Tag: Obamanomics

Posted on by — Leave a comment

N.J. politicians urge U.S. not to use Sandy aid for other projects

Obama-and-Christie-Sandy

N.J. politicians urge U.S. not to use Sandy aid for other projects

Members of New Jersey’s congressional delegation say they won’t let the federal government use Superstorm Sandy aid for a nationwide funding competition that could benefit states that were not affected by the storm.

Reps. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-Paterson; Albio Sires, D-West New York; and Frank Pallone, D-Long Branch, and Sen. Bob Menendez, D-Union City, are urging Shaun Donovan, the secretary of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, not to divert a third round of federal aid to resiliency projects in other parts of the country.

The Wall Street Journal first reported Sunday that more than $1 billion of the remaining $3.6 billion in Community Development Block Grant funds could be used for a national resiliency competition. Pascrell sent a letter to Donovan on Tuesday objecting to the proposal, and Pallone issued a statement Monday saying he would personally address the issue during a meeting with the secretary next week.

Sires is sending a letter today, and he said Wednesday that the entire New Jersey delegation could join together in opposition of a nationwide competition for the money.

“They better be very careful about who they are messing with because we’re not going to take this,” Pascrell said Wednesday. “Many of the congressmen have had it up to our eyeballs. We are not going to sit down and allow HUD to take the money that we voted for, for those folks, those towns, those counties that were impacted by this storm.”

The Community Development Block Grants are discretionary funds that the states can tailor to their needs. New Jersey received $1.83 billion in the first round. The state used $710 million of that for its Reconstruction Rehabilitation, Elevation and Mitigation program, which offers grants of up to $150,000 to rebuild homes significantly damaged in the storm. That money funded 5,124 grants, but more than 7,000 residents remain on a waiting list.

The state is set to receive a second round of funds — $1.46 billion — next month and plans to allocate $390 million to take residents off the waiting list. The block grant money has also been used to help businesses recover from the storm. (Boburg/The Record)

https://www.northjersey.com/news/n-j-politicians-urge-u-s-not-to-use-sandy-aid-for-other-projects-1.1002237#sthash.tMtBB2dP.dpuf

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Number of Children Living in Poverty Climbs Sharply in NJ, Rising in all but 3 Counties

oliver-twist-007

Number of Children Living in Poverty Climbs Sharply in NJ, Rising in all but 3 Counties

The number of children living in poverty continues to rise in New Jersey, as measured by the newest edition of the Kids Count report for the state, which is being released today by Advocates for Children of New Jersey.

Almost one-third of all New Jersey children — 646,000 — were considered low-income, which is defined as living in a family with an income at twice the federal poverty limit, in 2012, the latest New Jersey Kids Count shows.

That’s a big increase from 2008, when some 310,000 children, or 15 percent of all New Jersey children, were living at the poverty level, with almost half of those considered very poor, in families with incomes of less than half the poverty limit. That year, the poverty level for a family of four was $23,050.

“While the rankings shift every year, we see certain trends across many counties, including increasing child poverty, fewer child care options for working parents and high housing costs,” said Cecilia Zalkind, ACNJ’s executive director. “These statistics should be used to inform local, county and state leaders, as well as community organizations, in their efforts to improve the well-being of all New Jersey children.”

The report shows that child poverty continued to rise from 2008 to 2012 in all but three counties — Morris, Salem and Warren. Warren and Salem saw substantial declines, at 46 and 22 percent, respectively, while Morris had a modest 1-percent decrease. In the other counties, increases in the number of children living in families earning too little to meet their children’s needs ranged from a low of 8 percent in Monmouth County to a high of 246 percent in Somerset County.

Statewide, the number of children living in poverty jumped 22 percent during this time.  (O’Dea/NJSpotlight)

https://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/04/23/number-of-children-living-in-poverty-climbs-sharply-in-nj/

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn’t ‘switched sides in the War on Terror’

Clinton-Benghazi-G1-620x362

“What difference does it make “

Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn’t ‘switched sides in the War on Terror’ and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report

Citizens Committee on Benghazi claims the US government allowed arms to flow to al-Qaeda-linked militants who opposed Muammar Gaddafi
Their rise to power, the group says, led to the Benghazi attack in 2012
The group claims the strongman Gaddafi offered to abdicate his presidency, but the US refused to broker his peaceful exit
The commission, part of the center-right Accuracy In Media group, concluded that the Benghazi attack was a failed kidnapping plot
US Ambassador Chris Stevens was to be captured and traded for ‘blind sheikh’ Omar Abdel-Rahman, who hatched the 1993 WTC bombing plot

By DAVID MARTOSKO, U.S. POLITICAL EDITOR

The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.

‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.

She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.

‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..

‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’

The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.

Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610598/Group-US-switched-sides-War-Terror-facilitating-500-MILLION-weapons-deliveries-Libyan-al-Qaeda-militias-leading-Benghazi-attack.html#ixzz2ziJds91d

Posted on by — Leave a comment

How Obama lost friends and influence in the Brics

images-1

How Obama lost friends and influence in the Brics
By Edward Luce

The president’s real pivot is not to Asia but to America, inspired by domestic sentiment

When Barack Obama took office, he pledged a new overture to the world’s emerging powers. Today each of the Brics – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – is at loggerheads with America, or worse. Last month four of the five abstained in a UN vote condemning the fifth’s annexation of Crimea. Next month India is likely to elect as its new leader Narendra Modi, who says he has “no interest in visiting America other than to attend the UN in New York”. As the world’s largest democracy, and America’s most natural ally among the emerging powers, India’s is a troubling weathervane. How on earth did Mr Obama lose the Brics?

Some of it was unavoidable. Early in his first term Mr Obama called for a “reset” of US relations with Russia. His overture was warmly received by Dmitry Medvedev, then Russia’s president, who was considerably less anti-western than his predecessor, Vladimir Putin. Unfortunately for Mr Obama, Ukraine, Pussy Riot and many others, Mr Putin repossessed the presidency. The US president can hardly be blamed for that. Things have gone downhill since then.

The trajectory of US relations with China has also been in the wrong direction. Within his first year in office, Mr Obama made his much-feted “G2” visit to China, in which he offered Beijing a global partnership to solve the world’s big problems, from climate change to financial imbalances. Alas, the Chinese did not feel ready to tackle problems on a global level that they were still struggling with at home. Mr Obama was rudely spurned by his hosts.

https://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6077675c-c4c4-11e3-8dd4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2zVSW5HCG

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Obamanomics: 86M Full-Time Private-Sector Workers Sustain 148M Benefit Takers

images-1

Obamanomics :86M Full-Time Private-Sector Workers Sustain 148M Benefit Takers

April 16, 2014 – 5:04 AM

Buried deep on the website of the U.S. Census Bureau is a number every American citizen, and especially those entrusted with public office, should know. It is 86,429,000.

That is the number of Americans who in 2012 got up every morning and went to work — in the private sector — and did it week after week after week.

These are the people who built America, and these are the people who can sustain it as a free country. The liberal media have not made them famous like the polar bear, but they are truly a threatened species.

It is not a rancher with a few hundred head of cattle that is attacking their habitat, nor an energy company developing a fossil fuel. It is big government and its primary weapon — an ever-expanding welfare state.

First, let’s look at the basic taxonomy of the full-time, year-round American worker.

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/86m-full-time-private-sector-workers-sustain-148m-benefit-takers

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Obamanomics: if you have money, the democrats want it.

images-1

Obamanomics: if you have money, the democrats want it.

In Case You Didn’t Notice
Happy New Year America
Here is what happened on January 1st 2014:
Top Income tax bracket went from 35% to 39.6%
Top Income payroll tax went from 37.4% to 52.2%
Capital Gains tax went from 15% to 28%
Dividends tax went from 15% to 39.6%
Estate tax went from 0% to 55%
Remember this fact: if you have money, the democrats want it.
These taxes were all passed with Democrat votes only no Republicans voted for these taxes!
These taxes were all passed under the affordable care act, aka Obamacare.
If you think that it is important that everyone in the U.S. should know this, please pass this on to everyone you know.
Wake up America !

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Two Ways to Hurt Women in the Workplace

images-1

Obama looks to close wage gap while paying female staffers less than men

Two Ways to Hurt Women in the Workplace
Amy Payne
April 8, 2014 at 6:30 am

Today is “Equal Pay Day” for those who believe that The Man is keeping women down.

Convincing people that injustice is taking place is a great way to push your policy agenda—and that’s where “Equal Pay Day” comes from. It’s the left’s claim that women in America are paid only about 77 cents on the dollar compared to men.

But as Foundry Senior Contributor Genevieve Wood has explained, that talking point comes from creative—not accurate—comparisons.

The problem with the 77 percent statistic, calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau, is that it doesn’t compare the salaries of women and men in the same profession. Instead, it lumps all professions together. So, if high school teachers make less than congressmen (talk about something that ought to be fixed!), and there are more women who are teachers and more men in the U.S. Congress, then yes, the numbers will show that men make more than women. But if you compare the salary of a congresswoman to a congressman, guess what? They make the same.

