Illegal immigrants protest outside White House, with little fear of repercussions
Published July 28, 2014 FoxNews.com
Illegal immigrant demonstrators were protesting outside the White House on Monday – but don’t expect America’s immigration officers to intervene.
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement official indicated that even if the protesters end up getting arrested by D.C. police, they’d have to be serious criminals for ICE to get involved.
“Unless the individuals meet ICE’s enforcement priorities, it’s unlikely that the agency would get involved in the case,” the official told FoxNews.com.
Under a policy that’s been in effect for several years, ICE focuses deportation mostly on serious criminals and – in some cases — those caught in the act of crossing the border. The agency prioritizes deportation for felons, repeat offenders, gang members and others with a serious criminal record. But the agency largely gives a pass to other undocumented residents.
This is why illegal immigrant activists can protest outside the White House without worrying too much about ICE.
Vatican Says Nancy Pelosi “Must” Be Denied Communion
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is one of the most despised members of Congress, and there’s a laundry list of reasons that could be cited as justification for the animosity.
Pelosi was one of the central figures that spearheaded the movement to ram Obamacare down the throats of the American public, despite the majority of citizens being opposed to it.
The California congresswoman has also played the part of a pawn in the overall scheme of the Obama administration, being an ever loyal lapdog defending the actions of the White House during the Benghazi investigation.
Get our daily email alert by entering your Email:
Perhaps the most heinous acts of Pelosi’s career is her defense of abortion, an act which has raised the concern of the Vatican, since she claims to be a “devout” Catholic.
In light of her consistent support of “reproductive rights” and “family planning,” the Vatican has banned Pelosi from taking communion.
via CNS News:
Because of her longstanding support for abortion, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a Catholic, must be denied Communion under the law of the Catholic Church, said Cardinal Raymond Burke, head of the highest court at the Vatican.
Cardinal Burke referenced his remarks about Pelosi to Canon Law–the law governing the Catholic Church–and specifically Canon 915, which says those Catholics who obstinately persevere “in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
“Certainly this is a case when Canon 915 must be applied,” said Cardinal Burke in an interview reprinted on Sept. 5 in The Wanderer, a national Catholic weekly. “This is a person who obstinately, after repeated admonitions, persists in a grave sin–cooperating with the crime of procured abortion–and still professes to be a devout Catholic.”
“This is a prime example of what Blessed John Paul II referred to as the situation of Catholics who have divorced their faith from their public life and therefore are not serving their brothers and sisters in the way that they must–in safeguarding and promoting the life of the innocent and defenseless unborn, in safeguarding and promoting the integrity of marriage and the family,” said the cardinal.
John Maxfield , The Motley Fool12:25 p.m. EDT July 27, 2014
Take a good look at the chart below and you’d be excused for concluding that we’re in the midst of the greatest stock market bubble of all time. Not only has the S&P 500 fully recovered from the financial crisis, it’s a staggering 30% higher than the peaks of the Internet and housing bull markets.
But is this really the case? With unemployment still above 6%, how could we find ourselves in the throes of yet another brewing catastrophe? Didn’t investors and analysts learn anything from the past decade and a half?
While it requires some explanation, the answer is that we’re most likely not experiencing another irrational inflation of stock prices. The market’s record level is instead a predictable response to the Federal Reserve’s policy of keeping interest rates at historically low levels.
JULY 24, 2014, 5:48 PM LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JULY 25, 2014, 5:45 PM ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — More than 1,500 unaccompanied children who entered the U.S. illegally have been placed with sponsors in New Jersey this year, federal officials announced Thursday.
New statistics released by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families show 1,504 unaccompanied children were placed in the state from Jan. 1 through July 7. A total of 30,340 were placed nationwide.
The announcement did not indicate where in the state the children have been placed or what country they came from.
The U.S. is battling a surge in the number of children who have been crossing the U.S.-Mexico border alone, fleeing violence in Central America, thinking they will be allowed to stay. Most have come from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.
The number of immigrant children placed with sponsors in New jersey is among the highest in the nation but far below Texas, which had 4,280 placements this year, and less than California, Florida, Maryland, New York and Virginia.
During a town hall meeting this week, Republican Gov. Chris Christie said he had not received any notice from federal officials about children being placed in the state.
