Annual spending would rise over the next decade. Outlays would grow from $3.9 trillion in 2015 to $5.91 trillion in 2024. In theory, the growth would be roughly commensurate with growth in the economy, ticking up just slightly from 21.4 percent of GDP to 21.5 percent over the course of a decade. But the White House has been coy with details about its assumptions regarding the projected growth rate of the economy, so it’s hard to assess this beyond face value.
Tax revenues would rise as a percentage of the economy. Obama’s budget would raise revenue levels closer to spending levels in order to sustain the spending while reducing annual deficits. Revenues would rise from $3.34 trillion, or 18.3 percent of the economy, in 2015 up to $5.48 trillion, or 19.9 percent of the economy, in 2024. That would be one of the highest annual levels in the nation’s history.
The national debt would become even bigger. Annual deficits would decrease, according to administration projections, dropping down to 1.6 percent of the economy, thanks in large part to increased tax revenue levels that partially close the gap between collections and spending. But even smaller annual deficits still add to the federal tab. Over the next decade, the president’s budget plan would leave us with a debt that’s $8.3 trillion higher than it is now.
Growing debt would lead to bigger interest payments. This year, we’d spend $223 billion on debt service. By 2024, the president’s proposal projects interest payments of about $812 billion.
The budget would never, ever balance. The White House even seems to have given up its old line about getting the budget into “primary balance”—a technical annual balance that ignores the interest cost of carrying a heavy debt load. (According to the Congressional Budget Office, that budget plan never reached primary balance either.)
It is more important…to release the creative energy of individuals than to devise further machinery for ‘guiding’ and ‘directing’ them—to create conditions favorable to progress rather than to ‘plan progress.’ (261)
California requires all chefs and bartender to use gloves…in the name of cleanliness.
"One by one, we’ll take away all your freedom through regulation." - Progressives
Idk about bartenders and waitresses… But anyone preparing food needs gloves.
Rubber gloves are an insult to culinary chefs who have been preparing food for generations without them.
Anyone who demands that food preparers wear gloves has never paid attention to anyone with gloves on before, during, and after that person prepares food.
Side note: in hospitals, when doctors and nurses prepare for an extremely delicate procedure, they often don’t wear gloves. Why? Because their hands can get just as clean (who knows who else has touched those gloves?!) and gloves introduce opportunities for failure (tearing, poor grip, etc.).
Emphasis added. As the interviewer wonders aloud how long it will be before the state requires Californians to wear gloves while preparing food in their own kitchens? You may think this should be a rhetorical question, but the steadily encroaching soft totalitarianism that the left embraces shows that it’s not.
The administration thus acknowledges that its policy creates a perverse incentive and orders employers not to act upon it. But that can’t be enforced. A business will take into account all relevant factors, including the additional costs imposed by ObamaCare, in making decisions about hiring and firing, including whether to terminate employees for poor performance, sell a division, etc. In practice, the new rule is a ban—under threat of criminal liability—on acknowledging the perverse incentive. Call it OmertàCare, a government-imposed conspiracy of silence.
A reduction in workforce size or overall hours of service for bona fide business reasons will not be considered to have been made in order to satisfy the workforce size condition.
Treasury Department Regulation Document (page 125), published 2/12/14.The Obama Administration is delaying and modifying the employer mandate requirements, but they expressly forbid employers from reducing their workforces in response to (i.e. to avoid) the regulations—claiming that it’s not a “bona fide business reason.” (via obamacare)
The Obama administration is simply re-writing Obamacare on the fly, with no regard for the plain text of the statute. This is lawless behavior, as was the first big delay. The Obama Precedent is now firmly set. Future presidents may delay, postpone, or alter any portion of the this law that they find unworkable. Or politically inconvenient. Or…anything at all, really.
The administration has now twice bestowed major Obamacare delays on businesses (a tacit acknowledgement that the law’s effects are harmful to the job market and economic growth). At what point do average families and individuals get the same treatment? Millions are projected to pay the mandate tax in 2014 and beyond, most of whom are declining to obtain coverage because it costs too much. This administration has granted “hardship waivers" to some individuals who’ve lost their coverage because of Obamacare and can’t afford the new rates. Why not extend the same fair deal to all Americans? The individual mandate tax is deeply unpopular; a massive majority of Americans support its delay. Please, Democrats, explain why middle class families must comply with this ever-changing law, while businesses get special exemptions and extensions. Also, please explain why you were willing to shut down the government when Republicans tried to delay this law through the democratic process — yet this unilateral decree is just fine. They’ve struggled to articulate a legal justification for these Obamacare power-grabs in the recent past. Remember, the individual mandate was upheld as a tax. Can presidents just rewrite tax laws now? Again, think of the precedent being set here.
More shenanigans from our ex-Constitutional Law professor.
[God] said, “I need somebody in that Congress savvy enough to realize that farming means food, and food means nutrition, and nutrition means good things to voters, so farming means food stamps. Somebody to call to make that assistance bigger and forever, tame howls over soaring deficits, and plant the seeds of perpetual votes. Somebody to threaten to label anybody pushing for reform as rich, cruel and downright hateful of happy, cornfed children playing in hay lofts—and mean it.” So God made a Democratic Party.
God said, “I need somebody willing to spend five long years complaining about overspending, big government and special-interest giveaways. And get up and vote for $1 trillion in overspending, bigger government and special-interest giveaways—in the name of farmers. Then—when reminded of his reform promises—dry his eyes and say, ‘Maybe next year.’ I need somebody to fret about drought, wax about food security, and muse (in private) that heedless government shutdowns really do have consequences. Including pressuring parties to prove they can accomplish something by voting for 949-page spending extravaganzas that nobody has bothered to read. Somebody willing to put in 40 hours spinning excuses for abandoning his principles and then, pained from the camera lights, put in 70 hours more.” So God made Republicans. […]
Finally, God looked down on all he’d created and He said: “Now I need somebody who really will work hard. Somebody who’ll get up day in and day out to plow through traffic to work, come home to help the kids and make the dinner and do the laundry, and struggle with the bills, and get up to do it all over again.
"Somebody who will limit himself to dreaming about that Ram pickup truck he can’t afford—because the IRS bill is due, and because the government-inflated cost of groceries and gas sure do make things tight, and because his own small business, which he built with his own sweat, doesn’t qualify for any handouts. I need somebody to spend his life paying for this week’s farm extravaganza, somebody who Congress made sure had no damn choice in the matter.”
The IRS’s intrusive tactics thus have a chilling effect on people who wish to exercise their First Amendment right of free association without attracting public attention—or, more precisely, the attention of vicious ideological antagonists. Even calling attention to those tactics can compound the problem, as illustrated by [Friends of Abe]’s need to reassure its members in the wake of the Times story. The gradual accretion of power by a vast administrative state, combined with an administration intolerant of dissent, has produced a clear and present danger to basic American freedoms.
I do not believe it’s proper to put the situation in the terms that it’s industrialists versus government. On the contrary, one of the reasons why I am in favor of less government is because when you have more government, industrialists take it over, and the two together form a coalition against the ordinary worker and the ordinary consumer. I think business is a wonderful institution, provided it has to face competition in the marketplace and can’t get away with something except by producing a better something at a lower cost, and that’s why I don’t want government to step in and help the business community.
Big business + government = crapitalism. In this case, the sum of its parts are worse than the individual pieces.