We had to pass it, to see what was in it

[sirs]

[Christians4LessGvt]

more of the same crap....
control freaks in a hurry
"we gotta pass it now...no we don't know what's in it or if it makes any sense
...doesnt matter....we got freedoms to steal...so we can control people!"

Gov. Cuomo:
"Our gun law permitted something that doesnt exist,
so we're asking you to pretend it does anyway"   

By Doug Powers 
March 21, 2013
Written by Doug Powers

In late January New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a new, hastily constructed gun control bill. Naturally, oversights have been discovered, and those who passed the law also apparently didn't want to bias themselves by actually learning about the subject they were legislating before voting on it:

In January Gov. Andrew Cuomo managed to pass one of the strictest gun control laws in the country, but now he?s making it somewhat less restrictive. While law, which goes into effect on April 15, would have banned the sale of magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition, the governor announced on Wednesday that he's working with legislators to make purchasing 10-round magazines legal in New York. "There is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine," Cuomo explained. "That doesn?t exist. So you really have no practical option."

That one paragraph demonstrates why Cuomo should now be the last person to continue recommending "practical options," but of course he didn't see it that way. So what's the fix? "New York gun owners, please pretend your ten bullet magazine only holds seven bullets":

Cuomo downplayed the revision, saying it merely addresses a few "ambiguities" and "grammatical errors." The law passed in January includes an exemption for the use of 10-round magazines at firing ranges and in competitions, but buying the magazines is banned. The new language will allow 10-round magazines to continue to be sold in New York, but it will be illegal to load more than seven rounds into those magazines.

And if this doesn't work out, Cuomo may add a "Fife provision" to the law. Gun owners would still be required to load no more than seven bullets into their ten bullet magazines but they could apply for a separate permit to carry the other three bullets in their shirt pockets.

Somewhere a lightbulb just went off over Michael Bloomberg's head to make his proposal "less restrictive": You can have your 24 ounce cup, you just can't put more than 16 ounces of soda in it.

Note: Jacob Sullum at Reason.com points out that seven round magazines do in fact exist, but they're not standard.

http://michellemalkin.com/2013/03/21/gov-cuomo-gun-law/

[sirs]

Some of the worst legislation are those passed in a rush because "Congress/Government needs to do something", following some incident.

Even worse is above legislation passed on a pure party line vote

[sirs]

Some of the worst legislation are those passed in a rush because "Congress/Government needs to do something", following some incident.

White House encourages Democrats to rush immigration bill through Congress

President Obama believes that the expected bipartisan immigration reform proposal should not receive extended scrutiny by lawmakers in committee, according to his spokesman, who said that immigration debates in past year should suffice.

“[A]s veterans of the Senate know, this issue has been under consideration at very serious levels periodically for a long time now,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said during the gaggle today.  “There is a great need to act on comprehensive immigration reform and a great opportunity to do it now, as the President has made clear.  It has been in the past, and seems to be now, a bipartisan priority.  And that is as it should be, in the President’s view.”

Carney was rejecting Rubio’s call for “regular order,” which would entail multiple hearings on the bill and provide senators with greater latitude to offer amendments to the bill.

“I think the characterization of regular order here has to be understood within the context of the fact that this legislation in essence has been on the table and subject to debate in the United States Congress for many years now,” he said.  “The basic outlines of what has been under consideration and is being worked on by the Gang of Eight and has been proposed by the President reflects legislation that was considered in Congress, in 2006, 2007, I believe.”

Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy, D-Vt., made the same argument to Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., adding that he’d be happy to get junior senators up to speed on old debates.

Rubio criticized that approach. “A rush to legislate, without fully considering all views and input from all senators, would be fatal to the effort of earning the public’s confidence,” Rubio wrote to Leahy last week.

Leahy replied with a very small concession yesterday. “The Judiciary Committee is capable of swift and thorough action,” he wrote. “As soon as we have comprehensive immigration legislation to review, I will consider scheduling a hearing, in consultation with Senator Grassley, the Ranking Republican on Committee, and Senator Schumer, the Immigration Subcommittee Chair, to examine that proposal.”

That’s a far cry from the elaborate committee process that  Sessions and the other Republicans initially suggested was necessary to review the effect of the immigration bill on issues such as border security, the economic ramifications of legalizing so many low-skill workers, and the question of welfare benefits for the new citizens.

“Chairman Leahy’s mention of the possibility of maybe holding a single hearing is not a pledge of openness, but a confirmation of our suspicions,” Sessions said in a statement on Leahy’s letter to Rubio. “A sound committee process will take months—not the two-week timeframe Chairman Leahy has outlined—and will require extensive hearings to understand every major component of reform,” he added.

