I have been reading through the actual text of the bill and needless to say, it can be confusing As with any legislation Congress comes up with, it is loaded with lawyer speak and multiple sections and sub-sections. For someone like me, with limited legal language skills (why don’t they just use plain English), it takes several readings to really get the gist of what they are attempting to do with the legislation. I may never get through the entire bill, at least not without getting a headache, but there are sections that cause me great concern.

As has been reported over the past few weeks, the House version of health care reform does contain penalties for those who fail to purchase acceptable health care coverage. From what I can gather from reading and re-reading the text, the penalty is going to be a 2.5% tax. Here is what the actual text says.

SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

`(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of–

`(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

`(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

`(b) Limitations-

`(1) TAX LIMITED TO AVERAGE PREMIUM-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The tax imposed under subsection (a) with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed the applicable national average premium for such taxable year.

`(B) APPLICABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE PREMIUM-

`(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the `applicable national average premium’ means, with respect to any taxable year, the average premium (as determined by the Secretary, in coordination with the Health Choices Commissioner) for self-only coverage under a basic plan which is offered in a Health Insurance Exchange for the calendar year in which such taxable year begins.

`(ii) FAILURE TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL- In the case of any taxpayer who fails to meet the requirements of subsection (d) with respect to more than one individual during the taxable year, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting `family coverage’ for `self-only coverage’.

You see why I have a headache now? I am still trying to figure this all out, but it does seem to indicate that there will be certain taxes or fines for those who do not purchase acceptable health care coverage. If your adjustable gross income is $50,000, that would amount to $1,250. I don’t know about you and your family, but that is no small change for our family. The definition of the term “acceptable” will be left up to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I have written before about the mandates that are also included in the health care bill in the Senate. As with that legislation, I fail to see how it is a good thing for Congress to mandate penalties for those who are unable to purchase health care coverage. It adds insult to injury to those who are already suffering through financial hardships. As I alluded to in the above paragraph, my family will certainly feel the financial pinch if you add $1,250 on top of the taxes I already pay.

It is important to note how the tax portion of this legislation will be enforced. No actual enforcement is included, but they rather fall back on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code that applies to unpaid taxes. If failure to pay any tax liability is determined to be the result of willful behavior, the result can be more fines and imprisonment. Honestly, do we need the IRS to have any more power and authority than they already have?

In addition to individuals, there are also certain mandates for employers to offer health care coverage. Those employers who fall under the requirements are required to not only offer said coverage, but also pay for a large portion of the premium. The minimum employer contribution is 75% for individual coverage and 65% for family coverage. There are waivers available to employers who can prove the requirement would place an undue hardship on their business. These waivers have to be applied for from the Secretary of Labor, in whatever manner they deem necessary.

I will say this about employer-based health care coverage. I am of the personal opinion that it is not the responsibility of my employer to pay for my health care coverage. If they can negotiate a good premium by banding together with other business, that is one thing. For them to be required to pay any part of the premium, much less the majority of it, is quite a different matter. I know enough about my employer’s business to safely say; if his business falls under these requirements, he will be required to lay off several employees, in order to meet the mandates laid out in this legislation.

Can you imagine? My employer has made it through the worst economic period he can remember without laying off a single employee. In fact, he has actually added one employee. Yet through the mandates of the government, he may be required to reduce his workforce, just to meet their mandates. How that is a good thing escapes me.

One thing I find odd is the timing of the implementation of the bill. Once it is combined with the legislation coming out of the Senate and is signed into law by President Obama, it is not scheduled to go into effect until 2013. We may start seeing some of the effects earlier, but the main portions will be delayed. I have to wonder if this is because of the midterm elections coming up next year. If Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the ultra-liberals in Congress believe so strongly that America has to have health care reform, why are they waiting so long before it is actually implemented?

Conservatives, hear me well on this. We can not afford to waste our time on fighting against things that are not in this legislation. Let us hear no more about death panels and end-of-life counseling sessions. Instead, we need to focus on what the bill will actually do. There is much in H.R. 3962 to be concerned about and the more we focus on what is not there, the less we can focus on what is.