There are three dominant camps in the modern Democrat Party when it comes to the plight of Israel, Save Jerseyans:
1 – Those who straight-up hate Jews;
2 – Those who are so ideologically liberal and morally relativistic that they’re also reflexively anti-war/colonialism/military; the end result is unthinking, unsubstantiated and automatic opposition to the militarily-superior participant in any conflict regardless of any other considerations; and
3 – Those who, frankly, are naive and dumb enough in equal measure to believe that humanity can “Care Bear stare” its way out of any conflict with sufficiently positive social media activism.
I’ve seen no evidence that Cory Booker (D-Twitter) shares anything other than a party registration (which is bad enough) with group #1; as for camps #2 and #3, however, it’s obvious enough to anyone paying attention that our state’s celebrity junior center is living in a different reality from the rest of us (and certainly the poor citizens of Israel who weather a daily barrage of rocket fire).
This is the MOST substantive quote I could find from him on the subject tangentially related to Gaza:
Objectivism: Ayn Rand’s Philosophy for Living on Earth
Published on Mar 5, 2014
Ayn Rand’s philosophy for living on Earth — Objectivism — upholds objective reality, reason, rational self-interest, and laissez-faire capitalism. It places the individual as hero and his own happiness as sacred.
The Fed Can’t Fix What Ails the Economy
By Gerald P. O’Driscoll Jr.
This article appeared in Real Clear Markets on July 21, 2014.
In Congressional testimony this week, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen pointed to several economic maladies warranting continued activism by the central bank. But what ails the U.S. economy cannot be fixed by monetary policy.
This has been an exceptionally weak recovery when gauged by the labor market. About half of the decline in the unemployment rate can be accounted for by “discouraged workers,” who have dropped out of the labor force and are no longer actively seeking jobs. For that reason, the unemployment rate is increasingly becoming a misleading gauge of the labor market.
In Monday’s Wall Street Journal, Mortimer Zuckerman wrote cogently of “The Full-Time Scandal of Part-Time America.” As he put it, “Way too many adults now depend on the low-wage, part-time jobs that teenagers would normally fill.”
Low economic growth is one reason that job growth has been weak. Growth in full-time jobs has also been slowed by Obamacare. The act mandates that employers provide health insurance for those working 30 hours a week or more. The predictable consequence is that employers are reluctant to hire full-time workers. Better two half-time workers than one full-time employee.
There are many other forces at work in labor markets, few of which are influenced by anything the Fed does. Until recently, there were extended unemployment benefits. These discouraged workers from actively seeking jobs. That effect combines with benefits, like food stamps, to act as a tax on taking a job. Casey Mulligan, an economics professor at the University of Chicago, has written extensively on the employment tax. If people don’t take jobs, employment cannot grow.
Some of what occurred in the recession is a continuation or acceleration of trends long in place. The male labor force participation rate has been declining since 1950. It was about 87% then, and is 69.2% today. The overall labor force participation increased for a long time because of rising participation by women. That has flattened now.
The fact that men increasingly do not work has profound social consequences. But, again, this is not a problem that monetary policy can address.
Janet Yellen has long been associated with the belief that the central bank can influence employment. She has also commented on the weakness in current labor markets, and the fact that the numbers overstate strength there.
Yet yesterday she observed that the labor market is improving more quickly than expected, and therefore the Fed might raise interest rates sooner than expected. Perhaps the Yellen Fed has decided to declare victory, and extricate itself from the trap of its own making. But that does not change the fact that labor markets remain weak.
It is hubris to claim the Federal Reserve can control variables, like the unemployment rate and labor market weakness, over which they have no systematic influence. But Fed policy is not just ineffective; it is malignant.
The main effect of Fed policy has been to create asset bubbles in financial markets, decoupling these from the underlying economy. As we learned painfully in the recent financial crisis, overheated asset markets are not a source of strength – they the source of future problems.
