Ask Republicans about jobs, they’ll answer about Obamacare



By Dana Milbank, Published: October 5

By most of the usual measures, President Obama has no business being reelected. Here’s why he might be anyway.

On Wednesday morning, as Senate Democratic leaders were scrambling to find a way to enact part of Obama’s jobs bill, a dozen Republican lawmakers assembled outside the Capitol to complain about . . . health-care reform.



“Every day I get up, I do at least something to fight Obamacare,” Rep. Steve King (Iowa) announced to the cameras.

Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.) proclaimed that the year-and-a-half-old law meant the “socialization of medicine.”

“Monstrous!” contributed Rep. Joe Pitts (Pa.). “This was a 2,733-page bill! . . . No amendments! . . . Partisan vote!”

Maybe so, gentlemen, but don’t you have something better to do with your time?

The president’s support is mired in the low 40s in opinion polls, and three-quarters of Americans think the country is on the wrong track — an obvious opportunity for the opposition party. But rather than exploit Obama’s vulnerability on the economy, the tea party faithful are stuck in 2010, demanding repeal of the health-care law.

That has allowed Obama, despite his own belated focus on unemployment, to jump way out in front of Republicans on the issue: In the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, Obama has a 15-point advantage over congressional Republicans on job creation, and his jobs package enjoys majority support.

The Republicans who assembled Wednesday on a patch of the Capitol lawn known as the “Senate Swamp” claimed that they, too, had a jobs plan: repealing Obamacare.

“If the president wants a jobs bill, this is it: Repealing Obamacare is a jobs bill,” proposed Rep. Jeff Landry (La.). “We don’t have to go through all the shenanigans of him coming up here and talking to a joint session of Congress.”

Landry’s evidence that health-care reform is killing jobs: a constituent claims he is reducing his workforce by 25 percent because of Obamacare — never mind that the relevant provisions don’t take effect for a few years.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (Tex.) offered a similar take as he waved around a copy of Obama’s jobs bill. The president, he said, “is out there demonizing anybody that won’t pass his jobs bill, but all he has to know is this: There is more jobs that will be created by repealing Obamacare.”

Specifically, the GOP group complained that Obamacare is “costing us jobs — at least 800,000,” according to Sen. David Vitter (La.).

Additionally, said Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah), “it puts 3.2 million jobs at risk.” In case you doubt this, “these are all backed up by statistics,” the senator said.

Not exactly. The 3.2 million figure was attributed to the International Franchise Association, a group that fought the health-care bill. And the 800,000 jobs the bill is “costing” us? That was from a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the bill’s impact — in 2021.

The lawmakers were in the Swamp to receive a repeal-Obamacare petition signed by 1.6 million people, organizers claimed, at the urging of Mike Huckabee (R-Fox News) and conservative activist Ken Hoagland.

Introducing the lawmakers, Hoagland said that “it’s not a surprise” small businesses have stopped hiring. “They will tell you: ‘I have 50 people. I cannot hire one more, because if I hire one more, I either pay huge fines to the IRS or I must provide comprehensive, expanded health care for everyone.’ ”

This is strange, because the relevant requirement for businesses larger than 50 employees does not take effect until 2014. The point was also contradicted, moments later, by Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.), who argued that the health-care law would allow businesses to save money by shifting costs to the government.

“Employers are going to have a very easy decision to make,” he said. “Do I buy family coverage for about 10, 15 thousand, or do I pay a $2,000 penalty, and I wouldn’t be throwing my employees to the wolves — I’d be making them eligible for huge subsidies. So who wouldn’t take that deal?”

The logic wasn’t compelling, but the moment gave the tea party lawmakers a chance to recall some of their favorite slogans from the health-care wars. Malpractice! Read this bill! Unconstitutional! Our liberties! Socialized medicine! Shenanigans! Sleight of hand! Repeal this bill!

Toward the end of this 2010 reprise, Rep. Phil Gingrey (Ga.) raised a valid point. “What we really needed to be focusing on two years ago was putting people back to work,” he said. “We literally spent two years fiddling while Rome was burning.”