[sirs]

As Democrats grow increasingly worried that ObamaCare will explode on the launch pad just as midterm elections get going, the Obama administration seeks to pin blame on Republicans. Good luck with that.

Earlier this week, Health and Human Services head Kathleen Sebelius admitted that she didn't realize how complicated getting ObamaCare off the ground would be.

Sebelius complained that "no one fully anticipated" the difficulties involved in implementing ObamaCare, or how confusing it would be with the public.

She wasn't talking about the massive and impossible task of imposing central planning on one-sixth of the nation's economy.
Instead, she was trying to find a way to blame Republicans for ObamaCare's failures when the inevitable problems start emerging.

Rather than say "let's get on board, let's make this work," recalcitrant Republicans have forced her to engage in "state-by-state political battles," Sebelius said at a Harvard School of Public Health forum. "The politics has been relentless."

So let's see if we get this. Democrats shoved an unpopular, expensive, ill-conceived and poorly written law down the country's throat with no Republican support, and without bothering to see whether states would want to take on the thankless and costly task of helping the feds implement it.

And now that many of these states are rebelling, it's the Republicans' fault?

Sebelius' fellow Democrat, West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, had a more accurate take on the problem the administration faces: the law is "probably the most complicated piece of legislation ever passed by the United States Congress" and "if it isn't done right the first time, it will just simply get worse."

Rockefeller, like a growing number of Democrats, realizes that ObamaCare is shaping up to be a political disaster for the party next November.

The influential Cook Political Report noted earlier this month that almost all of the Democratic insiders they talked to "voiced concern about the potential for the issue to hurt Democrats in 2014."

And just what could explain these concerns?

Maybe it's because even Sebelius now admits that ObamaCare will force insurance claims up 32%.

Or possibly it's because, despite endless assurances that the insurance exchanges would be ready on time, the administration had to delay for a year a key feature meant to give small business a choice of health plans.

Or because neither Sebelius nor the states have provided evidence they can get the rest of the exchanges ready by Oct. 1, when ObamaCare's open enrollment begins.

Or perhaps Democrats' fears stem from state insurance commissioners warning of a rate shock once ObamaCare's "community rating" rules and benefit mandates start.

Or from rising evidence the law is hurting job growth as small businesses try to avoid its costs.

None of this, mind you, has anything to do with Republicans. And if the GOP were smart, it'd be focused on making sure that, come next November, the public knows that, too.

But we had to pass it.  Is it any wonder Obama and the Dems are trying to make political hay out of gun control and immigration?

[Plane]

I understand that the IRS will be affected.

The tax records will be needed to assess who owes the fees and new taxes.

Will the IRS become more powerfull and intrusive?


You bet your sweet death panel.

[sirs]

Indeed   

[sirs]

Good News from Nancy Pelosi: Obamacare's Looking Pretty Awesome

Nancy Pelosi famously said that Congress had to pass Obamacare to find out what was in it.  And what's in it is pure awesome, even if Americans haven't been able to comprehend its fully glory just yet:

Nancy Pelosi: ObamaCare is lowering healthcare costs and the deficit

The way she tells it, the law is already lowering costs -- and is "largely responsible" for lowering the deficit.  Hoo boy.  Obamacare is not lowering healthcare costs; not for families, not for small businesses, and not for the federal government.  And while it's true that this year's projected deficit has been shaved down to merely quadruple the last fully Republican-controlled budget shortfall, Obamacare has nothing to do with it.  In fact, the nonpartisan GAO estimates that the law will add $6.2 trillion to deficits over time.  Don't forget, Harry Reid is complaining that the law is under-funded. (And, by the way, our long-term debt problem remains as acute as ever -- particularly because of our unsustainable entitlement obligations).  Pelosi has also claimed that Obamacare is a big job creator, a statement that even the White House's favorite economists can't swallow, to say nothing of CBO estimates....or assessments from Democrats who voted for the law.  So how's the Obamacare jobs boom going in Missouri?

Obamacare Cuts Cost 129 Jobs in Liberty, Missouri

"This all stems from the Affordable Care Act."

Meanwhile, the investigation into HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' potentially-illegal extortionary "fundraising" for the law is well underway, as the scandal- and incompetence-plagued IRS prepares to take the reins as Obamacare's top enforcement arm next year.  Yes, that's the same IRS that's just been slapped with a class action lawsuit alleging that more than a dozen agency employees are responsible for the theft of 60 million private healthcare records.  But aside from those details, all is well.

[sirs]

I understand that the IRS will be affected.

The tax records will be needed to assess who owes the fees and new taxes.

Will the IRS become more powerfull and intrusive?

You bet your sweet death panel.