In fact, sex-based discrimination in the workplace has been illegal since 1963. And since then, “Women have not only caught up to men in many professional endeavors; single, young women are outperforming their male counterparts in urban areas,” says Heritage’s Romina Boccia, the Grover M. Hermann Fellow. “No surprise there, as women already earn more bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees than men do.”

Equal Pay Day is supposed to be about boosting women, but President Obama and his allies are taking the opportunity to push two policy proposals that would hurt women (and men) in the workplace.

1. Raising the minimum wage.

The White House is pushing the idea that a minimum wage increase would help women, because women make up the majority of the workforce in several low-wage industries. What that actually means, however, is that hiking the minimum wage would deal a blow to women—since those are the jobs that would be lost with a wage hike. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would kill off 500,000 jobs—and the Employment Policies Institute projects that 57 percent of those jobs are held by women.

2. Mandating “paycheck fairness.”

Another bad idea Congress has rejected in the past is surfacing again: the “Paycheck Fairness Act.” But a law already exists that prohibits discrimination based on a worker’s sex—it’s called the Equal Pay Act, and it’s been law since 1963. So what would the Paycheck Fairness Act do for women’s pay?

Heritage labor expert James Sherk explains that the proposal is more about inviting lawsuits than anything else.

the PFA allows employees to sue businesses that pay different workers different wages—even if those differences have nothing to do with the employees’ sex. These lawsuits can be brought for unlimited damages, giving a windfall to trial lawyers.

How would it hurt workers? Well, you can’t get a raise for being a high-performing employee—male or female—if it’s mandated that everyone with the same job title makes the same salary. Sherk notes the downward pressure it would put on pay:

Companies should be allowed to reward good performance without risking a lawsuit. Punishing companies that do not adopt uniform pay scales would cut the wages of both men and women.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said he will bring up both of these policies this week, and President Obama is signing executive orders that will increase the amount of information available about federal contractors’ salaries in the name of “equal pay.”

It’s policies like this that are keeping all American workers down.

https://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/08/equal-pay-day-minimum-wage-two-ways-hurt-women-workplace/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell

Posted on by — Leave a comment

As Obama Spotlights Gender Gap in Wages, His Own Payroll Draws Scrutiny

images-1

As Obama Spotlights Gender Gap in Wages, His Own Payroll Draws Scrutiny

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and ANNIE LOWREYAPRIL 7, 2014

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Tuesday will call attention to what he has said is an “embarrassment” in America: the fact that women make, on average, only 77 cents for every dollar that a man earns.

But critics of the administration are eager to turn the tables and note that Mr. Obama’s White House fares only slightly better. A study released in January showed that female White House staff members make on average 88 cents for every dollar a male staff member earns.

The dueling statistics reveal the political sensitivities around a set of gender-related issues that could be critical in the midterm elections this fall. Those include pay equity, family leave, preschool and child care.

Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies are trying to portray Republicans as insensitive to the concerns of women, in the hopes of capitalizing on the kind of lopsided female support that helped Mr. Obama win the White House in 2008 and 2012. On Tuesday, Mr. Obama is to sign an executive order barring federal contractors from penalizing employees who discuss their compensation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/us/politics/as-obama-spotlights-gender-gap-in-wages-his-own-payroll-draws-scrutiny.html?_r=0

Posted on by — Leave a comment

The Unemployment Puzzle: Where Have All the Workers Gone?

RV-AN118A_LABOR_G_20140403164804
The Unemployment Puzzle: Where Have All the Workers Gone?

The U.S. unemployment rate is down, but rising numbers of Americans have dropped out of the labor force entirely

A big puzzle looms over the U.S. economy: Friday’s jobs report tells us that the unemployment rate has fallen to 6.7% from a peak of 10% at the height of the Great Recession. But at the same time, only 63.2% of Americans 16 or older are participating in the labor force, which, while up a bit in March, is down substantially since 2000. As recently as the late 1990s, the U.S. was a nation in which employment, job creation and labor force participation went hand in hand. That is no longer the case.

RV-AN117_LABOR__G_20140404155404

What’s going on? Think of the labor market as a spring bash you’ve been throwing with great success for many years. You’ve sent out the invitations again, but this time the response is much less enthusiastic than at the same point in previous years.

One possibility is that you just need to beat the bushes more, using reminders of past fun as “stimulus” to get people’s attention. Another possibility is that interest has shifted away from your big party to other activities.