We know that Hasan was a devout Muslim and had previously served at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He was transferred to Fort Hood in July and was about to be deployed to Iraq. He apparently had strong feelings against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and those feelings had been the cause of altercations with other personnel.  That’s about all of the answers we have right now, or at least those that have been released. Now to the questions.

At the risk of sounding bigoted or prejudiced against Muslims, I have to ask this question. Given the propensity of radical Muslims to engage in suicide attacks against people and targets they do not agree with, how did someone like Nidal Malik Hasan slip through the cracks? For that matter, given his past actions and his open opposition to the wars, why was his still in the Army, much less given access to a place such as Fort Hood? I have no doubt there are other Muslims in our military who are not radical and who love our country, but when someone like Hasan is openly against what the military is doing, a red flag should be raised. No matter if the person in question is a Muslim, Christian, or of any other religious faith, the red flag should have been waving from the rooftop.

As the investigation unfolds, it appears Hasan gave away all of his furniture to his neighbors, as well as copies of the Koran. This was not a spur of the moment decision to go shooting, but was rather an event planned to produce as many casualties as possible before being shot down himself. That’s probably why he chose the Soldier Readiness Center; he knew the only armed people in the room would be military and civilian police. Everyone else was unarmed and the place was crowded.

It is still unknown at this time if Hasan was influenced by a radical Islamic group, but the FBI is looking at Internet postings that were made by someone who claimed to be Nidal Malik Hasan. These postings seem to equate suicide bombings as heroic acts.

Let me finish by saying this. With the culprit still alive and the shooting happening on American soil, there will certainly be a trial. I would voice one request. When the details begin to emerge and the truth is known, I hope the media, the White House, Congress, bloggers, and anyone else who weighs in on the subject are honest with their words. If this is a terrorist act, let’s call it a terrorist act.  The last thing we need is to sugar coat this event and pass it off as the act of a “troubled individual”. NPR was already using that term this morning and I find it insulting.

As I said, there are still a lot of questions and very few answers. More details are sure to follow as authorities begin to dig into Hasan’s life, in an attempt to discover the motive for this terrible tragedy. No matter what the motive, it is a sad day for the people at Fort Hood and for all of America.

Around 1:30 PM this afternoon, a soldier went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, TX and at the last count, 12 people were dead, including the shooter, and 31 were wounded. Some of the wounds were very severe. Although details are still coming out and are very sketchy, the shooter has been identified as Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a psychiatrist in the medical corp at Fort Hood. He was 39. Two other soldiers had been detained as suspects, but some reports are now saying they have been released. The names of the dead and wounded have not been released.

U.S Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas has told FOX News that Hasan was upset about his coming deployment to Iraq, but no details have been released. You can rest assured that an extensive look and investigation into his background will be forthcoming, as well it should be.

This is indeed, a terrible event. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims of this tragedy. As of now, Fort Hood is on lock down. I will update this post when more details become available.

UPDATE: Contrary to earlier reports, it appears that Major Nidal Malik Hasan was not killed in the shooting at Fort Hood this afternoon. From ABC News:

The shooter was initially reported to have been killed, but Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone told a late night news conference that the suspect was wounded and in custody. Cone would not say what Hasan’s medical condition was, but said the suspect was not in danger of dying.

The officer emphasized that there was only one gunman. Two other soldiers were taken into custody, but were later released.

Hasan allegedly opened fire and killed 12 people on the post before he was shot. Among the wounded was a female police officer who exchanged gunfire with Hasan and shot the suspect.

That has been about ten months ago and there has been more than one report on the effectiveness of the stimulus package.  One of the latest reports credits the recovery package with creating or saving 14,506 jobs with the spending from just one federal office, Health and Human Services. Sounds great, right? Well, as it turns out, no so much.

The Associated Press has been looking at the accuracy of some of these reports and it has found that the above number has been overstated by as much as two-thirds. The reason for this overstatement is the way these reports are playing fast and loose with the definition of some of the terms used in the reports. For instance, in the case mentioned above, federal officials instructed local officials to count pay raises as jobs saved. That’s right, they gave people raises and counted it as a job being saved.