Anti-Semitism is a major pillar in the ideology of Hamas. by Meir Litvak
Anti-Semitism is a major pillar in the ideology of Hamas (acronym of Harakat al-muqawama al-Islamiyya – Islamic Resistance Movement), a Palestinian national-Islamic movement, which perceives and articulates its conflict with Israel in Manichean and absolutist religious terms. Like most other Islamic movements in the Middle East, Hamas regards the conflict with the latest and most fateful phase of the relentless onslaught waged by western imperialism and culture against Islam since the Crusades. Hamas publications portray the Jews as instruments of the West or, alternatively, as the power that controls and manipulates the West in this war. Concurrently, it views the current struggle as the last link in the war, which the Jews have been waging against Islam since its essence. Consequently, Hamas emphasizes the emphasis on the “Islamic essence” of the Palestinian cause.” As such, the struggle is portrayed as an unbridgeable dichotomy between two absolutes: a “war of religion and faith,” between Islam and Judaism and between Muslims and Jews, rather than one between Palestinians and Israelis or Zionists. It is a historical, religious, cultural and existential conflict between the true religion, which supersedes all previous religions, i.e. Islam, and the abrogated superseded religion, Judaism. It is a war between good personified by the Muslims who represent the party of God (Hizballah) against “evil incarnated…. the party of Satan” (hizb al-shaytan) represented by the Jews.1
Justifying the Self and Demonizing the Other
Every conflict involves justification of the Self and the demonization of rivals and enemies, or in Hamas’ case the Jews as the “enemies of God and of humanity.” Such an accusation, in the words of Bernard Lewis, applies to all enemies of Islam since, if according to the Quran the fighters for Islam are fighting in holy war “in the path of God” and for God, then their opponents are fighting against God and are, therefore, his enemies.2 However, such depiction is used more forcefully and more often against the Jews in view of their explicit castigation by the Quran. Unlike the non-Islamist Palestinian groups, Hamas makes no distinction between Judaism and Zionism, and uses Zionists and Jews synonymously and interchangeably. Judaism is a “religion that stipulates racism and hostility towards others in its books and incites to usurp unjustly Palestine under the slogan of the Holy Land.” Zionism, according to this view, transforms these Jewish ideas into reality. Likewise, terrorism is an integral and inherent pillar of Judaism, which stems from the teaching of the Tora, and it finds its expression in Zionist massacres in Palestine.3 The portrayal of the Jews as powerful archenemies of Islam departs from traditional Islamic depictions of the Jews that are associated with cowardice, degradation and wretchedness. It has become a central element in Hamas’ ideology and an important theme in the writings of all Islamist movements in the Middle East as part of a broader need to explain the current crisis of the Muslim world. It is particularly difficult within this context to explain Jewish or Zionist success vis-a-vis the Muslims since, according to Islamic tradition, the Jews were destined to humiliation and subjugation to Muslims after they had rejected the message of the Prophet. It is one thing to be defeated by a super-power such as the U.S., and a completely different situation to be defeated and ruled by the Jews, who had been an inferior minority in the past under the Muslim empire, and who are a small minority in the modern Middle East. The only way to explain this cognitive dissonance is to magnify the power and evil of the Jews, and thereby help to explain Muslim weakness.4
Modern Anti-Jewish Animosity
The modern anti-Jewish animosity of Islamic movements goes much further than traditional Islam. Although Muslims have always viewed Islam as a superior religion, superseding Judaism, they did not consider Judaism as a heresy, which required eradication, as long as it did not challenge Islam’s rule. Historically, Muslims regarded Christianity as a greater threat than Judaism, and devoted greater attention to it in their polemical literature.5 However, due to the conflict with Israel, Judaism rather than Christianity has become the prime enemy for the Islamist organizations, drawing inspiration from anti-Jewish utterances in the Koran and from modern European anti-Semitism. A good example of this vilification is the Hamas Charter, the movement’s canonical document, which provides a picture of the Jews and Judaism drawn from the notorious anti-Semitic tract, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Article 22, for instance, describes the Jews as controlling the world media with their money and as having established secret organizations throughout the world – such as the Freemasons and Rotary Club – “for the destruction of societies and the fulfilment of the goals of Zionism.” They have “caused revolutions all over the world,” from France in 1789 to Russia in 1917 “in order to fulfil their goal.” Likewise, “with their money, they seized control of the imperialist powers and pushed them to subdue many countries in order to squeeze their resources and spread their corruption.” In addition, Hamas accuses the Jews of fomenting all-important wars in history. Most important, the Jews stood behind the outbreak of World War I, which ‘eliminated’ the Ottoman Empire, the “state of the Islamic Caliphate.” The breakdown of Islamic unity opened the way for the establishment of “the Zionist entity” in Palestine. Likewise, they “were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state.” Of special significance are the wars, which the Jews have waged against Islam from the time of the Prophet. Accordingly, the Jews opposed the Prophet from the moment he arrived in Medina, in a desperate effort to prevent the spread of Islam, rejecting his generous offers and distorting his message. They tried to harm the Islamic umma (nation) and dominate it.”6
