■ ObamaCare© sets up a new entitlement for early retirees: the program, designed to subsidize groups with generous retiree benefits (hello: another union payoff!) with $5 Billion paid to employers to help defray costs not just for retirees, but their spouses and even dependents (including, of course, those 26 year old "kids.")
■ Ceridian reports that our CongressCritters are mulling yet another extension of the so-called COBRA subsidy (i.e. hidden tax); the current program is scheduled to sail off into the sunset next Monday (the 31st). It's still pending, so who knows.
■ HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious has fired back at Virginia's heroic efforts to fight ObamaCare©. She's relying on two arguments, neither of which strike me (a proud non-lawyer) as compelling: first, that the state (the State!) of Virginia has no legal standing to challenge the train-wreck. The second prong is that citizens of Virginia are also citizens of the United States [ed: d'unh!].
The former argument fails to consider that, if a state has no standing to challenge Federal over-reach in blatant disregard of the 10th Amendment, then who does? Anyone? Bueller?
The latter seems silly on its face: if a citizen of Virginia doesn't agree with a particular law, then that citizen is free to a) vote with his/her feet or b) run for office and change it (there may be other remedies, too, such as a voter initiative effort).
I have little doubt that we'll see similar responses to the suits brought by the other 19 states.
■ Ceridian reports that our CongressCritters are mulling yet another extension of the so-called COBRA subsidy (i.e. hidden tax); the current program is scheduled to sail off into the sunset next Monday (the 31st). It's still pending, so who knows.
■ HHS Secretary Shecantbeserious has fired back at Virginia's heroic efforts to fight ObamaCare©. She's relying on two arguments, neither of which strike me (a proud non-lawyer) as compelling: first, that the state (the State!) of Virginia has no legal standing to challenge the train-wreck. The second prong is that citizens of Virginia are also citizens of the United States [ed: d'unh!].
The former argument fails to consider that, if a state has no standing to challenge Federal over-reach in blatant disregard of the 10th Amendment, then who does? Anyone? Bueller?
The latter seems silly on its face: if a citizen of Virginia doesn't agree with a particular law, then that citizen is free to a) vote with his/her feet or b) run for office and change it (there may be other remedies, too, such as a voter initiative effort).
I have little doubt that we'll see similar responses to the suits brought by the other 19 states.
Posts
