who live down the road from us. There is this insanity that the President embodies the spirit of America. We have willingly elected a savior and corrupted our political system because of our own stupidity and shortsightedness.

This has caused news outlets go berserk when a natural disaster occurs and the president either does or does not go to the location to empathize with local families. Why does he need to be there? Shouldn't the people of that area be focused on restoring their lives and local agencies helping with that effort. The president shouldn't be a symbol of hope for us, that is how dictatorships begin. We freely give away our rights because we so trust this official with our well being.

To give a little perspective, during the founding era and into the 20th century (from Jefferson up to Wilson) the President did not give his State of the Union speech to congress. It was written because the precedent was that it would look like the President is trying to influence policy if he went himself. Now we have a sitting President who in his SOTU speech he openly attacks the Supreme Court. We have turned an office of enforcing the laws to the one who essentially mandates what Congress will take up that year. When congress passes a law that is credited to the President (Obamacare), you know there is corruption between the legislators and the enforcer. At that point you have to ask yourself, who does Congress work for, us or the President?

Sadly, the problem isn't a DC problem, it's our problem as a nation. We have created this powerful office. The Constitution has few and defined powers for that office, and with ambitions President's, and willing people, we have made it the most powerful branch of government. The "leader of the free world" resides in one man. He has the power to strike foreign nations without declaration, detain American citizens suspected to be terrorists and has successfully convinced the American people that massive government intervention into healthcare is a moral good. We are slowly breeding a dictatorship. We are not there, not even close, but when you look at the power that the President actually wields, the only thing holding us back is the type of person we elect, because the power is there.

Ferguson

The unrest in Ferguson is the number one story on almost every news outlet and has been since the protests and riots began over a week ago. So far there are very few facts, Michael Brown is dead, he was unarmed, and Officer Darren Wilson pulled the trigger. However, media sources have been scouring for details to sensationalize the story. New evidence emerges every day that change how things played out. Civil unrest has gripped Ferguson and it appears that the police are unable to control the situation.

In order to try and calm things down, Attorney General Eric Holder went to Ferguson. Now, his presence there is to try and calm the people down and get to the bottom of what happened. But, it doesn't seem like this is his primary goal. At a community meeting Holder said, "I am the Attorney General of the United States, but I am also a black man." He then goes on to tell a story of his own experience with racial profiling in NJ. Now, to me this doesn't sound like someone from the Justice Department. His main function there is to seek Justice, but upon arrival he starts speaking about racial profiling, leading those in Ferguson to assume that this is the case for the Michael Brown shooting. The problem is, we don't have the details yet.

There have been numerous eye witness testimony to the Officer Wilson shooting Brown after her surrendered. One thing is for sure, eye witness testimony is unreliable. Anyone who has taken a Psychology course will understand this. You can put 10 people in the exact same situation and they will all tell a different story. Now evidence has emerged that Officer Wilson sustained a 'blowout fracture' to his eye, suggesting there was a fight or some sort of struggle.
But back to the motives of Holder, what exactly is he trying to accomplish in Ferguson? He is saying that will be impartial, but going back to his remarks it seems he already believes that civil rights were violated. He is also having the Federal Government come in and search for any evidence of civil rights law violations.This will only throw more flames on the fire as Holder and his team look for civil rights violations that will be extrapolated to the rest of the police force. His first priority should be that the evidence is examined thoroughly and the sequence of events is verified. Evidence must be properly examined and justice served.
With Attorney Holder going to Ferguson, and the remarks he has made, I don't have much confidence in an impartial inquiry into the events. His remarks make it seem that his job comes second (being the Attorney General) and the fact that he is a black man first. Holder's comments are in direct contradiction to those of John Adams "We are a government of laws, not men."

The Daily News Byte

NY Post: Dems EatingTheir Own Words on ObamaCare

                In 2013, Debbie Wasserman Schultz responded to criticism by Michelle Malkin on ObamaCare saying she would be eating her own words, then put the hashtag GetCovered. Since Schultz's comments, the Obama administration has decided to extend those plans that were to be outlawed under Obamacare, allowed insurance exemptions for universities, and financial incentives for insurance companies who are going to experience hardship under ObamaCare regulations. Everything has been a disaster with this law. One of the only benefits of the law that Democrats actually get behind is that kids  can be covered up to age 26 on their parents plan. It seems that Schultz is eating her own words here.

Time: Rand Paul Wouldn't Let Putin Get Away With This Invasion

                Rand Paul wrote on op-ed in Time Magazine in response to the Russian 'invasion' of Crimea. He boasts that he wouldn't let "Putin get away with it." He calls only for specific economic sanctions and deregulation to help deal with the likelihood of a gas shut off from Russia. With the development of the Keystone Pipeline and the shipment of oil to Europe, he believes that this would counter Russia closing off its gas supplies to Europe. Also, he is calling for an end to sending money to Ukraine because it can be used to pay off its debts to Russia. So we would effectively be "borrowing from China to give to Russia." The use of sanctions appears to be the common policy objective in handling Putin. These policy prescriptions are just about the same as the President has called for. So far, Russia is only in Crimea, they have yet to invade through military might the rest of Ukraine. Also, there are calls for Russia to let Ukrainians decide their own fate, but Crimea voted to join Russia and it was ignored. Now it's likely that there was political influence from Russia, but the people in Crimea are not revolting against this vote. And it's not like the West isn't influencing Ukraine to join the west.

