Well, America, you got what you wanted...

A Washington DC contract attorney who goes by the nom de plume 'Raised by Wolves' (RBW, in future references) has written an excellent analysis of what is going to happen to contract opportunities (as well as permanent positions) once ObamaCare hits in January 2013. Among other comments, he asks what contract agencies will do when the new requirements that basically force any company with more than 30 employees to either buy them over-priced, horrible government-issued insurance or pay a hefty per-employee penalty. His answer is as follows:

There are only two choices. First, nobody works 30 hours a week for an agency ever again. That probably is an unworkable solution, but it is not unthinkable, given the trend in the industry toward a 40-hour cap on projects. A 30-hour cap would mean more bodies, staggered, but would not be a dramatic departure from the no-OT policy that already governs so many projects. Given the staggering costs of forced health coverage (or penalties), agencies won't consider this option unworkable. They'll think about it, and you'll have to start finding two projects at a time to make a living wage. Assuming, of course, that agencies and the firms that hire them stop enforcing their concurrent employment policies that ban working two projects at a time.

The second choice is, your taxes just got harder. Agencies could deem contract attorneys to be independent contractors and start issuing 1099s instead of W-2s. That means you'll have to make quarterly estimated tax payments for withholding, Social Security and Medicare taxes. Oh, and by the way, it also means you'll be responsible for the employer's half of those Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, as you will now be self employed. Of course agencies will raise your rates to make up for the fact that your share of the payroll taxes doubled while their share disappeared. Don't doubt it for a second.

Now RBW was focusing on the contract attorney field, but his analysis is valid for any field where contracting is common. This includes the high-tech fields where I earn MY living. And my reaction is that RBW is spot-on. I don't know about you, but I've noticed that where I live, there are lots and LOTS of contract offers. Perm? None. Everyone wants to hire contractors. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that companies know what's coming and are trying desperately to avoid the coming storm? Why, yes, it could. Which is also why permanent opportunities are going to be few and VERY far between for the next ten-twenty years. The Democrats have basically made it uneconomical to hire permanent employees. And so they are desperately trying to get people to do contracting instead. Of course, my sympathy for most of these companies is miniscule since these are largely the same companies whose CEOs are in bed with the Democrats.

But hey, America basically voted for two issues in the 2012 election. These issues, as constantly screamed forth by the Democrat propagandists in the press corps were:

1. Lots and lots of government 'free' shit (paid for with Other People's Money) and...
2. Killing babies so that irresponsible and feckless young women can have lots of fun without consequences while forcing everyone else to pay for that fun, as Sandra the Slut memorably begged for.

Those were the two main campaign issues the Democrats and their media shills pushed over and over again (in between dragging out seventh-grade stories and telling us what a scary and horrible guy that Mitt Romney fellow was, of course). So guess what, America? You got what you wanted. I hope you enjoy it when the inevitable bill comes due.

Rules are for the Little People, Part...

I've lost count. How many members of the Obama Administration is this now who apparently believe that rules are only for their subjects constituents?

Meet Cindy Padilla who, according to Dan Riehl, got a lengthy vacation - very likely paid for by taxpayers - while she dealt with the results of a DWI conviction. Can you imagine any normal person getting that kind of treatment? No, neither can I. Just one more example of how the Washington crowd in general, and Democrats and Obama staffers in particular, seem to believe that rules are for the little people.

And as a bonus, the Associated Press, which originally reported this story, didn't feel the need to include her political party affiliation. Need we guess? Of course she is a Democrat.

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

We Shoot Guns- Lots of Guns

So writes former Marine Marco Martinez, author of the new book Hard Corps: From Gangster to Marine Hero in a highly entertaining article for TownHall.com in which he asks the very valid question, "Why are conservatives and Republicans more likely to support the military than liberals and Democrats?"

As one might expect, Martinez provides an answer- a list of reasons why conservatives tend to be more supportive of the military than liberals. According to him, these reasons include,

1. The military sees a clear difference between good and evil.
2. Veterans view themselves as servants, not victims.
3. The military stresses hard work, self-discipline and personal responsibility.
4. Service members understand that freedom is not free.
5. The military shoots guns. Lots of guns.

Martinez then proceeds to illuminate each of his points with examples as to why conservatives find much more affinity with servicemen and servicewomen than liberals. As Martinez writes about the idea of good versus evil,

The minute you start thinking that there’s no such thing as good and evil, right and wrong, it’s virtually impossible to support an organization like the military. The military applies lethal force in the service of what our nation deems “good” and “right.” If you believe that nothing is black and white, and that everything is morally gray, it’s hard to choose sides.

Some liberals sort of remind me of that lyric from that old song that goes: “There ain’t no good guys, there ain’t no bad guys. There’s only you and me and we just disagree.”

Marines don’t “disagree” with the enemy. We shoot to kill.

This is an idea that most liberals reflectively recoil from. They prefer to go to photo-opportunities with people like Kim Jong Il as Madeleine Albright did, or to sit down and hug evil dictators, as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter so love to do. Conservatives and military members, in contrast, prefer to eliminate the menace before it can eliminate us.

