A revealing commentary this week in The Wall Street Journal on reduced competition and insurance industry…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
New Gallup Poll on Confidence in Big Business Coincides with ObamaCare Merger Wave

A revealing commentary this week in The Wall Street Journal on reduced competition and insurance industry consolidation under ObamaCare coincides in an interesting manner with a new Gallup poll showing very low public confidence in big business.

In "How the Affordable Care Act Is Reducing Competition," physician and American Enterprise Institute (AEI) resident fellow Scott Gottlieb lays out how ObamaCare by design requires industry consolidation to accommodate its massive regulatory burdens and higher operating costs:

To sustain themselves, insurers must spread fixed costs over a larger base of members.  The bigger they are, the easier it is to meet the government-imposed cap on their operating costs while cutting their way to profitability.  This pressure discourages new health…[more]

July 07, 2015 • 10:28 am

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
World to Obama: No, You Just Don’t Get It Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, July 08 2010
How can anyone realistically expect businesses to hire new workers when they can’t know what new pitfalls Obama, Pelosi and Reid have waiting around the corner?

So the nationwide – nay, suddenly worldwide – debate continues:  Is President Obama being dishonest, or does he really just not get it? 

Regrettably, that particular question carries an additional element of irony this week.  In his weekly radio address last Saturday, Obama leveled the curious accusation that opponents of his latest economic brainstorms “just don’t get it”: 

“Still, at a time when millions of Americans feel a deep sense of urgency in their own lives, Republican leaders in Washington just don’t get it.  While a majority of Senators support taking these steps to help the American people, some are playing the same old Washington games and using their power to hold this relief hostage – a move that only ends up holding back our recovery.” 

The “these steps” to which Obama referred above were (a) yet another heaping helping of “stimulus,” even as his previous $1 trillion installment proves itself a deficit-inflating failure, and (b) an unemployment benefit extension beyond its current 99-week duration. 

For all of the remaining Obama supporters out there, 99 weeks is almost two full calendar years. 

Of course, Obama accurately notes that Americans feel an increasing sense of urgency.  For whatever reason, however, he seems remarkably impervious to the reality that his own “stimulus” policies constitute the cause of that increasing urgency. 

Consider these facts.  Few people are aware that the American economy actually lost more jobs during the first seven quarters following the 2001 recession than in the first seven quarters following the latest recession.  Three million more, in fact.  So why has the current unemployment rate hovered at approximately 10% for several months, whereas the unemployment rate following the 2001 recession peaked at 6.3%? 

The disturbing answer is simple:  we aren’t creating new jobs in sufficient numbers to offset the losses.  Layoffs have declined to pre-recession levels, but new job creation festers well below pre-recession levels.  The American economy shed 3 million more jobs following the 2001 recession than the current recession, but it simultaneously created almost 9 million more new jobs compared to the current downturn. 

This fact seems surprising, but it shouldn’t. 

After all, the Obama Administration has eroded the private sector’s incentive to create new jobs.  He has inundated our economy with stifling regulation after stifling regulation, from ObamaCare to environmental mandates to new union gratuities demanded by impatient Big Labor leaders.  Additionally, his menacing onslaught of new taxes and federal spending are simply subverting the forward-looking certainty that private businesses need before committing to expansion and new hiring. 

How can anyone realistically expect businesses to hire new workers when they can’t know what new pitfalls Obama, Pelosi and Reid have waiting around the corner? 

Consider also that Obama’s White House promised in January 2009 that his “stimulus” would reduce unemployment to 7.3% by now, after peaking at 8% in the third quarter of 2009.  Instead, unemployment reached 10.1% in October 2009, and remains at a miserable 9.5% today.  Or consider Obama’s insistence upon an unjustified offshore drilling ban in the Gulf, which has directly and indirectly jeopardized countless jobs in that already-suffering region.  A federal court overturned Obama’s moratorium, but his administration for some reason persists. 

Following the deep 1981-82 recession, Ronald Reagan’s pro-growth policies brought us approximately 8% gross domestic product (GDP) growth throughout the four quarters of 1983.  In contrast, the past three quarters have witnessed tepid growth of 2.2%, 5.1% and back down to a sputtering 2.7%.  Our cyclical recovery should be much more vigorous by now. 

Yet Obama has the audacity to claim that Republicans who oppose his failing agenda “don’t get it?” 

It’s not just Republicans here in the United States who are opposing him, however.  At the most recent G-20 summit in Toronto, Obama implored other industrialized nations’ leaders to accelerate their deficit spending spree with even more “stimulus.” 

Recognizing that three long years of fiscally imprudent “stimulus” has only exacerbated their debt crises with no substantial economic benefit, foreign leaders offered Obama something that surely offended his fragile inflated ego:  international rejection.  Leaders spanning such diverse nations as Germany, the U.K., Canada, Japan and even Russia collectively rebuffed Obama’s irresponsible demand, instead emphasizing the need for spending discipline following the Greek collapse. 

Foreign heads of state and Republican leaders here in the U.S. share very little in common.  If Obama gave this a moment’s reflection, though, their universal rejection of his failing economic agenda would make it clear to him precisely who in this debate “just doesn’t get it.” 

Question of the Week   
How many U.S. national holidays have been established by Congress?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Democratic primaries have always featured liberal insurgent candidates, but perhaps none quite so liberal or insurgent as the socialist senator from Vermont. Sanders' comments are a reminder of just how far the second-place Democratic presidential candidate stands from the American mainstream on some issues, and the looming reckoning Democrats face with their party's leftward drift."…[more]
 
 
—Ben Schreckinger and Jonathan Topaz, POLITICO
— Ben Schreckinger and Jonathan Topaz, POLITICO
 
Liberty Poll   

Should Vice President Joe Biden enter the 2016 race for the Democratic presidential nomination?