Tag Archives: political parties

Security of Personal Information is an Administrative Burden on Government

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what the Obama administration claims, and they’re actually serious.

The House of Representatives last Friday passed and sent to the Senate the Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act, HR 3811, by 291-122, with 67 (!) Democrats voting in the affirmative, also.

The one-sentence bill says that no later than two business days after any security breach on an ObamaCare site is discovered, “the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide notice of such breach to each individual.”

In response to that one sentence bill (who says we need 2,000 pages to write a bill?), the Obama administration, through its OMB, issued a one-page statement decrying the bill, saying, in part,

The Administration opposes House passage of HR3811 because it would create unrealistic and costly paperwork requirements that do not improve the safety or security of personally-identifiable information in the Health Insurance Marketplaces.

After all, the administration said, the Web site is fine, and Americans’ information is secure.  We said so.  So why should we have to tell anyone their information has been stolen or leaked?  They don’t need to know, and telling them would work a hardship on us.

Never mind that this “hardship” is answered by private enterprise as a matter of unfortunate routine.  Is the administration terrified that Obamacare security breaches might surpass the recent Target breach?  Or are they just worried about the political hardship news of such a breach might work on them in the ballot box?

Oh, and half the OMB statement was wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand, being devoted to Obama’s campaign speech of how wonderful Obamacare is.

The statement can be seen here.

Filibusters and the Senate

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) blew up the Senate filibuster with his manufactured claim of Republican obstructionism and with his Senate rules-breaking move to eliminate it (for now only regarding Presidential nominees) with a (Democrat only) majority vote.

Yet Republican-led (note that: not the Republican satrapy, as Reid views his Senate to be for Democrats) House passed 200 jobs- and economy-related bills in 2013 and some dozen that were passed with 250 or more votes—i.e., with considerable Democrat (that would be bipartisan, for those Progressives following along at home) voting support.

The Democrat-ruled Senate?  An immigration bill and a farm bill.  A budget, but only under the embarrassment of having Senators’ pay withheld if they didn’t pass one.  Under real pressure, a sequester bill (that originated with President Barack Obama) and a natural disaster relief bill.

Indeed, of the 70-ish bills Obama signed last year, 56 originated in the House, and all of 16 came from Reid’s fiefdom.

The rest of those 200 House-passed bills?  Reid wouldn’t even let them come to a vote.  There are, for instance, 40 explicitly jobs-related bills that Reid refuses to allow the Senate even to discuss.  Of the Senate-originated bills, Reid wouldn’t let the minority party even offer amendments.  Under Senate rules, there are only so many amendments allowed to be proposed for a bill.  Reid routinely, and universally, “filled the tree” with his own or those of his trusted lieutenants, Senator Chuck Schumer (D, NY) and Senator Dick Durbin (D, IL).

There is the filibuster.

What He Said

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV), during his Democrats’ attempt to ram through, unilaterally, another enormous extension of Federal unemployment insurance payments (in the middle of a quickening, according to those same Democrats, economic recovery) had this to say about one political party or another:

[They are] continually denigrating our economy…and frankly, I believe, our country.

I wonder: was he talking about his fellow Democrats?

Wow

Posted on by
2

Just—wow.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) sent out a paranoid email Saturday evening urging supporters to vote for Democrats so that Republicans can’t impeach President Obama.

The email, subject line “Impeachment,” was sent to Obama for America supporters, imploring them to contribute to the DNC’s 2014 efforts.  “What do these people all have in common?,” the email asked, featuring quotes from Republican Sen James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Rep Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Rep Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan, and Rep Blake Farenthold of Texas discussing the possibility of impeaching Obama for one of his numerous instances of presidential misconduct.

They’re also calling for boycotts of news and opinion outlets that don’t read from DNC-approved scripts of speak Party-approved speech.  In a separate email to “Friend,” they implored, among other things,

All they [RNC leadership] need to do is encourage their fellow Republican leaders to stop making time for interviews with outlets like these.

That email can be seen here.

More fluff pieces.  With stuff like this, is it possible to take the Democratic Party and its candidates seriously?  Unfortunately, we do have to; they’re still far too dangerous to our country.

Minimum Wage as Politics

Posted on by
2

Democrats looking to make gains in the 2014 gubernatorial elections are using a possible minimum wage increase as a way to win support among voters….

Democrats across the political spectrum have lobbied for a higher minimum wage this year, after Obama got the ball rolling on the issue by calling for an increase in his February budget speech. Since then, union-organized demonstrations in front of profitable mega-chains such as Wal-Mart and McDonald’s have kept it in the public eye.

Senate Democrats have also pushed for a minimum wage increase going into 2014.  Their proposal would raise the minimum wage by 40%.

Of course there’s union involvement.  Aside from the Democrats being union meal tickets, increasing minimum wages protects union jobs—and so union leaders’ jobs—at the expense of the unemployed, those looking for a first job or for high school or college money, those looking for a second income, and the poor, who would gladly take the lower pay but who are priced out of the labor market by increased minimum wage.

We’ve already seen how that works.

Never mind the racist origin of minimum wage laws, instigated by FDR specifically to stem the tide of southern blacks moving north to take jobs at lower pay than white unions (blacks weren’t allowed in those unions, remember) wanted, and so taking jobs at the expense of those white union members.

Never mind that most of those unemployed and underemployed who will be priced out of the next round of hiring by these elevated minimum wages are the already vastly underemployed and underemployed black and Hispanic teenagers, black and Hispanic moms trying to work a family’s second job.  Regardless of current intent, the disparate impact of minimum wage laws is clear.  Where’s Eric Holder when we need him?

Nevertheless, Danny Kanner, Democratic Governors Association Communications Director had this to say:

The defining issue in every single one of these races is who is fighting for the middle class.

Yeah.  Never mind any of those poor, who’d like to get a job and work their way into the middle class.  Typical Progressive, playing politics, and with that play, ignoring the least among us.