Right. And now Gingrey and his colleagues would resume the fiddling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2011/10/05/gIQAjPVKOL_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_postpolitics



damn somebody gets it in that circus troop

Ask Democrats about anything and they will respond Racist, Teabagger, Hatemonger, Fearmonger, Warmonger or any of the other mongers I am leaving out.

Of course that isn't saying that there wasn't any racism, fearmongering, hatemongering etc... going on so that would have to be established first.

This is stating that the answer to creating jobs is stopping Obamacare/ which is technically Congresscare since Obama can't pass a law or bill at all. which doesn't solve anything to help Americans at all.

But Obama wrote it did he not? And likewise is it still not a good idea to stop Obamacare from crippling our nation? It stands a chance of doing just that!

Don't forget its all Bush's fault

Actually Obamacare is more important that the Jobs Bill for many reasons. First of all it is unconstitutional by any standard. It forces citizens to purchase something. You may argue that we force individuals to purchase insurance for cars so why is it different with health care? Well, the reason is that you do not need to drive, however, if one choses to live in the United States you will be required to buy health insurance whether you like it or not. This is an over-reaching application of the commerce clause. The over-reaching of the commerce clause came with the FDR's New Deal as FDR repeatedly was able to launch an assault on the US Constitution and the people loved him for it because he was "doing something" and could give great speeches even intimidating and threatening the Supreme Court and business leaders because he had the people on his side - Remember he was a four term president.

While these policies can be overturned early one, once entrenched over time these abrogations of the Constitution became accepted and even SCOTUS' opinion concurred that while these were unconstitutional acts they have become acceptable and entrenched that undoing these would have consequences which might not be acceptable.

That is the reason we must halt Obamacare. It is a great threat to the Constitution. I am a Canadian, but there is no document such as the US Constitution which checks the power of government. Every other Constitution delimits the rights of the people or defines their rights whereas the US Constitution delimits what the government can do. But if people fueled by class envy stirred by the vile rhetoric of the race baiting welfare pimps and their socialist enablers who would surrender freedom for a handouts and free money do you think the Constitution will stand a chance?

Still to this day FDR is considered a hero in the US for what he did during the great depression. But was it worth the assault on individual freedom for generations to come? The effects are still here with us today. The fact is if FDR has left the economy alone there would have been a recovery by 1935 but his policies prolonged the depression through the WWII.

The economic problem in the United States could have been over with quickly. No bailouts, let the companies that do not do well die and get out of the way... that is the way it should have been. Of all the countries which went through the recession Canada spent the lease per capita and only ended up spending $150 million (a mere pittance - at $5 per Canadian) in bailouts. The conservative government only spent even that because the opposition parties pushed them into it as the were only a minority government. The $150 million came with so many strings and conditions that no one wanted to touch the Canadian bailout. The US meanwhile spent 1.5 trillion ($5000 per American) within six months bailing out something or other and continues to have a stagnant economy. Canada on the other had spending 1000 times less than the US per capita which was the least spent by any nation was the first to recover and had the highest growth of post recession.

Leave the economy alone and cut taxes on the Wealthy. Wealthy people do not put money in banks! They are ambitious/greedy/go getters/doers (whatever it is) and make their money work for them which means only one thing and one thing only: Investments. Investments is what creates jobs, makes capital available for infrastructure and developments and a whole host of things that trickle (nay gush) down. If the US government cut capital gains to 0%, and made said that the rich do not have to pay ANY taxes at all but taxed the poor there would be 99% employment, wages would quickly rise as employers are forced to compete for labor which would be in short supply etc. Yes it seems unfair that the rich pay nothing and the poor would carry the tax burden but that is the fastest way to recover from a recession. The "greed of the rich" is good for everyone.

That was well written and to the point, nice to see some common sense for a change.

DeusImperator, you are so very wise. I hope your wisdom manages to find its way to some of the less "Intelligent" people here who think they are so educated and yet cannot see the BS for what it is! Obamacare is BAD for us all! MAndatory insurance screwed us drivers. Now all of us have to get really screwed for what? Can't anybody but the few of us see this as Obama selling us out to yet another industry?