Reuters: Crimea Votes to Join Russia

                The Crimean Parliament voted to join with Russia. With this vote, President Obama also called for sanctions against the illegal seizure of Crimea. It's kind of funny when Russia literally just walks in and claims the area with no bloodshed, then Crimea votes to join with Russia and then the US tells Russia they are going to be sanctioned for this action. The US and Western European nations make it sound like Russia has forcibly taken this part of Ukraine, when it appears they are content with being Russian. President Obama is calling for the sanctions because the 'invasion' is against the Ukrainian constitution. Is that document still valid since there is now a revolutionary government in place? It comes down to this, the previous Ukraine government was pro-Putin, a revolution occurred that changed it to be pro-West. So when Russia acts to keep them pro-Russia of course the West is going to step in. So this is really a battle between the West and Russia, not the 'sovereignty' of Ukraine. If there was a revolution in say Germany that was Pro-Putin, of course we would be saying that the government wasn't legitimate. It's all about national interest. The claims put forward by the nations of the world are all hypocritical. What is the big deal about Ukraine and why is it so important to the US? This issue needs to be left to those who inhabit Ukraine. It should be of no concern to us. We have elevated the US to protector of the world, a position that it was never meant to take.

Washington Examiner: Union Bashes Obamacare

                A union that represents some 300,000 hospitality workers has come out against ObamaCare due to the high cost of insurance. According to the union, Unite Here, ObamaCare will effectively reduce wages by up to $5 per hour due to the burdensome costs of the health law. With the increase in benefit cost and the likelihood of businesses cutting back on hours, the cost to low and middle income Americans will be substantial. It's time for Americans to wake up and realize that the PPACA wasn't for the benefit of the Middle and Lower class, but for special interest groups and large insurance companies. Large insurance companies were pretty much guaranteed customers by the federal government.

The Daily News Byte

The Blaze: The West Sold Ukraine to Putin

                With all the commotion around Ukraine, nations are scrambling to find out what to do. They look more like chickens who've had their heads cut off, running around in circles with no sense of direction. The people in Ukraine are scared and they see American weakness as a sign that Putin will be unchallenged and that his advances will continue. Ukrainian's are correct in that the West has essentially abandoned them. Western sanctions will backfire and the threat of pulling out of the G8 means nothing to Russia, who is already looking to make its own alliance with Asia. Right now the West is weak, there is no agreement between world leaders, and the politicians who run the countries are too spineless to stand up to Putin. So, as of right now, Putin appears to have free reign because he doesn't fear a united west.

Sky News: Russia and China Agree over Ukraine

                News is developing continuously on the Ukraine situation. Russia's closest ally, China, appears to be siding with Russia on this issue (not really a surprise there). The leaders of the western world are gathering together and put some sort of plan together for economic sanctions against Russia. My question, if China is going to back Russia, is the western world going to sanction China as well. We seem to only want to focus on the atrocities of Russia, but we seem to not care about their closest ally.

The Hill: Russia Demands Ukraine Warship Surrender

                Russia has much more military might than Ukraine. Currently, it appears there has been no actual fighting in the region of Crimea. This part is known to be mostly composed of Russian speaking individuals and a place that is more loyal to Russia itself. With the so far refusal to surrender, this event has the potential to escalate the situation if Russia decides to take military action.

RT: Kerry's Threats vs Russia Unacceptable

                In response to the threats made by Secretary of State John Kerry, Russia appears ready to counter the West's claims. According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, they responded in the region of Crimea due to the overthrow of the government in Kiev by radicals. So far, the 'invasion' has been done without bloodshed it would appear. According to Russia officials, the west is ignoring the fact that the former president of Ukraine signed an agreement with the opposition but the next day the capitol was overthrown and the agreement thrown out the window.

Forbes: Ilya Shapiro - 9 Reasons Why I Support Arizona's Religious Liberty Bill

                Ilya Shapiro is a scholar at the Cato Institute. He is a promenant defender of civil liberties and is on the pro-marriage equality side. However, he recently wrote an opinion piece about why he supported the Religious Liberty Bill that was recently vetoed in Arizona.  Since he has nine main points, I won't put them here, but check out the article.

Roll Call: Paul Ryan Looking to Overhaul Anti-Poverty Programs

                Paul Ryan has released a report that looks at the benefits anti-poverty programs have had for the poor. While Ryan does claim that some programs are necessary, there are many others that need reforming or removal. The amount of money spent on these programs is around $800 billion. The natural response to the Ryan proposals is that Republican's are trying to cut the deficit by helping the rich and hurting the poor. This argumentation totally misses the point because the point of Ryan's study is to identify programs and do work and ones that don't. 

The Daily News Byte

Washington Post: The Liberal Agenda

                George Will is a well known and respected political commentator. He points out here the heart of the Liberal agenda. The purpose of these liberal policies are to help fellow liberals. With the Reinvestment Act, part of the bill was aimed to deliver more money to "unionized, dues-paying, Democratic-voting government employees." In this aspect, the investment was a success. He points to the profound irony of when John Kerry went on to speak in Indonesia about climate change while at home he owns numerous mansions and a yacht, contributing to the 'climate change' he is trying to prevent. Then, liberals speak of the conservative agenda as being only backed by the influence of the Koch brother, while ignoring the fact that they too have powerful millionaires at their back, such as Tom Steyer.

The Hill: Hillary Defends ObamaCare

                The documented failures of ObamaCare and many. Hillary's solution, wait and just let us fix it. She says that we shouldn't just throw the baby out with the bath water. She points out to the good things that have come from the law, such as people able to stay on their parents insurance until the age of 26, but there her list ends. I don't see her logic, if in almost every aspect the law has been a failure and not achieved its expectations, why keep it? So more younger people can stay on their parents insurance, does that mean it's worth millions of people losing their plans? Is that worth millions of people who work for small business having their premiums increased? The pros and the cons don't even out, not even close. The problem is the entire bill, if all the parts of it are bad, we shouldn't sit around and fix every little part, the bill needs to be scrapped and a new solution needs to be made.