Derogatory Descriptions of the Jews
In many of its publications Hamas employs harsh derogatory descriptions of the Jews, often taken from the Koran, such as “blood suckers,” “brothers of apes,” “killers of the prophets,” “human pigs,” and warmongers “the descendants of treachery and deceit,” “butchers.” They are a “cancer expanding” in the land of Palestine, “threatening the entire Islamic world.” They are “spreading corruption” in the land of Islam. “Deceit and usury are stamped in their nature,” and they are all “thieves, monopolists, and usurers.”7 Almost every issue of the Hamas organ, Filastin al-Muslima contains articles enumerating the evil deeds and character of the Jews based on an analysis and exegetes of specific suras (chapters) from the Koran. Particularly significant, in view of the historical record, are the equations, which Hamas makes between the Jews, the Zionists and the Nazis and the denial of the Holocaust. Hamas argues that Israel’s actions exceed those of the Nazis, and that “the Jews represent Nazism in its most criminal form.”8 Yet, following the Stockholm conference on the Holocaust, held in January 2000, Hamas declared that the conference had:
A Hamas promotional display at a West Bank university A clear Zionist goal, aimed at forging history by hiding the truth about the so-called Holocaust, which is an alleged and invented story with no basis . . .. The invention of these grand illusions of an alleged crime that never occurred, ignoring the millions of dead European victims of Nazism during the war, clearly reveals the racist Zionist face, which believes in the superiority of the Jewish race over the rest of the nations.9
cAbd al-cAziz al-Rantisi, Hamas leader from Gaza, went further by denying the Holocaust, while simultaneously charging that “the Zionists were behind the Nazis’ murder of many Jews,” with the aim of intimidating and forcing them to immigrate to Palestine. Furthermore, he claimed that the Nazis “received tremendous financial aid from the Zionist banks and monopolies,” prior to their seizure of power and that “this great financial aid helped the Nazis build the military and economic force needed to destroy Europe and annihilate millions.” “When we compare the Zionists to the Nazis,” Rantisi concluded, “We insult the Nazis,” he concluded. 10 Reviewing the life of the late Pope John Paul II, the Hamas weekly al-Risala concluded that his 1998 letter, in which he apologized to the Jews for the Holocaust was his “greatest crime”.11
Advocating Jihad
The perception of the conflict as a religious one brings Hamas to advocate jihad (holy war) as the only way to combat the Jews. Yet, in addition to practical considerations, Hamas endowed the jihad against the Jews with eschatological significance. The messianic element is relegated to secondary importance in the ideology of modern-day Sunni movements. However, because Hamas’ main preoccupation is fighting a national-religious enemy, and possibly as a means to stave off calls for a compromise among the Palestinian masses, it resorts to messianic symbolism. Thus, the jihad against the Jews is a prerequisite for fulfilling God’s promise to establish His rule over the earth. Citing the tradition (hadith) of the Saltbush, the Hamas Charter states that the final hour will not come until the day when the Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them.12 Lest the meaning of this passage remain unclear, Hamas author Mukhlis Barzaq pointed to the fact that the Prophet had killed more Jews than any other infidels during his wars. The Prophet revealed in a “firmly established Tradition” how the Jews should be handled if they betray the Muslims, and he ordered his followers to carry it out without any feelings of sorrow for this “detested group”. He made it clear that the fate of the Jews should be “complete killing, total extermination and eradicating perdition (al-qatl al-tam wal-ibada al-kamila wal-fana’ al-mahiq).” Perhaps equally significant, considering its intended readership, is the editorial in al-Fatih, Hamas’ children’s publication, appealing to the children of Iraq to pray to God and ask him “O God exterminate the Jews the tyrannical the usurpers” (Allahuma, ahlik al-yahud al-zalimin al-mughtasibin).13
JULY 21, 2014 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, JULY 21, 2014, 1:21 AM THE RECORD
NOW OPEN
Roots Steakhouse
15 Chestnut St., Ridgewood
201-444-1922; rootssteakhoue.com
* How it started: This Roots Steakhouse was eight years in the making. Harvest Restaurants, the parent company for nine restaurants in New Jersey, including two Roots Steakhouses — one in Summit, one in Morristown — wanted to open a Roots in Bergen County, specifically in Ridgewood. “It took us eight years to find the right location with a liquor license,” said Grant Halliday, director of operations for Harvest Restaurants. Why Ridgewood? “We like a downtown setting,” Halliday said. “The town is unique in Bergen County in that it has a vibrant downtown setting.”
Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Admited in 2012 That Subsidies Were Limited to State-Run Exchanges
Earlier this week, a three-judge panel in the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that, contrary to the Obama administration’s implementation and an Internal Revenue Service rule, Obamacare’s subsidies for private health insurance were limited to state-run health exchanges.
The reasoning for this ruling was simple: That’s what the law says. The section dealing with the creation of state exchanges and the provision of subsidies states, quite clearly, that subsidies are only available in exchanges “established by a State,” which the law expressly defines as the 50 states plus the District of Columbia.
Obamacare’s defenders have responded by saying that this is obviously ridiculous. It doesn’t make any sense in the larger context of the law, and what’s more, no one who supported the law or voted for it ever talked about this. It’s a theory concocted entirely by the law’s opponents, the health law’s backers argue, and never once mentioned by people who crafted or backed the law.
It’s not. One of the law’s architects—at the same time that he was a paid consultant to states deciding whether or not to build their own exchanges—was espousing exactly this interpretation as far back in early 2012, and long before the Halbig suit—the one that was decided this week against the administration—was filed. (A related suit, Pruitt v. Sebelius, had been filed earlier, but did not challenge tax credits within the federal exchanges until an amended version which was filed in late 2012.) It was also several months before the first publication of the paper by Case Western Law Professor Jonathan Adler and Cato Institute Health Policy Director Michael Cannon which detailed the case against the IRS rule.
Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who helped design the Massachusetts health law that was the model for Obamacare, was a key influence on the creation of the federal health law. He was widely quoted in the media. During the crafting of the law, the Obama administration brought him on for consultation because of his expertise. He was paid almost $400,000 to consult with the administration on the law. And he has claimed to have written part of the legislation, the section dealing with small business tax credits.
Federal Highway Administrator in New Jersey division arrested on fraud charges
The feds this morning arrested the Assistant Division Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), New Jersey Division, for allegedly using a straw company to get FHWA grant funds he also oversaw as a public official, and for falsifying related federal disclosure documents, U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman said. (Politicker Staff)
Do You Want Your Private Financial Information Automatically Shared with Russia or China?
David Burton / July 23, 2014
On Monday, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development released the full version of the global standard for automatic exchange of information.
The Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters calls on governments to obtain detailed account information from their financial institutions and exchange that information automatically with other jurisdictions on an annual basis. The standard was endorsed by G20 Finance Ministers in February 2014 and approved by the OECD Council.
It is one thing to exchange financial account information with Western countries that generally respect privacy and are allied with the United States. It is an entirely different matter to exchange sensitive financial information about American citizens or corporations with countries that do not respect Western privacy norms, have systematic problems with corruption or are antagonistic to the United States. States that fall into one of these problematic categories but are participating in the OECD automatic exchange of information initiative include Colombia, China and Russia.
The standard provides for governments to annually and automatically exchange financial account information—such as balances, interest, dividends and proceeds from sales of financial assets—that are reported to governments by financial institutions and cover accounts held by individuals and entities, including businesses, trusts and foundations. Banks, broker-dealers, investment funds and insurance companies are required to report.
