Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (49716)	7/30/2013 2:01:04 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Respond to of 85487

Chattanooga Paper Tells Obama to ‘Take Your Jobs Plan and Shove It’ Before Speech By Andrew Johnson July 30, 2013 10:58 AM nationalreview.com The Chattanooga Times Free Press doesn’t want any part of President Obama’s latest jobs speech. “Forgive us if you are not greeted with the same level of Southern hospitality that our area usually bestows on its distinguished guests,” the paper’s editorial board warned this morning prior to the president’s speech at a local Amazon.com warehouse this afternoon. The editors blasted the president’s job plan as being nothing more than “a ridiculous government spending spree” coupled with a “punitive tax increase on job creators.” Even “regular folks with a basic understanding of math,” not just top economists, understand that these are “the most damaging policies imaginable” for the country at this point in time, they wrote. While local residents may not be excited to see Obama, the paper tells the president that ultimately “it’s probably good that you’re here” because “it will give you an opportunity to see the failure of your most comprehensive jobs plan to date, the disastrous stimulus scheme, up close and personal,” in particular the wasteful electric/Internet/cable Smart Grid funded by the president’s 2009 stimulus. TheFree Press editors detail that the grid, which they playfully call the “Gig to Nowhere,” will ultimately cost taxpayers a half-billion dollars — which is nearly five times more than originally thought — with little improvement in the quality of service, if not potentially worse. Along with driving up costs, the project has hampered technological innovation in Chattanooga, instead of fostering it as it was intended to do, they write. Despite the Free Press’s protests, President Obama will be making his latest jobs proposal in the city, but the newspaper could do without it. “So excuse us, Mr. President, for our lack of enthusiasm for your new jobs program. Here in Chattanooga we’re still reeling from your old one,” the newspaper concluded.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (49716)	7/30/2013 4:50:10 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Wrinkle in Health Law Vexes Lawmakers’ Aides nytimes.com By ROBERT PEARPublished: July 29, 2013 510 Comments WASHINGTON — As President Obama barnstorms the country promoting his health care law, one audience very close to home is growing increasingly anxious about the financial implications of the new coverage: members of Congress and their personal staffs. Under a wrinkle that dates back to enactment of the law, members of Congress and thousands of their aides are required to get their coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges. But the law does not provide any obvious way for the federal government to continue paying its share of the premiums for the comprehensive coverage. If the government cannot do so, it could mean an additional expense of $5,000 a year for individuals and $11,000 for families under some of the most popular plans. Not surprisingly, that idea is unpopular on Capitol Hill. “It’s a very serious concern,” said Representative Billy Long, a Missouri Republican who said staff members were “freaked out” at the prospect of paying the full cost of insurance out of their own pockets. “They’re thinking about leaving government service,” said Mr. Long, noting that some staff members already lived in group houses and cramped apartments to make ends meet on Capitol Hill salaries. “They’re thinking about taking jobs other places. We have tried, and tried, and tried to get the answer on what they’re going to be paying. The Office of Personnel Management cannot tell us.” The personnel office arranges health insurance benefits for federal employees. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service pinpointed the problem 10 days after President Obama signed the health care law in March 2010. Since then neither Congress nor the administration has addressed it. With the exchanges scheduled to open in just nine weeks, the Obama administration is struggling to come up with a creative interpretation of the health care law that would allow the federal government to kick in for insurance as private employers do, but so far an answer has proved elusive. The issue is politically charged because the White House and Congress are highly sensitive to any suggestion that lawmakers or their aides are getting special treatment under the health law. The administration is already under fire from Republicans for delaying a requirement that larger businesses offer insurance to their full-time employees. The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, the nation’s largest employer-sponsored health insurance program, covers more than eight million people, including government employees and their family members. It offers dozens of competing plans and has been cited as a model by members of both parties. In battles over the health care law in 2009-10, Republicans proposed a requirement for lawmakers and aides to join the exchanges, and Democrats accepted it. Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who proposed an early version of the idea, said he wanted to make sure that “members of Congress and Congressional staff get their employer-based health insurance through the same exchanges as our constituents.” It has been a headache for many in Congress ever since. Democrats and some Republicans wish the issue would simply disappear. The 2010 law generally requires lawmakers and aides who work in their personal offices to get coverage through the exchanges. That implies that they would no longer receive coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The law is silent on the question. It does not clearly authorize the government to pay premiums for federal employees who obtain insurance through the exchanges. Nor does it authorize the government to reimburse federal employees who buy health insurance on their own. David M. Ermer, a lawyer who has represented insurers in the federal employee program for 30 years, said, “I do not think members of Congress and their staff can get funds for coverage in the exchanges under existing law.” “Perhaps,” he said, “they could buy coverage on an exchange, pay for it on their own and be reimbursed later by the government. You would need a law to appropriate money for that.” At a Congressional hearing in April, House members pressed the administration to say what would happen to their health insurance if they went into exchanges. 1 2 NEXT PAGE »

To: Brumar89 who wrote (49716)	7/30/2013 4:54:31 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Racism, sexism and gay bashing are immoral, not sex.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (49716)

8/1/2013 3:44:53 PM

From: FJB

Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 85487

Editor Fired Over 'Inappropriate' Anti-Obama Headline

An editor at the Chattanooga Times Free Press has been fired after adding a pithy headline to a piece critical of President Obama's stimulus plan. Author Drew Johnson announced on Twitter that he had been fired:

I just became the first person in the history of newspapers to be fired for writing a paper's most-read article. t.co — Drew Johnson (@Drews_Views) August 1, 2013

The Times Free Press published the piece Tuesday under the headline "Take your jobs plan and shove it, Mr. President: Your policies have harmed Chattanooga enough." Johnson has admitted the headline was his idea but claims headlines are changed routinely.

A statement published by the Free Press says Johnson's decision to change the headline was the reason for his termination.

The headline was inappropriate for this newspaper. It was not the original headline approved for publication, and Johnson violated the normal editing process when he changed the headline. The newspaper’s decision to terminate Johnson had nothing to do with the content of the editorial, which criticized the president’s job creation ideas and Chattanooga’s Smart Grid. The Free Press page has often printed editorials critical of the president and his policies.

The piece itself is written as an open letter to the President who was visiting the area. It begins "Welcome to Chattanooga, one of hundreds of cities throughout this great nation struggling to succeed in spite of your foolish policies that limit job creation, stifle economic growth and suffocate the entrepreneurial spirit." The tone is similarly blunt throughout:

Even though 64 percent of Chattanooga respondents said they would rather you hadn’t chosen to visit our fair city, according to a survey on the Times Free Press website, it’s probably good that you’re here. It will give you an opportunity to see the failure of your most comprehensive jobs plan to date, the disastrous stimulus scheme, up close and personal.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 helped fund the Gig to Nowhere project, a $552 million socialist-style experiment in government-owned Internet, cable and phone services orchestrated by EPB — Chattanooga’s government-owned electric monopoly.

The rest of the article focuses on the failure of this project. He concludes the piece "So excuse us, Mr. President, for our lack of enthusiasm for your new jobs program. Here in Chattanooga we’re still reeling from your old one."