Cato: Common Core

                Over the past year Common Core has been quite a controversy. The thought of a federally created standards doesn't sit well with most people. Neither does trying to develop a standardized way to test all children. It ignores the uniqueness of individual children and treats them like numbers. According to Neil McCluskey at the Cato Institute, "So is the Common Core a bad idea? Absolutely. It is a federally coerced, one-size-fits-all regime that ignores basic, human reality."

Zero Hedge: ObamaCare Surcharge

                A restaurant in Florida has started putting an ObamaCare surcharge on its checks to help offset the cost they will incur by being required to offer more of their employees insurance. Now some might see this as some business who is just trying to get their 15 minutes of fame for pulling this stunt. However, the company has hired a consulting firm to help them determine what their cost of offering insurance to all full-time employees. Clark, the restaurant owner, estimates the cost will be around $500,000 and hopes that with this surcharge they will be able to raise $160,000. It seems those in Washington who passed the bill would tell the company to just reduce their profits, because you know, they know the books better than the business owner.

Real Clear Politics: Obama's Bogus Budget

                I have already addressed this in a previous post, that the President has called for an end to Austerity! This is an excellent article because it 100% rips on the notion that we were actually instituting austerity measures. Then it goes at Krugman who has been claiming the European Austerity measures have nearly devastated nations. Here's a little taste of the article, "In 2008, the federal government spent just a hair under $3 trillion. After six years of President Slash-and-Burn, spending has shrunk to almost $4 trillion. If we keep cutting like this, it will be down to $5 trillion before you know it."

The Daily News Byte

Matt Walsh Blog: Private Business Owners Should Have Right to Refuse Gays

                This is an interesting blog that goes at the heart of private business being forced to offer their services to homosexual wedding ceremonies. The news has recently been riddled with stories about the oppression of homosexual couples that are just looking to obtain equal rights as heterosexuals. The typically accusations brought against mostly Christian organizations is that they are denying these people their rights and are then being brought to court. What this blog gets at is that none of these businesses have ever discriminated against gay people because they are gay. Most of them have been good contributors to society, but just don't want their products affiliated with an act they find sinful. As businesses have said, they are more than happy to make baked goods or take photos of gay's, they morally cannot use their resources for the wedding ceremonies. The connection homosexuals make with blacks is disconnected because homosexuals are being served all across the country by Christians and Christian organizations. People of color were refused not because they wanted someone to advertise, but specifically because of their skin color. So they received no service at all. Now, homosexuals are getting the law on their side and carving out special privilege. A bakery might supply cakes to a KKK member, but it should possess the right to refuse to bake for a rally.

Politico: Clinton Files

                When a President leaves office, they are able to have their records sealed for up to 12 years. For President Clinton, that ended in 2013. So far, the records have not been released to the public but it appears most of the archive is scheduled to be released. The Clintons, as well as President Obama, may be able to make a case for keeping certain records sealed. This will likely set up a court battle should Hillary decide to run for President, and will likely give a Republican contender some ammunition claiming that she has something to hide. Which is no doubt the case, some of the papers may be sensitive or classified, but others have the possibility to rehash old controversies from the Clinton years. We'll have to see what sort of things are released

Politico: Democrats to use War on Women

                Due to the massive failings of just about everything the Democrats have put into place, the mid-term elections could be a disaster for them. So, in order to mount their defense, they have decided to target women voters. By using the same rhetoric as always, Democratic campaign strategies will be adjusted to focus on targeting women and promising higher wages and more benefits. The typical promise offered by Washington. Many studies have been done on income inequality among the genders, and depending on who you read, it's a big issue or it's mostly a myth. There is sometimes a difference in pay between a man and a woman in the same job, but that does not necessarily mean it's inequality. Currently, the highest earners are typically male, so the overall income goes to men. Also, more women stay at home with children than do men, so the gap widens. Also, typically, women don't have as much time in the workforce due to children. Also, insurance costs for women are higher because they typically require more services and businesses account for things like maternity leave (one of the promises by Washington is to extend that leave time). Check out some more on the topic at Forbes

The Hill: Biden Says Voter ID Laws Based in Hatred

                Ah Joe Biden, such a respected politician and a clear thinker before he speaks. Wait, I think I've got that wrong.  He is of course the blabbering fool. His latest accusation is claiming the Voter ID law in South Carolina is based on 'hatred' and not helping to reduce voter fraud. One thing is always sure, Democrats say there is no fraud and Republicans say there is. Biden of course references this as being a step backwards for civil rights. The democrats were also dealt a blow by the Supreme Court when it struck down critical elements of the Voting Rights Act. So it must then be a conspiracy between the Republicans and the Supreme Court, because you know, those two are always in sync (not). All South Carolina is asking for is some way to identify voters, seems pretty simple to me, so that people can't go in multiple times under false names. But of course, the Democrats, who claim to be for the poor, are calling this discrimination against those who don't have government issued ID's.  So, here's the choice, let people fraud the system or some people might have a harder time voting.

Cato: Obama's Austerity Lie

                With the new Presidential budget to be released, the President has called an end to the "Age of Austerity." This is hard to read without falling on the floor laughing, or wrenching in pain. Since Obama took office, deficits have skyrocketed. As Michael Tanner points out, "the real Obama debt increase has been more than $4.7 trillion." If that's his version of austerity, I don't want to know what he thinks are appropriate for regular spending. The only deficit cutting that was accomplished came through the sequester, which everyone blasted and now Washington is trying to undo. So, who knows what sort of soaring deficits await us, since Obama's massive debt increase was his version of 'austerity.'