Corrupt governments may use American’s financial information for criminal purposes such as identity theft
The Obama administration enthusiastically supports the OECD initiative, but even the administration has realized important privacy issues at are stake. Robert B. Stack, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Tax Affairs, has testified that “the United States will not enter into an information exchange agreement unless the Treasury Department and the IRS are satisfied that the foreign government has strict confidentiality protections. Specifically, prior to entering into an information exchange agreement with another jurisdiction, the Treasury Department and the IRS closely review the foreign jurisdiction’s legal framework for maintaining the confidentiality of taxpayer information.”
Leaving these determinations to a tax agency with little institutional interest in anything other than raising tax revenue is dangerous. There is little doubt sensitive financial information about American citizens and businesses can and will be used by some governments for reasons that have nothing to do with tax administration, such as identifying political opponents’ financial resources or industrial espionage. In addition, individuals in corrupt governments may use the information for criminal purposes such as identity theft, to access others’ funds or to identify potential kidnapping victims. It is naïve to think otherwise.
Automatic information exchange should be limited to law enforcement and anti-terrorist purposes and should be restricted to governments that are (1) democratic, (2) respect free markets, private property and the rule of law, (3) can be expected to always use the information in a manner consistent with the security interests of the member states and (4) have in place—in law and in practice—adequate safeguards to prevent the information from being obtained by hostile parties or used for inappropriate commercial, political or other purposes.
In February, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a briefhearing on a number of treaties, including the Proposed Protocol Amending The Multilateral Convention On Mutual Administrative Assistance In Tax Matters, which would implement automatic information sharing and expand the number of countries that participate beyond the OECD and the Council of Europe.
The Senate should not ratify this protocol. The risks to American citizens and American businesses are too great.
I disagree that parking is not a problem. There are 2 issues really:
1) Public perception–Restaurants and businesses are hurt by the perception that there is not enough parking. It is not that people do not find a spot, it is the unknown and the frustration of driving around looking for one. People do take business elsewhere simply because it can take 5-10 minutes to find a spot in Ridgewood. For instance, if I need to run to a drug store around 8pm on a Saturday, I do not try to find parking at Rite Aide I head to CVS in Fair Lawn or GR.
2) At about 8pm on Saturday night it is hard to find parking, even far away. There is no “bail out” lot where you can reliably find a spot and just walk a bit further. The lots on Broad and on Chestnut are usually full at that time as are the spots around VanNess. In those instances, it can be very frustrating to find a spot.
The proposed solutions help relieve the “frustration” factor because there would be a “bail out.” You look for a spot, can’t find one and then can valet or whatever. That change in perception could make all the difference for many people.
PSE&G Announces Incentive Program for Companies To Provide Charging for Employees Who Drive Electric Cars July 22, 2014
Company also releases one year data on its employee electric car incentive plan – 120,000 commuting miles on electric(Newark, NJ – July 22, 2014) – PSE&G today announced an innovative program to encourage New Jersey businesses to provide employees with electric car charging at work. The unique perk would foster greater adoption of electric cars, which would help to improve the state’s air quality, help companies achieve sustainability targets, reduce costs for employees and help America become more energy independent.
The program will provide “smart” charging equipment for approximately 150 cars. Charging stations will be given out on a first come, first serve basis to companies that secure a commitment from a minimum of five employees that they will use an electric car for their commute.
“Our company believes there is a strong future in electric cars here in New Jersey, and workplace charging is a critical part of that future,” said Ralph LaRossa, president and COO of PSE&G. “We want to be a partner with New Jersey businesses and New Jersey electric car drivers. Electric cars not only benefit the environment, but are cheaper to own and operate than conventional cars.”
PSE&G will provide the charging systems for free. Participating workplaces will need to install the units and pay for the electricity. PSE&G will own the charging systems and collect usage data to better understand the impact of workplace charging on electric demand and the electric delivery system. The Hydra data collection system will be provided by Liberty Access Technologies.
“Electric vehicle charging is usually a matter of hours, not minutes, so charging your EV while you are at work is an ideal solution,” said Chris Outwater, President of Liberty Access Technologies. “At work charging will make EV ownership possible for many more people. It is especially important for apartment dwellers who cannot easily charge while at home.”
The incentive is available only to companies located in PSE&G’s electric service territory. Companies interested in more information on the program can contact PSE&G at: [email protected]
PSEG also released data on the first year of operations of its own employee electric car incentive program launched one year ago, including:
The 13 employees in the program are estimated to have driven 120,000 miles on electric commuting to and from work in the first twelve months of the program.