How prophetic

[sirs]

And from the woman who brought up perhaps the worst rhetorical political ethics, in the history of politics, comes this latest gem.......when all else fails, blame George W. Bush for everything.

"You say it happened on his watch. It happened on the appointment of the head of the IRS, who was appointed by President Bush.  His length of stay extended into President Obama’s stay, but I think that that points to the fact that, why is this a politicized issue, because we all are concerned about how the IRS does what it’s supposed to do, supports the law, but does not do it in a selective way."

Pelosi referred to a Bush appointee. That appointee is former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman. As a reminder, Shulman was appointed by Bush but has donated his money to Democrats.

[sirs]

Looks like what's in it was a lot more nefarious than originally thought

-----------------------------------------------------------

Using ObamaCare To Create A Permanent Democratic Majority

If you have to keep it a secret, you probably shouldn't be doing it.

But the California legislature and the new Covered California health insurance exchange are conspiring to keep secret how they will dole out more than half a billion dollars in taxpayer dollars to contractors.

The lion's share of the money is going for what the exchange budget terms "outreach."

In truth, the money is going to build Democratic Party enrollment.

The Obama administration granted a whopping $910 million to California to set up its insurance exchange. That money is not for bandages, surgery, nurses and doctors to care for the sick. Nor is it for insurance plans, though $910 million could buy generous coverage for at least 113,000 people!
Shockingly, the $910 million is slated for bureaucracy, including rich compensation packages for exchange employees ($360,000 a year for the executive director) and contracts for computer equipment, public relations and "outreach."

Outreach is the largest expenditure and where the real monkey business occurs.

Amazingly, California legislators passed a law that the exchange could keep secret for a year who received the contracts and indefinitely how much they were paid. California's open-records laws would otherwise prohibit such secrecy.

Last week, Republican U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and four other Republican senators on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee called for an investigation of California's concealing information on contracts awarded using federal taxpayer money.

What is known so far suggests that California politicians are exploiting health reform to enroll millions of the uninsured in the Democratic Party and fill the coffers of left-wing interest groups with taxpayer money.

Here are the facts to back up that cynical picture:
California lawmakers passed a law (Senate Bill 35) requiring that voter registration be part of the health insurance exchange.

Last month, Covered California announced $37 million in grants to 48 organizations to build public awareness about the opening of the health exchange on Oct. 1.

Of the 48 organizations that got grants, only a handful are health-care related. The California NAACP received $600,000 to do door-to-door canvassing and presentations at community organizations.
Service Employees International Union, which says its mission is "economic justice," received two grants totaling $2 million to make phone calls, robo-calls and go door to door.

The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor AFL-CIO got $1 million for door-to-door, one-on-one education and social networking. It describes its role as "engaging in both organizing and political campaigns, electing pro-union and pro-worker candidates."

Community Health Councils, a California organization with a long history of political activism against fracking, for-profit hospitals, state budget cuts and oil exploration, got $1 million to conduct presentations at community and neighborhood meetings and one-to-one sessions.

These organizations, closely allied with the Democratic Party, are being funded by your tax dollars to conduct "outreach," meaning the kind of phone banking and door-to-door canvassing that activists do to turn out the vote. They will turn out the uninsured to enroll on the exchanges and in the Democratic Party.

The $37 million awarded last month is only the first installment of California's $190.4 million to be spent on contracts for "outreach" through December 2014.

In addition to outreach, California's actual enrollment process is also outsourced to employees of community organizations, unions and health clinics. These enrollment "assisters" will be paid $58 for each enrollee they sign up. An additional $49 million is budgeted to pay them the first year, but in future years, assisters will be paid out of the premiums collected by the exchange.

The template is repeated in every state. The Obama health law creates a permanent stream of funding for unions and community activists by outsourcing insurance enrollment to them.

Assisters will also guide the uninsured to sign up for whatever non-health social services they may be eligible for, including welfare, food stamps and housing assistance, according to the manual prepared by the Community Health Councils for California's implementation.

Anyone who remembers the days of James Curley, Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall gets the picture. If you were poor or a newcomer to this country, you went to the local ward boss and got whatever you needed in exchange for your vote.

The difference is that back then, politics was local. Now the Obama health law is institutionalizing this corrupt style of politics across the country. Whether you live in California or New York, local community activists and unions will be recruiting people to enroll in ObamaCare and sign up to be part of the permanent, beholden Democratic voting majority.


Getting uglier each layer deeper we go

[sirs]

143 views?  Yea, no one's read this

[sirs]

I understand that the IRS will be affected.

The tax records will be needed to assess who owes the fees and new taxes.

Will the IRS become more powerfull and intrusive?

You bet your sweet death panel.

Boy....loooking back when this was posted, demonstrates just how prophetic, Plane was