Fox News: Feds Block Alaskan Road for Environmental Reasons

                I don't know how many people who read this have ever been to Alaska. I have and it's beautiful. Probably the most beautiful place I've ever been. There aren't many requests that come out of this state for federal assistance (that I know of) so when people in a remote village ask for the ability to make an emergency road to get to an airport, you would think that would be fine. However, their efforts have been shut down because of the wildlife that inhabit the area. The Secretary of the Interior has blocked efforts for this road and is essentially putting the safety of animals above the inhabitants of this small town. They make it sound like if they build this road there will be no more wildlife refuge, when in reality that's pretty much all Alaska is. People in the small town have died in part because they were unable to evacuate because there is no access to a road and the little airport can't handle the storms. So, I think it's time for the families who have lost loved ones to send pictures of those they lost, along with a bird picture and ask, "which is more important to protect?"

The Daily News Byte

Daily Mail: Small Businesses Pay More Under Obamacare

                According to a recent study by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), 11 million employees of small businesses will face higher premiums under the new law. They also project that 6 million will see their premiums reduced. This is due to Obamacare not discriminating based on age. So, older workers will see their premiums likely go down, while younger workers will see theirs go up. This comes as just another blow to the signature health law that defines President Obama's presidency. Coupled with the failure in implementing the program, people receiving notices that their insurance is cancelled, and reports of people not being able to get access to medication, this provides even more ammunition for the Republican party come election time. This is precisely the problem when the government acts before it has all the information. We were told to pass the bill to know what's the consequences would be, well it's passed and so far it's been mostly bad news.

The Hill: WH Not Worried About Lack of Youth on Obamacare

                The White House is sticking with optimism. Currently, the number of young people signing up for Obamacare hasn't met the projections. This presents a problem because the young population is supposed to help offset the costs for those who are older. A report was conducted by the Kaiser Foundation that showed 40% of enrollee's needed to be under the age of 35. The current statistic is at 27%.  The White House is claiming that based on the data they are seeing, they are not worried and that they do not need to meet the 40%. They are claiming that if a lower percentage of people sign up, then premiums will only increase around 2.5%. While that number seems small, I doubt the young (who are already paying higher premiums) see this increase as something small. Coupled with the news of small business employees paying more, then the lack of youth to subsidize the program, the likely cost of what people will pay is unknown. To try and help the youth sign up, Michelle Obama was on "The Tonight Show" saying that the youth are not invincible. That's true, but the youth are also typically among low income earners so they are deciding to not pay the high monthly premiums. And, because they are young, they typically don't need most of the services required under Obamacare.

Washington Post: Plan to Simplify Tax Code

                A Republican proposal has been put forward to help simplify the tax code. Currently, there are seven brackets, under the new plan that would be reduced to two, 10% and 25%. There would then be a 'surtax' on the richest of the rich at 10%. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the proposal appears to work and almost all Americans would face a tax rate of under 25%. The details of the plan will be released, so we will know more about it tomorrow.

TownHall: Thomas Sowell-The Fairness Fraud

                A great column by Thomas Sowell. His focus for the article is in regards to upward mobility, no doubt this was brought on by a recent article citing a study saying the US doesn't rate 'high'. With these studies, when income mobility is studied, what typically isn't taking into account is people who don't aspire to move up. We all believe that everyone in the lower classes wants to get into the higher ones. Not everyone aspires for greatness and wealth. By looking at numbers like High School dropout rates, it's not surprising that people in this category don't end up being wealthy. And when the mobility numbers are presumed to be 'low' all we can do is think of how to bring them up. But the only way to do this in realty is for the state to be with children all their lives, pushing for something they don't want to achieve. Maybe something more interesting to study isn't the numbers of social mobility, but to try and define possible mobility barriers.

CNN: Global Warming Fact

                An opinion column was written that claims global warming is a fact, and one of the major contributors, humans. This comes from a report that was done by the Guardian newspaper in the UK. They assessed thousands of global warming journals and found that 97% agree that global warming is happening and humans are in part to blame. Now, for one, many journals dealing with climate change are most likely to be sympathetic to the cause. As with all journal articles, they go through a selection process before they can be published. So, an easy way to get rid of the dissenters is to not publish their studies. What is more likely a more accurate assessment of what climate change analysts believe is to survey them specifically. This was done and found that only 52% of climate scientists support the idea that global warming is man made. More than 1,800 meteorologists were surveyed in this study by George Mason University and Yale University. So, why the contradictory numbers? Well, unlike the CNN article would have us believe, there is still room for debate over global warming.

Cato: Paul Krugman is Wrong Again

                I can't get enough of economists being proven wrong, especially when it's Paul Krugman. Dan Mitchell from the Cato Institute flat out shames Krugman in his claims that Germany is an example for Keynesian economic policy. While it's true that the government of German still grew, in comparison to other nations it was a good deal slower. Krugman is blasted nations that promoted austerity measures and tries to show how poorly they are because of it. Then claims that Germany is doing well because of Keynesian policies. As the data shows, Germany's rate of growth was slower than those countries Krugman claim implemented 'austerity.' 

The Daily News Byte

NY Times: Piers Morgan Out

                Piers Morgan is having the plug pulled on his primetime show.  Due to his lack of ratings and anti-American feel, CNN has decided to remove him. After all the controversy around his show during the gun debate and lack of assimilation into American culture, he just didn't fit. It appears that everyone is looking for reasons as to why his show wasn't successful. From his accent to his policies, everything he seemed to advocate didn't sit well with the American audience. It makes sense, given his British origins, the American people didn't seem to really care what he had to say. Maybe it's time for Morgan to look for a new career, since he not only has failed here, but also in his native country.