“That’s more than ridiculous,” said Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner.

Most of the inflated figures were like those cited in the 935 saved jobs reported by the Southwest Georgia Community Action in Moultrie, Ga. The agency, like hundreds of others collecting Head Start money, claimed all its existing employees’ jobs were saved because they received a pay raise with the stimulus cash.

Similar claims led to overstating by more than 9,300 the number of jobs saved with more than $323 million in stimulus money distributed by the Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families, the AP’s review found.

More than 250 other community agencies in the U.S. similarly reported saving jobs when using the money to give pay raises, pay for training and continuing education, extend employee work hours or buy equipment, according to their spending reports.

The Georgia program inflated the numbers even further by claiming the recovery money saved more jobs than the number of people it actually employs. The agency employs 508 people but claimed 935 jobs were saved because of confusion over government reports.

For once, I would like a little honesty from Washington, but here is what Health and Human Services spokesman Luis Rosero had to say about the accounting practices.

If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job.

That is about as lame of an excuse for inaccurate reporting as I have ever heard. I don’t have a problem per say with giving people pay raises, although I do wonder why they didn’t try to create more jobs. I do believe the American taxpayers at least get an honest and accurate report of how our money is being spent.

There have been problems with the previous reports on the effect of the economic stimulus package, but President Obama assured us they would be corrected. That doesn’t appear to be the case with the latest report and I have to wonder this out loud. How long does he expect the American people to continue taking his word? I am afraid his promise of an open and transparent government continues to be ignored.

Most of the stories that I have read or listened to have all alluded to the fact that the congressional seat in New York was lost because of infighting between the different factions of the Republican Party. That may be true to some extent, but I would say this. If Dede Scozzafava had won this election it would have made no difference. She would have been voting with the Democratic Party on most occasions. Had she not been in the race, Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman may very well have defeated Bill Owens. With Owens winning, the margin was only 4%. Scozzafava pulled 6% and those votes would likely have went to Hoffman. Despite the efforts of the Democrats to portray the Republican Party as out of touch and fractured, etc. conservatives nearly pulled a win out of the hat. Maybe the Republicans are not as fractured as they have been made out to be.

The one trend that I have noticed is the number of independent voters who voted for Republicans in this election. These are some of the same voters who voted Barack Obama into the White House by a large margin and it highlights their importance. I am not of the opinion that we are about to go to a three party political system, but I do believe the days of voters identifying themselves with only one party are over. One of John McCain’s strong appeals in 2008 was his sway with independents. Had the economy not tanked, they may have pulled him to victory instead of Obama.

Every election in recent years has shown the need for the two major political parties to pay very close attention to these independents. Even as far back as Ronald Reagan, independents have been important. Right now, they seem to be swaying more towards the Republican candidates, but the GOP should be forewarned. If they fail to pay heed to these voters, 2010 may very well be just another election that brings more Republican losses. Failure to do so will insure failure itself.

I have not written about this voter referendum, but I have watched it closely. Millions of dollars were spent by both sides of the issue and to be honest, I expected it would fail. If voters in any state in the United States were to approve same-sex marriage, it would probably have been in Maine or the surrounding states. Imagine my surprise when the election results showed the referendum had passed with 53% of the vote. Opponents of the measure had pushed for a no vote, saying it was necessary to protect the marriage equality of all of Maine’s citizens. That argument has been used over and over, and proponents of the practice have tried their best to tie their efforts to the African-American struggle for equality in this country. Evidently, the voters did not agree.

It is worth noting that 31 states have had such referendums on same-sex marriage and the practice has been rejected in all 31 states. Five states, including Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont,and Connecticut have legalized same-sex marriage, but none have done so through the voters. Court rulings and legislative actions have been used to allow the practice. California allowed same-sex marriage because of a court ruling until voters rejected it last year.

Is there not a trend here? In every state where the legislature or the courts have tried shoving same-sex marriage down our throats, it has been soundly rejected. Maine voters continued that trend yesterday and I have to wonder why. Are voters rejecting the practice of same-sex marriage itself or are they rejecting the idea that the courts and the legislature can force it upon us without our consent? I believe it may be a bit of both.