Economists are sorting out which of these scenarios best explains the slack numbers on labor-force participation—and offers the best hope of reversing them. Is the problem cyclical, so that, if we push for faster growth, workers will come back, as they have in the past with upturns in the business cycle? Or do deeper structural problems in the economy have to be fixed before we can expect any real progress? To the extent that problems are related to retirement or work disincentives that are either hard to change or created by policy, familiar monetary or fiscal policies may have little effect—a point getting too little attention in Washington.

https://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304441304579477341062142388?mod=WSJ_hppMIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304441304579477341062142388.html%3Fmod%3DWSJ_hppMIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Why America’s poisonous politics makes ‘Market Leninism’ an attractive alternative

Berlin-Wall_2866607b

Why America’s poisonous politics makes ‘Market Leninism’ an attractive alternative

By John Avlon

1:09PM GMT 29 Mar 2014

“Market Leninism” has become the biggest challenge to our society, writes John Avlon. And the problem with this alternative to Western governance is that it promises prosperity at the expense of individual freedom – while dismissing democracy as ineffective

So much for the end of history. Twenty-five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall gave rise to the idea that liberal capitalist democracy would carry the human race inexorably toward broad sunlit uplands, we are confronted with the ugly fact that culture outlasts politics.

The ideology of communism may have ended up on the ash heap of history like Nazism before it, but now “Market Leninism” is taking its place as a challenge to liberty in the 21st Century.

The fault lines reflect Cold War regions.

Russia and China and some of their old satellite states have traded Marx and Lenin for Market Leninism.

The militaristic one-party state endures – but the nomenklatura now attracts global capital, swilling champagne in jet set nightclubs instead of behind dacha walls.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10731390/Why-Americas-poisonous-politics-makes-Market-Leninism-an-attractive-alternative.html

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Does the Obamacare Deadline Apply to Me?

1379441947-obamacare3-300x277

Does the Obamacare Deadline Apply to Me?
Amy Payne
March 18, 2014 at 6:30 am

In two weeks, Obamacare’s centerpiece—the individual mandate to purchase government-approved health insurance—kicks in.

Are you “covered,” as the White House keeps asking in its endless advertising? Because if you don’t have health insurance by March 31, you will have to pay a penalty on your income tax form next year.

For 2014, the penalty for not purchasing insurance will be either $95 or 1 percent of your annual income (whichever is greater). But as Heritage expert Alyene Senger explains, “Very few, if any, people will end up paying just $95, because individuals with an annual income of only $9,500 or less would likely qualify for Medicaid or a hardship exemption from the mandate.”

If you don’t make enough income to file a federal tax return, you’re already exempt. Do you think you qualify for a hardship exemption? Check out the application (subject to approval by Health and Human Services) here. For example, did you:

Receive “a shut-off notice from a utility company”?
Recently experience the death of a close family member?
Receive a notice that your health plan was being canceled, and “you consider the other plans available unaffordable”?

At the end of the list, the application form has the catch-all reason “You experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance.” To prove it? “Please submit documentation if possible.”

Despite all these possible exemptions, The Fiscal Times reports, “A new study by Bankrate.com shows that about one-third of uninsured Americans are going to remain without coverage and opt to pay the penalty.” In fact, more than half of the uninsured are “unaware of the March 31 deadline.”

If you think the penalty is no big deal right now, Heritage’s Senger warns that “The mandate increases drastically in coming years, rising to $325 or 2 percent of income in 2015, and $695 or 2.5 percent of income in 2016—whichever is greater.”

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that from 2015 to 2024, the mandate penalty—which the Supreme Court ruled is essentially a tax—is expected to cost Americans $51 billion.

And that was after President Obama promised not to raise taxes on the middle class.

It’s worth mentioning the official name of this tax—because it just doesn’t get any more Orwellian. Really, it’s the left’s ideal name for all taxes: the “shared responsibility payment.”

Get ready to pay up, comrades.

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Why millennials have abandoned Obama

4648589201_b72312b193bbbbbb

Why millennials have abandoned Obama

By Dana Milbank, Published: March 14

The day before the Iowa caucuses in 2008, I wrote about the massive crowds of young people at Barack Obama rallies, noting that his candidacy would collapse “if they don’t show up.”

The next night, after Obama’s victory celebration in Des Moines, Obama strategist Steve Hildebrand spotted me in a crowd. “The kids showed up!” he said fiercely.

They did. But where are they now?

An army of 15 million voters under 30 swept Obama past Hillary Clinton and John McCain and to the presidency in 2008. More than 12 million helped him return in 2012. But now his presidency is on the line — and the Obama youth are abandoning him in his hour of need.

The administration announced last week that only 1.08 million people ages 18 to 34 had signed up for Obamacare by the end of February, or about 25 percent of total enrollees. If the proportion doesn’t improve significantly, the result likely will be fatal for the Affordable Care Act.

