Mourning in America - Here's Those Layoffs We Voted For Last Night
By Rusty Weiss on November 07, 2012
Last night's victory for the President marks the first time since its inception that Obamacare is no longer a what-if; it is the future of health care in America.
It also means a near immediate impact on the economy. With 20 or so new or higher taxes set to be implemented, ranging from a $123 billion surtax on investment income, through the $20 billion medical device tax, all the way down to the $600 million executive compensation limit, Obamacare will be a nearly unbearable tax burden on the economy.
Who will pay? The middle-class workforce, of course.
So with another four years for President Obama to look forward to, and the obvious inevitability of Obamacare that this entails, let's examine the very real jobs that will be lost, and the very real lives that will be affected.
Welch Allyn
Welch Allyn, a company that manufactures medical diagnostic equipment in central New York, announced in September that they would be laying off 275 employees, or roughly 10% of their workforce over the next three years. One of the major reasons discussed for the layoffs was a proactive response to the Medical Device Tax mandated by the new healthcare law.
Dana Holding Corp.
As recently as a week ago, a global auto parts manufacturing company in Ohio known as Dana Holding Corp., warned their employees of potential layoffs, citing "$24 million over the next six years in additional U.S. health care expenses". After laying off several white collar staffers, company insiders have hinted at more to come. The company will have to cover the additional $24 million cost somehow, which will likely equate to numerous cuts in their current workforce of 25,500 worldwide.
Stryker
One of the biggest medical device manufacturers in the world, Stryker will close their facility in Orchard Park, New York, eliminating 96 jobs in December. Worse, they plan on countering the medical device tax in Obamacare by slashing 5% of their global workforce - an estimated 1,170 positions.
Boston Scientific
In October of 2009, Boston Scientific CEO Ray Elliott, warned that proposed taxes in the health care reform bill could "lead to significant job losses" for his company. Nearly two years later, Elliott announced that the company would be cutting anywhere between 1,200 and 1,400 jobs, while simultaneously shifting investments and workers overseas - to China.
Medtronic
In March of 2010, medical device maker Medtronic warned that Obamacare taxes could result in a reduction of precisely 1,000 jobs. That plan became reality when the company cut 500 positions over the summer, with another 500 set for the end of 2013.
Others
A short list of other companies facing future layoffs at the hands of Obamacare:
•Smith & Nephew - 770 layoffs
•Abbott Labs - 700 layoffs
•Covidien - 595 layoffs
•Kinetic Concepts - 427 layoffs
•St. Jude Medical - 300 layoffs
•Hill Rom - 200 layoffs
Beyond the complete elimination of a significant number of American jobs is another looming problem created by the health care law - a shift from full-time to part-time workers.
Sean Hackbarth of Free Enterprise explains:
A JP Morgan economist "points out that 8.3 million people are working in part-time jobs even though they'd prefer full-time work.
Unfortunately, because of President Obama’s health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), workers in the hotel, restaurant, and retail industries could be pushed into part-time jobs working less than 30 hours per week."
"Under the health care law, if a company has more than 50 “full time equivalent” workers, a combination of full and part-time employees, but doesn’t offer “affordable” coverage that meets the government’s minimum value standard, the company will have to pay a penalty. This penalty is determined by the number of full-time employees minus 30 full-time employees. So to reiterate a very important point: part-time workers are not part of the penalty formula. The health care law creates a perverse incentive to hire part-time versus full-time workers."
Tangible examples of Obamacare causing a reduction in full-time workers:
Darden Restaurants
According to the Orlando Sentinel, Darden Restaurants, a casual dining chain best known for their Red Lobster, Olive Garden and LongHorn Steakhouse restaurants, is "experimenting with limiting the hours of some of its workers to avoid health care requirements under the Affordable Care Act when they take effect in 2014"
JANCOA Janitorial Services
The CEO of JANCOA, Mary Miller, testified to Congress that Obamacare was a "dream killer", adding that one option she had to consider "is reducing the majority of my team members to part-time employment in order to reduce the amount that I will be penalized."
Kroger
The American retailer in Cincinnati, Ohio recently was reported to be planning a significant slashing of their hourly workers. Doug Ross writes:
Operative Faith (a mid-level manager with the company) reveals that Kroger will soon join the ranks of Darden Restaurants and slash the hours of its non-exempt (hourly) workers to avoid millions in Obamacare penalties.