NY Times: Krugman Health Care Hooey

                Ah Paul Krugman, the accomplished progressive economist. Keynesian at heart. Today his opinion column is to comment about the 'death tax.' He then goes on to attack Republicans as a whole for their plan on combating Obamacare, which pretty much has come down to stories of people who lost their insurance. In talking with the death tax, Krugman points out that it only effects the minority, millionaires. He seems to have no problem with this because it doesn't have anything to do with 'ordinary' Americans. Personally, those people earned that money and they only reason that tax exists is to get more money from them, it doesn't seem to make any logical sense. Isn't death a tax enough, and why don't the wealthy have the freedom to pass on their earnings to whom they please without worrying about an extra tax. He then goes after the personal stories of people who have lost insurance due to Obamacare and finds inaccuracies in their stories. Krugam is great at putting up distractions and taking a few examples of error to disregard the entire thing. I guess Obama's delay of the employer mandate was not because people were actually losing their coverage, but because he fell for the dishonest reports from Republican lawmakers, at least that seems to be what Krugman wants to believe.

New Yorker: Mobility Myth

                This is an interesting little piece that talks about economic mobility, how people move between being poor and rich. Economists note that economic mobility still occurs, and at the same rate today as it has since the latter half of the 20th century. But, while that sounds good, the percentages moving between classes appear to be low, at least according to this author. While America isn't the highest on income mobility, the author claims that the mobility which they do have isn't high. The interesting thing about the claim 'high' is that it isn't defined. My main question is, what is the desired income mobility percentage and who determines it? The author goes on to say that since income mobility isn't high, we should focus on standards of living for the poor instead. And he then notes how standards of living have skyrocketed since the mid 20th century. Amazingly, with our standard of living shooting up, so does our definition of people who are poor. So you can't compare those who were poor in 1950 with those in 2014, because they are in totally different circumstances. Then, he says "you need to either get wages growing or talk about things that scare politicians, like “redistribution” and “taxes.” I'm sorry, but since when did redistribution of wealth create income mobility? If you're taking from the top and giving to the bottom, you will move the top down and the bottom up, there is no wealth created.

Politico: Supreme Court Rejects NRA Plea on Gun Control

                The Supreme Court has rejected appeals from the NRA on handgun restrictions for those between 18-20.  From the pro-2nd Amendment view, that right only applies to those who are over the age of 20. This is an interesting piece though, because in some states you may actually carry a gun if you are under 21. In my native state of NH, I was unable to purchase a pistol; however, I was (and did) able to obtain a concealed carry weapons license. So, in NH I was legally allowed to walk around with a loaded gun but unable to go into my local gun shop and purchase one because of federal law.

The Hill: Hagel to Reduce Military Size to Pre-WWII

                Secretary Hagel has proposed reducing the size of the American military to below WWII levels. This will come as a good thing to libertarians and liberals, while as a sign of weakness to many conservatives. To the conservative, it will show the world that the US no longer is trying to keep its position as the dominant power of the globe. Demonstrating a weak foreign policy. To the rest, it will be a relief the US appears to be more committed to less foreign intervention. As the Hill notes, it's unnecessary for such a large military force when we are not fighting a large land war. However, just because we are reducing personnel, doesn't mean that American intervention abroad will stop. What used to be reserved for ground troops will likely be assigned to drones. 

The Daily New Byte

Fox News: Union to Appeal VW Vote

                The UAW is planning to appeal the recent vote at the VW plant in Tennessee. They are advocating for a revote due to third-party intervention. Funny thing about this little article is that the UAW is looking for a revote because of conservative intervention and threats that the company will lose funding. I call that leveling the playing field because I'm sure all those union advocates made no threats if they voted 'no.'  Oh wait, VW made the threats..." The UAW challenge comes days after the top labor representative on Volkswagen's supervisory board suggested that the anti-union atmosphere fostered by Southern conservatives could lead the company to make future investments elsewhere. " So, conservatives say if you pass the union measure then funding will be taken away, and the pro-union people say if you don't pass we'll take the company elsewhere.  So maybe if it passes, the workers can sue for a revote due to union intervention!

The Hill: FCC Push for Net Neutrality

                Well, it seems that the FCC has thrown the survey of American newsrooms in the trash and is doubling down on net neutrality. Critics and proponents are both worried that the increased regulatory power given to the FCC is something to be worried about. The most likely scenario is increased government intervention, spying, and regulation of all the things on the web. It's amazing when we in the US blast nations such as China for  regulating their internet, then propose rules that make it possible here.

Politico: FAA Losing Drone War

                So, according to the FAA the use of commercial drones is illegal. When did such a thing become a law? If anything, government drone use should be illegal. But, it appears that many today are using drones anyway and don't care what the government has to say about it. With prices of these things coming down, the FAA doesn't have the ability to regulate these drones at all. Kind of odd, why pass a law that is impossible to enforce. Typically it means that if one or two people are caught are going to be made an example.

CBS New York: De Blasio Breaks Traffic Laws

                So soon after De Blasio of NY announced a traffic initiative to lower speed limits and make the roads safer, his caravan was caught speeding down the street and blowing through stop signs. Now the police of covered for him, saying that sometimes it's necessary for this to take place. But the interesting part comes when the mayor said this "We want the public to know that we are holding ourselves to this standard." I guess when he used the word 'ourselves' he didn't actually mean himself or his driver. Politicians and hypocrisy, they go together like bread and butter.