There are three main contests that are being watched across the nation, even though they are all three on the east coast. The governorships in Virginia and New Jersey were up for grabs and surely everyone knows by now about the race for New York Congressional District 23. That’s the one where Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava dropped out because she was so far behind her Democratic opponent Bill Owens and Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. She later gave her support to Bill Owens.

As of this writing, it looks like Republican Bob McDonnell is winning by a large margin over Democrat Creigh Deeds. FOX News is reporting McDonnell ahead of Deeds 61% to 39%, with 58% of the precincts having been counted. The GOP is already touting the victory as a rejection of the tax and spend policies of President Obama and the Democrats. Taken with the fact that Republicans also won the Lt. Governor and Attorney General races in Virginia and may win the governor’s office in New Jersey, could they be right in that assessment? If you are reading this and are from Virginia or New Jersey, I would be interested in your comments on this.

The race in New Jersey between Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine and Republican challenger Chris Christie is sitting at 49% for Christie and 43% for Corzine, but the race has not been called for the GOP. No results are in for the congressional race in New York at this time.

UPDATE: Early election results from New York Congressional District 23 are showing Democrat Bill Owens with 53% and Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman with 46%. These results are with 21% of the precincts reporting.

UPDATE: FOX News and CNN are both projecting Republican Chris Christie to defeat incumbent Democratic Governor Jon Corzine in New Jersey. With 81% of the precincts counted, it stands at 49% for Christie and 44% for Corzine.

I will be updating this post as more results become available, so please check back.

As President Obama and the Democratic Party continue to push  their massive health care reform packages through the respective houses of Congress, we may have a tendency to forget about some of the other legislation they are working on. One such piece of legislation deals with climate control and how to combat global warming. I have already written an extensive article about this, dealing with some of President Obama’s proposals and how I believe they will raise energy prices for American families.

As the debate on the legislation is about to start in the Senate, it is worth noting that there is a very sharp chasm between the two political parties on this issue. The Republicans are up in arms about the legislation, saying it will dramatically raise the cost of electricity and other energy that is produced from fossil fuels. From the research I have done, I would tend to agree with them.

The Democrats on the other hand, have produced a study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that says the legislation would cost the average American family only $111 each year. That comes out to $9.25 per month. I will be the first to agree that if this study is correct and if the legislation will do what they say, then that is a minimal cost, even for families who are having it very rough financially. However, I am afraid they are overlooking or glossing over two major points.

First, the way the legislation is designed, it allows for a very confusing situation where companies can opt in or opt out of producing more or less greenhouse gas in this country or the next. Are you mixed up yet? I am not at all convinced the legislation will have any significant impact on the climate we all live in.  Secondly, they plan to tax the utility companies to force them to reduce their emissions and to help fund “greener” energy source research and technology. Are they so naive that they really believe the utility companies will not pass that tax down to their customers?

As I said earlier, the Republicans are up in arms about this legislation. As the Senate readies itself to begin consideration of this legislation, under the leadership of Senator Barbara Boxer and her Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, they have declared they will boycott the meetings unless a more extensive study into the costs of the legislation is approved. As the Democrats outnumber them 12-7 on the committee, the Republicans do not have the votes to influence the legislation in the first place, so I am unclear of what they hope to gain from this move. Senator Boxer is well known for being very abrasive, so if they are trying to get on her bad side, this a good way to start.

While I am not certain how this tactic will work, I am certain of how it will be played in the media. The Republicans are bound to be portrayed as obstructionists and as not wanting to help save our planet from global warming. This is in spite of a growing number of scientists who are saying they are not certain global warming even exists. Once again, they will be made out to be the bad guys and I am not convinced that is the case. While I may not agree with the tactic, they may be wondering what is the use of attending the meetings if they can not influence the outcome.

As this legislation begins it’s march through Congress, it will be interesting to see how the battle between the Democrats and the Republicans plays out. If today’s elections turn out in favor of the Republicans, they may come out with a little more leverage. We’ll have to wait and see.