Had he have made Healthcare and Insurance, ALL INSURANCE not for profit like Germany did wouldn't we be a lot better off using Germany's model? I would think so!

If your ideological leanings as a Canadian have any credibility at all as pertains to American politics and law, I would think your first priority would be to see Canada's single payer healthcare system dismantled. All the conservatives in the states would be screaming bloody murder if Obamacare was any thing at all like the system you currently benefit from.

Beam. Own. Eye.

As for the rest of your post proclaiming the rich to be the penultimate saviours of the masses, as a technologist I would assume you know The Rest of the Story as pertains to one of the richest men in the world who recently died. Steve Jobs pretty much took other peoples' technology and put a lot of marketing chrome on it. Then he had them manufactured by Foxconn, arguably the world's worst-ever sweat shop where the employees do swan dives to their deaths when they are harrangued about not making back-breaking quotas. If things were as you assert, he'd have had those iPods and iPhones made over here in America. Not China and NOT by a contract manufacturer with dubious labor practices in factories subsidized by the government.




-Kerry O.

Hear,Hear!!!!!!!!!!!

american government is the american people, we vote on things

we can give government certain authority not explicitly in the constitution because we can VOTE to do so,,,,

healthcare did not mandate everyone buy insurance, there are exceptions just like there are exceptions to paying income tax

there is so much misinformation repeated to scare people into thinking their 'rights' are being infringed upon that they would rather continue with something that doesnt work well than to do something which might work better

even to the point of believing greed is good....amazing

What they don't have is any coherent notion of how this might work. That is, "repealing Obamacare would cause "A" to happen, which would result in "B", which would cause "C" to happen, resulting in the creation of jobs. It is some kind of a fantasy belief with no rationale. It is a religious belief, built on faith. It is not a rational belief. It is a notion derived from the Church of St. Foxnews.

I had a lot of problems with Obamacare, but job creation wasn't among them. It's like saying, "repealing the Affordable Care Act will stop global warming". It really is best to stick with rational, coherent arguments.

In response to KerryO

It is a well known fact that Canada does have a single payer system (depending on the province). However, we have been beset by the usual problems associated with it.

1. The more able/better doctors left of the United States as they believed that they were not being paid upon their merit and ability as every procedure is paid out the same sum across the board. The doctors who could not make it stayed put. This was a huge problem between 1992 and 1999 as our best left to the United States. We had to bring in doctors from India where MDs can graduate with a passing mark of 33%.

2. The government in effect insures the doctors and limits payouts and stacks legal procedure against litigants. The doctors are not forced to purchase individual insurance and therefore cannot be forced out by the insurance companies when things go wrong. In the US this is one of the quickest was to get a doctor to stop practicing is thanks to the insurance companies which make doctors pay for instances of malpractice. There is very little redress in the Canadian system and a great amount in the United States as the free market forces out the inept who just come over to Canada. When the single payer system was enacted the government made promises to the Medical Associations that this would be the case.

3. Until the Conservative government allowed for more private procedures there were long lines waiting for procedures. Persons who could pay like my parents went to the US for treatment or operations where there were better doctors. The ones who could not died waiting in line.

4. As there is only a single payer, the government, only procedures allowed by actuaries and various boards were permitted and this was not based on best treatment but on funds available to the specific board. So if there was a medication which would cost $5000 per month no one was allowed to get it - even if you were willing to pay for it.

5. Everyone gets the same service in Canada. You cannot go out an pay to get better service. In the government's eyes it was wrong for the rich to get treated better... (of course they went to the United States) My parents living in Canada carried health insurance in Ohio.

6. In Calgary, the richest city in Canada, there was but a single MRI and a long line up ensured...for humans waiting time was 1.5 years. Five veterinary clinics in Calgary had MRI machines for pets and livestock. Humans could not go to the vet to get an MRI scan.

Technologist? Me... No.. I am a Network Admin very good at what I do but I never saw myself as a technologist :) I was a math/Physics major with Phil/PoliSci as minors and a law school dropout.