According to the source, Obamacare could result in tens of thousands of Kroger employees being limited to working 28 hours per week.
Summary
This is by no means, meant to be an exhaustive list. But it is meant to provide examples of real companies, real jobs, and real names, soon to be added to the growing list of employment casualties provided by the inevitable implementation of Obamacare.
Last night, America voted for four more years of President Obama and his destructive economic and health care policies. By extension, America last night voted their approval of the aforementioned layoffs and overall work reduction.
Now we must accept the inevitable.
Welcome to mourning in America
Friday, November 9, 2012
Jobs Continue to Disappear and More Will Disappear with Obama Reelected....
And the Jobs Start to disappear thanks to Obama....
Coal company exec lays off more than 160 workers after Obama re-election
Published November 09, 2012FoxNews.com A major coal company announced more than 160 layoffs across three subsidiaries this week, becoming perhaps the first company to follow through on threats to make cutbacks in the event of a second President Obama term. Robert Murray, a vocal Mitt Romney supporter and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation, began to inform workers of the layoffs the day after Obama won re-election. He announced 102 layoffs at UtahAmerican Energy Inc. and another 54 layoffs at The American Coal Company in Illinois. The official statement put out by Murray's company cited Obama's alleged "war on coal," claiming federal regulations have "already (led) to the closure by 2014 of 204 American coal-fired power plants." The company announced another seven layoffs Thursday at the Kanawha Transportation Center in Wheeling, W.Va. It's unclear whether other CEOs -- many of whom grumbled before Election Day about the burden on business from the federal health care overhaul, EPA regulations and other policies -- will follow suit. The boss who made arguably the most widely covered layoff threat -- Westgate Resorts owner David Siegel -- has since eased off a bit. Siegel, who earlier warned employees that Obama's call for tax hikes would cause him to cut back, told Bloomberg Businessweek after the election that while he's "not optimistic" about the business climate he doesn't yet know whether he'll lay anybody off. In the meantime, he's giving employees raises. "I'm going to work my hardest to keep the company going and expand the best I can. We'll see what happens," he said. "Meanwhile I gave everybody in the company a raise this week -- the average was 5 percent. I wanted to help them handle the additional burdens the government will put on them." Separately, somebody claiming to be a Las Vegas business owner called into a radio show after the election and said he was firing 22 employees. The caller, though, would not give a name so the claim was not verifiable.
Coal company exec lays off more than 160 workers after Obama re-election
Published November 09, 2012FoxNews.com A major coal company announced more than 160 layoffs across three subsidiaries this week, becoming perhaps the first company to follow through on threats to make cutbacks in the event of a second President Obama term. Robert Murray, a vocal Mitt Romney supporter and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation, began to inform workers of the layoffs the day after Obama won re-election. He announced 102 layoffs at UtahAmerican Energy Inc. and another 54 layoffs at The American Coal Company in Illinois. The official statement put out by Murray's company cited Obama's alleged "war on coal," claiming federal regulations have "already (led) to the closure by 2014 of 204 American coal-fired power plants." The company announced another seven layoffs Thursday at the Kanawha Transportation Center in Wheeling, W.Va. It's unclear whether other CEOs -- many of whom grumbled before Election Day about the burden on business from the federal health care overhaul, EPA regulations and other policies -- will follow suit. The boss who made arguably the most widely covered layoff threat -- Westgate Resorts owner David Siegel -- has since eased off a bit. Siegel, who earlier warned employees that Obama's call for tax hikes would cause him to cut back, told Bloomberg Businessweek after the election that while he's "not optimistic" about the business climate he doesn't yet know whether he'll lay anybody off. In the meantime, he's giving employees raises. "I'm going to work my hardest to keep the company going and expand the best I can. We'll see what happens," he said. "Meanwhile I gave everybody in the company a raise this week -- the average was 5 percent. I wanted to help them handle the additional burdens the government will put on them." Separately, somebody claiming to be a Las Vegas business owner called into a radio show after the election and said he was firing 22 employees. The caller, though, would not give a name so the claim was not verifiable.
Same Old Bullshit from Obama....
Same Old Rhetoric and Bullshit from Obama....he hasn't changed...he's NOT willing to compromise UNLESS that compromise means agreeing with him and his proposals....
It's time to stand up Republicans....Time to insist on tax reform...time to say no to increasing tax rates on job creators....It's time for them to say NO!