The response has been loud, active, and quite harmful to Hyatt. There have been mass demonstrations in front of the hotels (including out-of-state Hyatts), several major conferences have relocated meetings to other area hotels, the Boston taxi drivers have put Hyatt on notice that they will not provide service to or from hotels if they don’t address the housekeepers grievances, and the governor of Massachusetts threatened that state agencies would stop doing business with Hyatt. For a company in the hospitality business it’s hard to understand how Hyatt so badly misjudged the possible consequences of its actions. And it didn’t help one bit when Hyatt issued a statement including the following:

“We do not understand why the Governor is putting more Massachusetts jobs at risk instead of working with us to find jobs for employees affected by the realities of these unprecedented economic challenges,” the company said.

This is a hollow threat and it’s hard to believe the company’s public relations people would allow such stupidity to follow upon the stupidity of Hyatt’s actions. Whatever befalls Hyatt is well deserved for compounding a problem with irrational defenses. Like the many politicians and professional athletes who have been caught in some compromising situation, the best tactic if you know you’re guilty, is simply to fess up, fall on your sword, express deep regrets, offer appropriate restitution, and manage the consequences. Hyatt failed each step of the way until they finally realized the consequences of their error; but by then it was too late.

So that, as I said, was basically how the story had been reported and the editorial I read today tells much the same story. My problem with all of this is that, for some reason, I am meant to feel more sorry for the Hyatt housekeepers than I am for the millions of other Americans who have lost their jobs in the past two years. Hyatt disputed the media account of the incident (they claimed there was no Saturday night massacre, that HSS employees had been replacing Hyatt employees over the course of two years, that the HSS employees would receive benefits but not from Hyatt, and that the Hyatt employees would receive generous severance, counseling retraining, and health coverage through year end). I can’t find anything to substantiate Hyatt’s claim that there wasn’t a wholesale unannounced firing of 98 employees on August 31 effective immediately so that seemed to be a major corporate blunder. Clearly Hyatt acted in bad faith but I can’t dispute the economic logic of their actions. Why pay housekeepers $15/hour plus benefits when you can pay an outsourcing company $8/hr for the same work that has already proven effective over two years of testing? If that sounds callous, well it is. It’s also capitalism and sometimes the consequences suck.

There’s another problem with the media account and especially the one I read today: it’s wrong. On September 25th, a week after the story started hitting the national newspapers, Hyatt released the following statement:

“All housekeepers affected by August staff reductions at the three Hyatt hotels in Boston will be offered new full-time positions in the Boston market. The jobs, which will be provided by an affiliate of United Service Companies, will match the employees previous Hyatt rate of pay through the end of 2010. The Boston Hyatt hotles will extend health care coverage through March 31, 2010 for the employees who choose to accept positions with the United Service Companies, after which they will have the option to obtain health care benefits through their new employer.”

There’s more to the release but I think that section says it all. In one weeks time Hyatt recovered from its missteps and pro actively addressed the demands of the governor, the taxi drivers, etc. They canceled the outsourcing contract with HSS and established a new relationship with United Service that would include hiring the housekeepers at their previous pay though not necessarily at their previous jobs (United Service works with hotels, hospitals, and shopping centers). That’s a pretty good response if you ask me. What was the answer from the housekeepers? 77 of the 98 who were fired rejected the offer saying employment with an agency was unacceptable, demanded their old jobs back, and will accept nothing less. I don’t know the current state of demonstrations in Boston or elsewhere but it’s difficult for me to see what else Hyatt could have done. Assuming they’ve lived up to the promises of this press release the incident should be over. The housekeepers, like everyone else, have little job security and, much as I dislike unions, there are real advantages to union employees even as they can be a detriment to the economy (see UAW). It seems to me they have likely mistaken the strength of their position if they are persisting in their resistance. The offer is beyond generous and only due to Hyatt’s inexcusable handling of the situation. If they had handled it properly the women would be out of work even if they were feeling better about themselves and Hyatt. They are letting pride and arrogance interfere with good sense (probably helped along by union organizers who have supported the strikes). If there are any Bostonians out there I’d be interested to hear the latest intel.