As for people moving off shore to do business, why would anyone what to do business in the US at with it high corporate taxes one of the highest in the world of between 38% - 50% and the highest among industrialized nations. The United States is currently driving business out. It is more lucrative for people to do business in anywhere in the EU, Japan China or elsewhere. Yet the protestors and all the Obama junkies, say that the corporations don’t pay their fair share. Furthermore labor unions work to put the corporations out of business and against business. Steve Jobs would be an idiot to do manufacture anything in the United States with high taxes and labor union protections.

The Socialists on the march in New York and Washington, behaving like uncivilized uncouth louts and barbarians demand more free money without earning or achieve anything.

The taking of wealth from the productive, taking a cut and handing out to the ne’er-do-wells is unfair and unjust. If you are can’t work don’t expect to eat. Begging on the street for a hand out is by magnitudes more just than having the government use their coercive force to appropriate money for you. That seems to be the attitude of many in the United States.

louts and barbarians? really,? by what standard?


In america, nothing is free. those 'ner do wells' consist of a majority of 'working' poor, who are helping the rich keep their riches


and in america, 'the system doesnt (yet) toss people aside who fall upon hard times but have otherwise done all the 'required' things like pay taxes, get educated, and work the MAJORITY of their life for 'the system'

By what Standards?

How about leaving a shovel ready job of "hope and change" on the hood a police cruiser?

How about people living in the neighborhood complaining of being "harassment, lewdness, groping" being perpetrated on them, or the sleeping protesters blocking drive ways and walk ways or the drug use at all hours of day and night.

They live in a pigsty but won't let anyone clean up their pigsty.

What working poor? Choices one makes has a direct bearing on poverty. Anyone who is willing to study and work hard will get somewhere. If one was to get knocked up by the age of 18, or get hitched under 20 without first getting an education is going to be living in poverty for a while but that has to do with choices one makes.

50% of Americans do not pay taxes, that is a fact. The poor certainly do not. Yes some sales taxes but all in all get more than they pay. The majority of the poor "work the system".

We are giving the poor an incentive to stay poor. Cut welfare, food stamps etc. That is the greatest incentive to get people back into the workforce.

working poor isnt a status so simply attributed to personal choice

tell me what choice a child has who grows up in poverty, is undereducated because of the dynamics of education in impoverished areas, has to compete with those who grow up in areas where 'networks' are built in, and is treated by society at large as 'less deserving'

when they grow up to not be able to compete, was that really all about what they 'chose',, no

what choice do people have who work for a company for decades and find the company outsource their jobs or shut down and because its an employers market find that the income they had EARNED and therefore set their lifestyle around no longer applies


what choice do people have who work hard and get the education but fall upon illness which their insurance doesnt cover, having medical bills which bankrupt them or cause them to loose their homes?


what choice do people have who worked their whole lives and payed into the system and then dont have a retirement because of the companies bad investments?


no,, the working poor arent poor because of their personal choices(some indeed are but thats not the broad or singular reason),, thats an easy way to blame the victim, but its misinformation

You might want to tell that to Clarence Thomas. Read his biography and you will understand why few now have sympathy for your point of view.


Well with training and discipline one can compete. Again I point you to Clarence Thomas' biography. The problem is that many of these ne'er-do-well keep bouncing Bballs around wanting to become NBA stars. That is the problem there are only a few job openings a year dribbling Bballs. It is a choice.



Stop driving businesses and the rich out with high corporate and individual tax rates. The rich do not put money in banks; they invest creating more jobs. But with Obama and his fellow ***** (as in idiot, donkey, democrat) trying to sodomize the rich and corporations at every turn why should corporations or the rich outsource overseas?



What illnesses do they not cover? Pre-existing illnesses? You are darn right that they should not cover these. This would be unfair unless there is a premium. How did people live when the technology was not there to provide expensive medical care? Medical care is not a right!


Actually the company pays in your stead. When co-pay investments are made then you can get per amount over a period of time if you did not whose fault is that? Again one of choice.



As I have shown each of these are choices people make. There is the 2% of poor who really had bad luck. I don't mind if these are taken care of... by church groups but not the government.

sorry about some of the errors in posting. I tend to jump from thought to thought while writing and sometimes the sentence does not make sense. My bad.