The Daily News Byte

Fox News: FCC to Wants to Study Media

                It appears that the FCC is looking to study the American media. Supposedly, they would be sending FCC employees into news rooms across the country and analyzing their news stories. According to the FCC's supporters, they are looking to just make a survey and will not be regulating any kind of content. My main question is, if they just want a survey of information and plan to essentially do nothing with it for policy changes, what's the purpose. Also, why do such an extensive study by sending people to news stations just to watch. When a government agency claims it only wants to survey and that regulation will not follow, I am highly suspect, especially when those claiming to just want to observe are a regulatory agency. That would be like the IRS coming into your home to watch you do your taxes, they claim to be there to just watch, but won't make any judgments. Yeah, right.

CNN: Biden Says Obamacare has a 'Hell of a Start'

                Why does anyone let Joe Biden near the press? I still can't believe the man made it to the White House. He recently claimed that even if the sign-ups for Obamacare don't hit the projected numbers, by between 1 or 2 million people, that they still had a 'hell of a start.' It's an interesting analysis of what's actually happened. We don't even know how many people have paid their premiums and what portion of those enrollees were the victims of losing their coverage due to Obamacare. So, the government said 7 million by March. But if they make it to 5 million, we don't know how many are receiving insurance, and a portion of them are people who lost coverage, that to Biden is still a good start. Only in the government can not reaching a goal by a few million still be considered good.

Zero Hedge: NSA Expansion

                With all the controversy surrounding the Snowden files, public outcry from here at home and abroad would make one think that the NSA would be looking to reduce its spying abilities and dismantle some programs. But, according to the WSJ, it appears the NSA is looking to expand! It seems like the data is being held due to the impending court cases, and who knows what the outcome will be of those. But, with the current expansion happening, does anyone truly believe that afterwards the NSA will just destroy all records? I mean, the press will report that, but we can never know for sure.

Learn Liberty: Why Do all Politicians Sound the Same

                This short little video goes on to explain why essentially, all politicians sounds exactly alike. The simple answer, they must because of majority rule. Because of majority rule, candidates need to soften their positions to gravitate more towards the independent and undecided voters.

Washington Examiner: Obama Comments on Syria and Ukraine

                It would appear that I wasn't the only one making a connection between the current interventions in Syria and Ukraine as a continuation of the Cold War. The President directly said that "Our view is not to see it as some Cold War chessboard where we are in competition with Russia," Obama said, adding that the events in Syria and Ukraine were “an expression of the hopes and aspirations of the people." Now doesn't that just sound inspiring. Washington only cares about the people in Ukraine. It still doesn't detract from the fact that two major superpowers are essentially using these nations to achieve their own political ends.

National Review: Ted Cruz Fills Void

                This is an op-ed piece by Thomas Sowell, a fellow of the Hoover Institution. He highlights that many of the Republican 'leadership' have essentially become so disconnected from the people that they appear to no longer think it's necessary to convey their ideas. Ted Cruz, a new guy, has created such political controversy in since he's been in Washington. One of the main reasons is because he is able to actually articulate the ideas of the Republic party, which he seems to go against. Because he is not playing DC's game, he is getting blasted in the media. The Republican leaders and keeping their heads down and not communication, and Ted Cruz is filling that gap.

Real Clear Politics: How Obama Can Lower Truck Fuel Use

                Okay, to start, just the title of this article is so wrong on so many levels. First, how has our society come to look to the President for this action? Where does he possess this authority? Each day I read the news I come back to a ground breaking book "The Cult of the Presidency." Everyone must read it. Second, is the President, frankly, stupid comment: “Improving gas mileage for these trucks is going to drive down our oil imports even further. That reduces carbon pollution even more, cuts down on businesses’ fuel costs, which should pay off in lower prices for consumers. So it’s not just a win-win, it’s a win-win-win. We got three wins.” This is a classic move, highlighting the things that make his argument work. He just blows by the only thing that matters, cost. If he raises standards, yes companies will pay less in gas and save money in that area (yay!) but, how will the company achieve these better standards? Well, if they are to high, they need new trucks which will cost lots of money (sad) and drive up prices. The author of this article is a trucking company, and they praise the President for this (so much for shutting out Big Business Mr. President). Here is the truth of the matter, a large corporation has the ability and funds to invest in new technologies that small companies do not. So, small business goes bye bye while big business reaps the benefits of removing competition.

The Daily News Byte

Fox News: CBO Projects Unemployment due to Minimum Wage Hike

                The CBO has recently released a report concluding what everyone already knows. By increasing minimum wage, the economy will shed aprox. 500,000 jobs. But, on the bright side, it will also raise the income of many and bring some out of poverty (duh!). Of course increasing wages will increase income for some, that has never been disputed. The dispute comes from, will you give more money to some and life 900,000 out of poverty while putting 500,000 into it? It all sounds good when it's spun saying 900,000 people will be lifted over the poverty line, but it's not true. Once you factor in the 500,000 losing their jobs, you've lifted 400,000 from poverty, and those are still all estimates. So, the President who claims to be for the 'little guy' is going to lift some out from poverty and plunge others into it...good job!

Politico Whose the Thug

                This type of 'journalism' or whatever you want to call it is awful. The author of this piece, Roger Simon is trying to resurrect the news from George Zimmerman in a case where a jury did their job and got the case right. It's a piece involving Michael Dunn, the murderer who was found guilty for killing a young black teen. He explains the events of the night, and it is clear that Dunn is guilty, especially since he got out of his car and kept shooting at the kids. His common denominator, Stand your Ground Laws, because "Hey, this is Florida. The Gunshine State" Simon states. This man is such a fool it's unbelievable. In his mind, because people have a right to protect themselves with a firearm, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, it means it's the wild west! Instead of blaming the person, he blames the defense! Also, the evidence in the Zimmerman case suggested that Trayvon was standing over George beating him and the gunshot wound trajectory proved it. And if someone was standing over you beating your face in, I think you would be wishing for a way out because "please stop" probably won't work.