The administration had said it needed 40 percent of registrants in the health insurance exchanges to be young adults, or about 2.7 million of the expected 7 million total. Overall enrollment is also below target. But the alarming shortcoming is the number of young participants, which would make the insured population older and sicker and the program too expensive.

This week saw the release of Obama’s sit-down with comedian Zach Galifianakis, of “The Hangover” fame, to encourage the young to join the Obamacare exchanges. It was good comedy (the host, in the White House Diplomatic Reception Room, rolled up his sleeve to show Obama his “spider bites”), and according to the White House it had the desired result: a boost in traffic to HealthCare.gov. Yet the fact that Obama sought Galifianakis’s help was an indication of how much the president’s standing has slipped among young Americans. Six years earlier, he had been a demigod among that demographic.

What went wrong? The president and his aides failed to keep his youth movement engaged. But part of the problem also is the inability of the millennial generation to remain attached to a cause. The generation that brought Obama to power is connected online but has no loyalty to institutions — including, it turns out, the Obama White House.

In 2008, “the level of innovation and engagement in the election, especially the primaries, was amazing, but then the level of engaging them during the administration was extremely disappointing,” says Peter Levine, a Tufts University professor who specializes in youth civic involvement. “He had a potential army for legislative success and implementation, but the Obama administration did not do that. At a critical moment in the first term, they did not turn to them. . . . They got rapid youth demobilization.”

Young voters, after playing a big role in the campaign, became little more than an e-mail list for the White House and Obama’s Organizing for Action group. Then came health-care reform. The millennials, very liberal overall, saw Obama’s plan as too timid; they were disillusioned by his failure to fight for the “public option” of government-run health plans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-obama-has-a-problem-connecting-to-young-on-health-care/2014/03/14/1e6c5f40-ab95-11e3-98f6-8e3c562f9996_print.html

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Oops Obama: You Might Lose Your Doctor Under Obamacare

1379441947-obamacare3-300x277

Oops Obama: You Might Lose Your Doctor Under Obamacare
9:17 AM, MAR 14, 2014 • BY DANIEL HALPER

You Cant Make this stuff up : President Obama is warning Americans that they might have to change doctors because of Obamacare:

“For the average person, many folks who don’t have health insurance initially, they’re going to have to make some choices. And they might end up having to switch doctors, in part because they’re saving money,” said Obama in an interview with the medical website WebMD.

“But that’s true if your employer suddenly decides we think this network’s going to give a better deal, we think this is going to help keep premiums lower, you’ve got to use this doctor as opposed to that one, this hospital as opposed to that one. The good news is in most states people have more than one option and what they’ll find, I think, is that their doctor or network or hospital that’s conveniently located is probably in one of those networks. Now, you may find out that that network’s more expensive than another network. And then you’ve got to make a choice in terms of what’s right for your family.”

https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-you-might-lose-your-doctor-under-obamacare_784941.html

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Data shows millions of Americans falling out of the workforce

4648589201_b72312b193bbbbbb

Data shows millions of Americans falling out of the workforce

The number of native-born, working-age Americans who aren’t working has shot up by almost 9 million since 2007, and by almost 15 million since 2000, according to a new report by the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors reduced immigration.

By late 2012, roughly 50 million native-born working-age Americans weren’t working, up from 40 million in 2000, according to the March 13 report, titled “Still No Evidence of a Labor Shortage.”

The army of idle Americans is important for the immigration debate, because advocates for greater immigration say foreign workers are needed to fill slots that can’t be taken by Americans.

Read more: https://dailycaller.com/2014/03/13/data-shows-millions-of-americans-falling-out-of-the-workforce/#ixzz2vy0WdY2Y

Posted on by — 1 Comment

ObamaCare’s Secret Mandate Exemption

1379441947-obamacare3-300x277

ObamaCare’s Secret Mandate Exemption

HHS quietly repeals the individual purchase rule for two more years.

Updated March 12, 2014 3:13 p.m. ET

ObamaCare’s implementers continue to roam the battlefield and shoot their own wounded, and the latest casualty is the core of the Affordable Care Act—the individual mandate. To wit, last week the Administration quietly excused millions of people from the requirement to purchase health insurance or else pay a tax penalty.

This latest political reconstruction has received zero media notice, and the Health and Human Services Department didn’t think the details were worth discussing in a conference call, press materials or fact sheet. Instead, the mandate suspension was buried in an unrelated rule that was meant to preserve some health plans that don’t comply with ObamaCare benefit and redistribution mandates. Our sources only noticed the change this week.

https://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304250204579433312607325596?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno64-wsj