The participants are estimated to have saved 5,300 gallons of gas and avoided spending nearly $19,000 on gas just on their commute.
By commuting on electric, it is estimated that the program helped avoid 50 to 60 tons of CO2 being released into the air as well as reduced particulate, SOx and NOx emissions in communities through the state.
Infographic: one year data on PSEG workplace charging
Employees in the PSEG workforce program bought/leased a range of cars including the Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf, Honda Fit, Ford C-MAX Energia, Toyota Prius plug-in and Tesla.
Electric cars in New Jersey are particularly helpful for the overall air quality because of New Jersey’s clean mix of fuel used to produce electricity. More than half of electricity produced in New Jersey comes from nuclear energy which produces no air pollutants or climate change gases.
This Circuit Court’s Obamacare Decision Could Have Huge Consequences
Elizabeth Slattery / @EHSlattery / July 22, 2014
Elizabeth H. Slattery focuses her research on issues such as the scope of the Constitution’s commerce clause, equal protection, federal preemption and election laws as senior legal policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.
Today the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dealt a blow to the Obama administration, ruling that the language of the Obamacare law only established federal subsidies for individuals enrolling in state-run health care exchanges, not for individuals enrolling in federal-run state-level health care exchanges.
Since 36 states (the administration might deem it 27 states based on nine states’ cooperation with federal exchanges) have opted not to run their own exchanges, this ruling has significant implications for the practical implementation of Obamacare.
Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code (enacted as part of Obamacare) allows the IRS to make subsidies available to residents who buy health insurance through a state-run exchange. While lawmakers assumed every state would open an exchange, 36 states chose not to do so. In those states, the federal government established exchanges, and the IRS claimed it could extend the subsidies to individuals purchasing insurance through the federally-run exchanges.
In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit determined that the IRS’s “interpretation” violated the plain language of Section 36B: the law “unambiguously restricts the Section 36B subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges established by the State.” The government argued that it was “standing in the state’s shoes” when it opened exchanges in 36 states, but as the court noted “section 36B plainly distinguishes Exchanges established by states from those established by the federal government.”
The IRS’s revision of Section 36B “significantly increases the number of people who must purchase health insurance or face a penalty.” Further, since the employer mandate’s penalties depend on the availability of credits, this expansion “exposes employers [in states without state-run exchanges] to penalties and thereby gives the employer mandate broader reach.”
The government urged the court to look to the broader goal of Obamacare—near-universal coverage for all Americans—that would be impossible without these subsidies (in addition to the nondiscrimination requirements applying to insurers and the individual mandate to purchase insurance). Yet the court was unpersuaded. In the face of unambiguous statutory text, “there must be evidence that Congress meant something other than what it literally said” in order for the court to depart from the statute’s plain meaning. The government failed to meet this burden, and the court was unwilling to overstep its bounds.
A dissenting judge argued that the court bought the challengers’ “myopic construction” of Section 36B without “regard for the overall statutory scheme,” and defied the will of Congress.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled on this same issuetoday. That court found the language of Section 36B is ambiguous and allowed the IRS “interpretation” to stand. A concurring judge helpfully pointed out that when Section 36B says ““[E]stablished by the State” this “indeed means established by the state – except when it does not…”
The judicial branch must respect the separation of powers, and it is for Congress—not the courts or the executive branch—to create the laws. The D.C. Circuit recognized that the IRS’s attempt to rewrite the law (which is the Obama administration’s signature move) was improper:
“Within constitutional limits, Congress is supreme in matters of policy, and the consequence of that supremacy is that our duty when interpreting a statute is to ascertain the meaning of the words of the statute duly enacted through the formal legislative process.”
The D.C. Circuit stayed its decision pending rehearing by the full D.C. Circuit. These cases address only one of many problems with theunaffordable, unworkable, and unfair Obamacare. The consequences of this decision will mean higher costs for individuals who purchase insurance through federally-run exchanges. The Obama administration announced it will appeal to the full D.C. Circuit. Given the split between two federal appellate courts, Obamacare may be heading back to the Supreme Court next term.