We Do NOT Have To Change the Whole Republican Party....a Few Adjustments will Work...
I agree with Charles...the proposal he makes is the same one Newt proposed during the primaries....it addresses first sealing the borders and then subsequently dealing with the hispanics that are already here....we'll have to do that at some point anyway....it's not amnesty to direct citizenship.....
That and effectively marketing our message to the hispanic community is all that is needed....
Remember we did win the midterms in historic fashion so everything is not wrong with our message...and we did maintain control of the House..in fact we put ourselves in a stronger position there....
The Way Forward We had a winning message but didn’t communicate it well enough. By Charles Krauthammer November 8, 2012 8:00 P.M
. They lose and immediately the chorus begins. Republicans must change or die. A rump party of white America, it must adapt to evolving demographics or forever be the minority. The only part of this that is even partially true regards Hispanics. They should be a natural Republican constituency: striving immigrant community, religious, Catholic, family-oriented, and socially conservative (on abortion, for example). The principal reason they go Democratic is the issue of illegal immigrants. In securing the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney made the strategic error of (unnecessarily) going to the right of Rick Perry. Romney could never successfully tack back. For the party in general, however, the problem is hardly structural. It requires but a single policy change: Border fence plus amnesty. Yes, amnesty. Use the word. Shock and awe — full legal normalization (just short of citizenship) in return for full border enforcement. I’ve always been of the “enforcement first” school, with the subsequent promise of legalization. I still think it’s the better policy. But many Hispanics fear that there will be nothing beyond enforcement. So, promise amnesty right up front. Secure the border with guaranteed legalization to follow on the day the four border-state governors affirm that illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle. Imagine Marco Rubio advancing such a policy on the road to 2016. It would transform the landscape. He’d win the Hispanic vote. Yes, win it. A problem fixable with a single policy initiative is not structural. It is solvable. The other part of the current lament is that the Republican party consistently trails among blacks, young people, and (unmarried) women. (Republicans are plus-seven among married women.) But this is not for reasons of culture, identity, or even affinity. It is because these constituencies tend to be more politically liberal — and Republicans are the conservative party. The country doesn’t need two liberal parties. Yes, Republicans need to weed out candidates who talk like morons about rape. But this doesn’t mean the country needs two pro-choice parties either. In fact, more women are pro-life than are pro-choice. The problem here for Republicans is not policy but delicacy — speaking about culturally sensitive and philosophically complex issues with reflection and prudence. Additionally, warn the doomsayers, Republicans must change not just ethnically but ideologically. Back to the center. Moderation above all! More nonsense. Tuesday’s exit polls showed that, by an eight-point margin (51–43), Americans believe that government does too much. And Republicans are the party of smaller government. Moreover, onrushing economic exigencies — crushing debt, unsustainable entitlements — will make the argument for smaller government increasingly unassailable. So, why give it up? Republicans lost the election not because they advanced a bad argument but because they advanced a good argument not well enough. Although Romney ran a solid campaign, he is by nature a Northeastern moderate. He sincerely adopted the new conservatism but still spoke it as a second language. More Ford ’76 than Reagan ’80, Romney is a transitional figure, both generationally and ideologically. Behind him, the party has an extraordinarily strong bench. In Congress — Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayotte, (the incoming) Ted Cruz, and others. And the governors — Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Nikki Haley, plus former governor Jeb Bush and the soon-retiring Mitch Daniels. (Chris Christie is currently in rehab.) They were all either a little too young or just not personally prepared to run in 2012. No longer. There may not be a Reagan among them, but this generation of rising leaders is philosophically rooted and politically fluent in the new constitutional conservatism. Ignore the trimmers. There’s no need for radical change. The other party thinks it owns the demographic future — counter that in one stroke by fixing the Latino problem. Do not, however, abandon the party’s philosophical anchor. In a world where European social democracy is imploding before our eyes, the party of smaller, more modernized government owns the ideological future. Romney is a good man who made the best argument he could, and nearly won. He would have made a superb chief executive, but he (like the Clinton machine) could not match Barack Obama in the darker arts of public persuasion. The answer to Romney’s failure is not retreat, not aping the Democrats’ patchwork pandering. It is to make the case for restrained, rationalized, and reformed government in stark contradistinction to Obama’s increasingly unsustainable big-spending, big-government paternalism. Republicans: No whimpering. No whining. No reinvention when none is needed. Do conservatism, but do it better. There’s a whole generation of leaders ready to do just that. — Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2012 the Washington Post Writers Group.