Politico: Rubio says Obama 'Pathetic'

                Is it me, or do politicians just look for something to say against a person of the other party. Why is this even news? Who cares about what Obama said about Art History majors and who cares if he apologized to the person who wrote him about it. I've got an idea Rubio, how about you concentrate on things that matter.

Washington Examiner: Drought and Climate Change Not Related

                Someone needs t forward this to the White House and to John Kerry. Kerry is the one who claimed that climate change is the most feared weapon of mass destruction and the President went to California to talk about this issue due to their drought. But it would appear that according to real scientists, not those flat earth people Kerry talks about, the drought California is experiencing is similar from the 1930's and 1950's. Also, "Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years -- compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe mega-droughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.”

Cato: New Fuel Standards for Trucks

                The President has done it, he has figured out a way to force business to up their standards, develop new technologies, save the environment, and it will make the price of goods cheaper! Actually, I think he got that a little wrong. If it was better for business, why not do this already? Maybe in their budgets they can't raise prices and be competitive, and they would need to raise prices to be able to afford new fuel-efficient vehicles. Well nothing to fear, President Obama has made it a requirement for all. Sadly, this will likely hurt small businesses that can't absorb the costs of meeting new EPA standards...new motto for Obama, adding small businesses to my welfare state!

NY Times: ADHD

                Every time I see anything in regards to ADHD all I can think about is a satire article by the Onion where the disorder is called "Youthful Tendency Disorder." The good news about this article is that it seems to suggest many physicians don't exactly know what they are doing and are prescribing medication to people who don't need it. The good news about that is seminars are being held to correct that problem and it's recognized as a problem.  What they really should do is give the seminars to parents. I just get a feeling parents bring their kids to these evaluations because they aren't doing well in school or don't listen to them. It's called being a kid. Class is boring, and you can either not pay attention by looking around, or by sleeping on your desk. A child is rolling around on the floor uncontrollably, what young boy doesn't do that (I was usually reenacting a 3 Stooges move, classic). An amazing part of the article is describing a kid with ADHD by playing gameboy and ' flitting around the room distractedly.' Uhm, if that's all you got, that's probably most kids. Cure, take away the game device, get your kid outside, and discipline them for behaving badly. South Park demonstrates it perfectly, while in a room full of jumping kids, the teach yells "SIT DOWN AND STUDY."

Roll Call: Kill Keystone

                A wealthy Democrat supporter is rallying people together to stop the Keystone Pipeline. You know, they are raising the minimum wage, putting people out of work, and then killing potential for job growth in order to save Bambi. Since when did we put the concerns of fuzzy critters over the well being of people stuck in poverty?

CNN: Ukraine Protests

                The nation of Ukraine is in a state of disarray. Some 25 people have been killed in Kiev. Naturally, the EU and the US are looking to intervene. There is a bit of irony in the situation, the recent escalation of the protests are in response to an Anti-Protest law (I bet the government didn't see that coming). Of course, the EU's response is to put sanctions on the government and Russia is trying to aid the country. I thought the cold war ended. Russia supports Syria, we oppose. Russia supports Ukraine, we oppose. The Cold War may have ended, but we're still playing the same games.

The Daily News Byte

Politico: Rand Paul's Republican Revolution

                It appears Rand Paul is testing the waters and laying the foundation for his potential 2016 Presidential run. With a stop in Texas, Paul spoke with high end donors and delivered a more libertarian message. His warning to the state, if the Republican party doesn't change, Texas will go blue. And his analysis is most likely right. Given the increasing city population on Texas, and the increasing population of Hispanics, it won't be much longer until Texas turns if policy proposals aren't introduced to increase votes.

Politico: Sebelius Claims No Employment Loss from Obamacare

                Kathleen Sebelius claims that there is absolutely no evidence that Obamacare will decrease employment. She claims that it is a myth and that you can ask any economist and they will tell you exactly that. Her only issue is that the CBO is pretty much saying otherwise, and they're economists. While in the CBO report it didn't actually claim employment would disappear, just the equivalent of 2 million jobs. So she may be right, employment might not go down, but the economic effect is going to be the same.

Cato: Presidents Day, Whats to Celebrate?

                This commentary piece written by Gene Healy (author of Cult of the Presidency) cuts to the main problem with the modern presidency. The people enable him to usurp power not granted to him by the Constitution which he swears to uphold.  University of Chicago political scientist William G. Howell released a book highlighting this exact phenomenon. Howell writes, “from nearly the moment he assumes office, the most self-effacing presidential candidate will quickly be transformed into a great apologist for presidential power.” Mr. Healy writes, "If there’s ever a War on Presidents Day, sign me up."

Washington Post: Student Debt to Hurt Housing Recovery

                What shocks me most about this article is that people find it shocking. Mortgage institutions appear to be taken off guard by the fact that so many young people are going to college on loans so they can't afford to buy a home right away. The problem is cyclical. Example, Sally is a High School Junior. Her teachers, counselors, and parents all tell her she must go to college to make money nowadays. Sally is an average student who isn't sure what she wants to do but gets accepted to a local private university. She then realizes she must take out loans. To her, it's no big deal because everyone has told her she will make good money with a Bachelor's degree. Upon graduation with a psychology degree, she is $35,000 in debt (private schools cost more usually). She then realizes that the jobs she thought she could get don't exist or don't pay enough. She finds an administrative job, so she's lucky because unemployment is high for her category still. After working a year, she wants to buy a house, but a lending institution sees she's still entry level and is carrying this debt that will last as long as her mortgage, so it's like buying 1.5 houses. Now she's stuck paying for an apartment and can only put a small amount away in savings, so a house is out of the question. It's not very complicated to see how detrimental this will become to the economy, millions of Americans are being enslaved to the government  due to loans and economic productivity is going to be crushed.