The Way Forward We had a winning message but didn’t communicate it well enough. By Charles Krauthammer November 8, 2012 8:00 P.M
. They lose and immediately the chorus begins. Republicans must change or die. A rump party of white America, it must adapt to evolving demographics or forever be the minority. The only part of this that is even partially true regards Hispanics. They should be a natural Republican constituency: striving immigrant community, religious, Catholic, family-oriented, and socially conservative (on abortion, for example). The principal reason they go Democratic is the issue of illegal immigrants. In securing the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney made the strategic error of (unnecessarily) going to the right of Rick Perry. Romney could never successfully tack back. For the party in general, however, the problem is hardly structural. It requires but a single policy change: Border fence plus amnesty. Yes, amnesty. Use the word. Shock and awe — full legal normalization (just short of citizenship) in return for full border enforcement. I’ve always been of the “enforcement first” school, with the subsequent promise of legalization. I still think it’s the better policy. But many Hispanics fear that there will be nothing beyond enforcement. So, promise amnesty right up front. Secure the border with guaranteed legalization to follow on the day the four border-state governors affirm that illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle. Imagine Marco Rubio advancing such a policy on the road to 2016. It would transform the landscape. He’d win the Hispanic vote. Yes, win it. A problem fixable with a single policy initiative is not structural. It is solvable. The other part of the current lament is that the Republican party consistently trails among blacks, young people, and (unmarried) women. (Republicans are plus-seven among married women.) But this is not for reasons of culture, identity, or even affinity. It is because these constituencies tend to be more politically liberal — and Republicans are the conservative party. The country doesn’t need two liberal parties. Yes, Republicans need to weed out candidates who talk like morons about rape. But this doesn’t mean the country needs two pro-choice parties either. In fact, more women are pro-life than are pro-choice. The problem here for Republicans is not policy but delicacy — speaking about culturally sensitive and philosophically complex issues with reflection and prudence. Additionally, warn the doomsayers, Republicans must change not just ethnically but ideologically. Back to the center. Moderation above all! More nonsense. Tuesday’s exit polls showed that, by an eight-point margin (51–43), Americans believe that government does too much. And Republicans are the party of smaller government. Moreover, onrushing economic exigencies — crushing debt, unsustainable entitlements — will make the argument for smaller government increasingly unassailable. So, why give it up? Republicans lost the election not because they advanced a bad argument but because they advanced a good argument not well enough. Although Romney ran a solid campaign, he is by nature a Northeastern moderate. He sincerely adopted the new conservatism but still spoke it as a second language. More Ford ’76 than Reagan ’80, Romney is a transitional figure, both generationally and ideologically. Behind him, the party has an extraordinarily strong bench. In Congress — Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayotte, (the incoming) Ted Cruz, and others. And the governors — Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Nikki Haley, plus former governor Jeb Bush and the soon-retiring Mitch Daniels. (Chris Christie is currently in rehab.) They were all either a little too young or just not personally prepared to run in 2012. No longer. There may not be a Reagan among them, but this generation of rising leaders is philosophically rooted and politically fluent in the new constitutional conservatism. Ignore the trimmers. There’s no need for radical change. The other party thinks it owns the demographic future — counter that in one stroke by fixing the Latino problem. Do not, however, abandon the party’s philosophical anchor. In a world where European social democracy is imploding before our eyes, the party of smaller, more modernized government owns the ideological future. Romney is a good man who made the best argument he could, and nearly won. He would have made a superb chief executive, but he (like the Clinton machine) could not match Barack Obama in the darker arts of public persuasion. The answer to Romney’s failure is not retreat, not aping the Democrats’ patchwork pandering. It is to make the case for restrained, rationalized, and reformed government in stark contradistinction to Obama’s increasingly unsustainable big-spending, big-government paternalism. Republicans: No whimpering. No whining. No reinvention when none is needed. Do conservatism, but do it better. There’s a whole generation of leaders ready to do just that. — Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2012 the Washington Post Writers Group.
Once Again Obama will Dodge his Responsiibility to Lead....He'll make a speech and head out of town....What a LOSER!!!