The Daily News Byte

Fox News: Obama All in on Climate Change

                Recently, John Kerry went to Indonesia and spoke about the dangers of climate change. In his own words, “Climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.” Over dramatic, probably. But it does make you almost feel a sense of urgency. Until you realize that it's not actually a weapon that a foreign nation can use in war, so there isn't really much to fear. Also, Kerry went on to criticize those who don't agree that climate change is actually happening, referring to them as 'flat earth' people. It appears Mr. Kerry knows enough science that he even denounced scientists who deny climate change. The real reason behind this new push for climate change is control. Once they declare this 'war' on climate change they are able to push massive regulatory bills through congress that will cripple some businesses and reward those who are cozy with the President.

Politico: Cantor anti-isolationism

                Eric Cantor came out swinging on Presidents day against 'isolationism.' At VMI, Cantor blamed the United States' hesitance in entering WWII on isolationist sentiments. His speech was aimed at the President for his multiple failings to show strength to the international community. But it was also directed at the Tea Party wing of the Republican party, as they are more libertarian in their views. Cantor then goes on to talk of the dangers of a nuclear Iran and the threat that poses to our alliances with Israel. Then, he sums up the speech that we must return to a position of strength and return to the days when we helped spread democracy to the world.

Washington Examiner: Obama Pushes for Economic Change

                The President returns to Washington today after spending a few days in California and offering the state funds to help cope with the drought they are currently experiencing. Along with that, the President has also hit the road advocating for congress to raise the minimum wage to the $10.10 per hour that government contracts will not  be receiving. Obama also plans to meet with representatives from Mexico and Canada to talk about trade agreements. An incredible feat: " But on Capitol Hill, Obama’s trade push has been stalled by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who opposes granting him fast-track powers to finalize two agreements with Pacific Rim nations and the European Union." I guess Reid does believe the President can over step his authority eventually.

Washington Post: Why Presidents Must Play the Hero

                This is a very interesting article that goes into the challenges that all presidents must face. Each president must bridge the gap between what the public expects, and what they are able to actually accomplish in DC. Presidents "justify their presidencies – both at the outset of their administrations and throughout their tenure in office – in the face of public expectations for heroism and greatness." This is the difficult reality that presidents face. However, something not addressed in this article is that the cycle just repeats every time. The public loves the candidate that looks most like the 'hero' and the candidates play to that image. Every year there are more promises, more money to be thrown around, more favors to be given, and this is precisely the problem with modern politics. The true problem with our current state of affairs is precisely addressed in Gene Healy's "The Cult of the Presidency." He traces through history how the public has come to worship the president and has forgotten the rest of the government, federal and state. For the system to correct itself, the people must first realize that DC does not have the answers to all their problems.

The Daily News Byte

Fox News: VW Refuses to Unionize

                Yesterday, the VW plant in Tennessee held a vote on whether or not they were to unionize. Many in big labor thought the vote would pass, causing Republican lawmakers to put pressure on VW by threatening to take away funding incentives. Even with the push from the labor unions and an endorsement from the Volkswagen company, the workers voted to not unionize, dealing a big blow to the UAW's efforts to make inroads in the south.

Fox News: Obamacare Fails to Cover Certain Drugs

                One of the major selling points for Obamacare was that people with preexisting conditions would not have to pay higher premiums for coverage. As it turns out, there is a bit of a loophole when it comes to the prescription medication these individuals may require. There is a list of medicines that are covered under Obamacare, and some people with preexisting conditions like MS don't have their medication covered. They are currently required to foot the bill without any assistance. Also, with an issue like MS, there are no generic drugs, so medication is wildly expensive. This is what happens when you pass a bill before it's read.

Zero Hedge: Real Economic Indicator

                One of the best signs of a stagnant economy, a record number of college graduates (age group 24-34) are still living with their parents. Gallup put together figures of the state of college graduate employment and it doesn't look good for those recent graduate. "Among young adults who live with their parents and are working or actively looking for work, nearly one in three are in a substandard employment situation."

Cato: Minimum Wage

                "Judging by what happened after the 2007-2009 increase in the minimum wage, repeating that failed experiment over the next three years would first reduce the number being paid the minimum wage and then greatly increase the number being paid less than the minimum. It would also result in millions more young people being unable to find any employment even at wages far below the higher minimum wage."

The Foundry: Democrats' Double Standard

                Conservative commentator S.E. Cupp is fed up with democrats trying to shield Hillary Clinton. Given the press around the likelihood of Clinton running for president, conservatives are going to plan questions in regards to Benghazi and Obamacre. The terminology used by RNC Chairman Reince Preibus ("very aggressive") has aggravated some on the left. Cupp's response, “So, Democrats can call Chris Christie fat, George Bush Hitler, Sarah Palin Caribou Barbie, Michele Bachmann crazy, Tim Scott a dummy and Nikki Haley the Seik Jesus – but calling Hillary ruthless?” Cupp remarked sarcastically. “Now, that’s a step too far.”

Libertarianism.org: Stealing from the Poor, Giving to the Rich

                This short video demonstrates the importance of property rights. While it may seem like property rights favor the rich, it actually benefits the poor the most. As demonstrated in the video, when property rights are not protected, those who are already wealthy and politically connected can easily steal the property of the poor, which is what happens in many 3rd world countries.