Obama heads to Asia amid looming fear of 'Fiscal Cliff'
By S.A. MILLER Post Correspondent
Last Updated: 5:46 AM, November 9, 2012
Posted: 1:52 AM, November 9, 2012
WASHINGTON — President Obama yesterday announced he’s jetting off on a victory lap around Southeast Asia, despite a new government report warning the Jan. 1 fiscal cliff will plunge the US into a recession and drive the unemployment rate up to 9.1 percent.
Obama and Congress have just 52 days to reach a deal to avoid sailing off that precipice, when a devastating double whammy of tax hikes and budget cuts will rock the economy and hit just about every American.
The negotiations will be difficult. Obama signaled he’s sticking to his demand for raising taxes on the wealthy. That’s long been a nonstarter with Republicans.
'Raising taxes on small businesses will kill jobs in America. It is as simple as that.' — House Speaker John Boehner
He will issue a statement today “about the action we need to take to keep our economy growing and reduce our deficit,” the White House said last night.
His chief political strategist, David Axelrod, said re-election gives Obama the upper hand.
“If the attitude is that nothing happened on Tuesday, that would be unfortunate,” Axelrod told MSNBC.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) yesterday took all tax-rate increases off the table, though he said Republicans would accept other revenue measures, such as closing loopholes and eliminating deductions.
“Raising taxes on small businesses will kill jobs in America. It is as simple as that,” he told USA Today.
But those tense negotiations won’t interfere with Obama’s boarding Air Force One for a three-day tour of Bangkok, Rangoon and Phnom Penh.
Along the way, he’ll meet with Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to mark 180 years of diplomatic relations, chat with Burmese dissident Aung San Suu Kyi and attend the East Asia Summit in Cambodia. He takes off Nov. 17.
Meanwhile, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report highlighting the economic shock that awaits America. The automatic spending cuts and tax increase will shrink the already anemic economy by 0.5 percent and cause the jobless rate to spike to 9.1 percent, the report predicted.
The average American family will pay an extra $2,000 to $3,000 in taxes after all of the Bush-era tax cuts expire Jan. 1, and about 1,200 government programs will experience spending cuts.
These austere measures, however, will succeed in slashing the deficit by $503 billion in 2013, and the economy should start to pull out of recession by 2014.
“Economic growth will pick up, and the labor market will strengthen,” said the CBO report.
Democrats and Republicans both want to find a way to soften the hard times currently scheduled to start New Year’s Day.
If they succeed, CBO predicted it will boost the economy next year.
America’s gross domestic product would grow by 2.2 percent if the Bush-era tax rates are extended and by nearly 3 percent if Obama’s payroll tax cut and extra long-term unemployment benefits are extended, the report predicted.
The Rebranding of the Republican Party is well under way....
In Hindsight Rubio would have been the best Vice Presidential Candidate in 2012....
Rubio Heads to Iowa
12:27 PM, Nov 8, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
The 2012 presidential election is over, but perhaps the 2016 contest has already begun. Florida senator Marco Rubio, a star in the Republican party, is headed to Iowa.
There, he will attend a fundraiser for Iowa governor Terry Branstad.
Alex Conant, a Rubio spokesman, tweets:
Republicans need to Stand Tough....
**EXCLUSIVE** Senate Minority Leader: No Tax Hikes
by Ben Shapiro8 Nov 20121256post a comment
With conservatives across the country concerned about a rumored Republican cave-in in Washington, D.C. over tax policy, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is speaking out. Read his lips: no tax hikes.
McConnell said in an exclusive statement to Breitbart News:
One issue I’ve never been conflicted about is taxes. I wasn’t sent to Washington to raise anybody’s taxes to pay for more wasteful spending and this election doesn’t change my principles. This election was a disappointment, without doubt, but let’s be clear about something: the House is still run by Republicans, and Republicans still maintain a robust minority in the Senate. I know some people out there think Tuesday’s results mean Republicans in Washington are now going to roll over and agree to Democrat demands that we hike tax rates before the end of the year. I’m here to tell them there is no truth to that notion whatsoever.
The media has already taken House Speaker John Boehner out of context to claim that he is willing to cave on raising tax rates. In point of fact, Boehner has spoken about closing tax loopholes while lowering tax rates as part of a balanced approach to spending to avoid the much-dreaded fiscal cliff. Both House and Senate Republicans are united in their opposition to tax hikes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)