But Martinez' best line comes when he writes Reason Number 5, "The military shoots guns. Lots of guns." about conservatives' affinity for the Second Amendment. Martinez then says of his final point,

Okay, so I thought I’d lighten it up a bit. But I’m only half-joking. Conservatives support gun rights and the use of lethal force to protect innocent people. The military does, too. As I say, violence isn’t senseless. Senseless violence is senseless.

Yes, and this is the fundamental difference between consservatives and liberals, and the ehart of why conservatives are so much more likely to support the military. Conservatives, as Martinez writes, believe that it is appropriate to use force, inlcuding lethal force, to protect their principles and to protect those who are innocent. Modern liberals, on the other hand, believe that force is never justified, unless it is for something that has absolutely no relationship to their own interests. This is why liberals like to use the military as a glorified police force- something for which it was never intended- and conservatives understand its true nature.

Until liberals can both understand and appreciate the need to use force in defence of one's peinciples, they will always lack in supporting a military that they can neither understand nor appreciate.

Immigration Analysis

It has been obvious since the Democrats took control of Congress in the midterm elections that we would see some form of amnesty for the illegal aliens in this country. The only question was to what extent the government would cave to the illegal alien lobby.

We now have our answer. However, one can take either a half-empty or half-full perspective on the resulting bill in the Senate. Michelle Malkin calls it amnesty and condemns the Senate Republicans. Malkin has been on this story for a long time, and she is quite accurate in her characterization. This looks, smells and sounds like amnesty.

However, Captain Ed Morrissey takes a more positive view of the Senate compromise, noting that

Conservatives don't get everything they want, of course, but we don't control Congress any more, either. While one could argue that no bill beats a bad bill, this compromise does not look all that bad. Its focus on border security and identification of illegals as part of the process of normalization addresses two significant national-security concerns, and it still penalizes illegals -- just not to the extent desired by conservatives.

I agree with Malkin, though Captain Ed makes a good point in that elections do have consequences and this is better than the disastrous bill that McCain tried to force through before the elections. I still have to ask the Congress though- what part of illegal do you fail to understand? These folks are here illegally, and thus, it is certainly not our responsibility to feed them or give them anything at all. Legal immigrants I welcome with open armss. Illegal imigrants should receive jail stays and a trip back home paid for either by themsleves or the Mexican government while being fined of every penny they earned while here illegally.

War and Democrats

Well, THIS is no surprise. According to an article just published in Human Events Online by the veteran reporter Robert Novak, Democrats are being hurt, as opposed to being helped, but the war in Iraq.

According to Novak,

Once again at center stage is Democrats' timidity over Iraq, which one would expect to be as good an election issue as they could ever invent against the Republicans and President Bush. The Iraq War is apparently unpopular and Americans supposedly want the troops to come home -- yet Democrats feel so little confidence that this will translate into election victories that they cannot be persuaded to adopt a consistent anti-war position.

Well that comes as absolutely no surprise either. Democrats have long since become the Party of Retreat and they have not been truly supportive of their own country's efforts militarily since perhaps 1960, when John F Kennedy famously said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather ask what you can do for your country." Today's Democrats are all about asking country to do for them and not making any sacrifices- unless occasionally having to talk to those Neanderthal Republicans and common folk who aren't liberal and who do not live in Washington DC counts as sacrifice. In addition, Democrats are afraid to come out and present their real views on the war and the US troops who are fighting it. Knowing that most Americans do NOT despise their troops and despite an unending line of mis-representations and outright lies by the MSM in an attempt to destroy President Bush and return Democrats to power, most Americans do not believe in the cut-and-run strategy.

This present Democrats with a problem. On the one hand, their core constituency is heavily anti-American, anti-military and above all, anti-George Bush. However, most Americans, despite the negative drumbeat of the Press do not agree with them on these issues. So the Democrats are forced to try to hide their real feelings while letting their moonbat supporters see them acting as they would wish. Which means that they are unable to present any real argument on the war., the few Democrats with honor include Joe Lieberman, who has consistently supported the war. However, he and the recently retired Senator Zell Miller are almost the only Democrats who have been consistent in their pro-US views.

On the other end of the spectrum, John Kerry has been at least consistent in his cut-and-run philosophy- one apparently shared by few other Democrats. This should provide us with some very entertaining mid-term elections, as I am beginning to doubt the Democrats are going to be able to re-take either branch of Congress. The American public may dislike the Iraq war (though if the MSM would actually publish the truth, I think their would be a much hgher approval rating both for the war and for President Bush), but based on the silliness emanating from the other side of the political spectrum, I do not see them entrusting the Democrats with the reins of power until and unless they either come clean about their dislike for American military power or they actually regain their lost patriotism.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

WMDs Update

The Democrats and their enablers in the Drive-By Media have made a mantra out of claims that George Bush lied to America about the weapons of mass destruction possessed by Iraq since the war that overthrew Saddam Hussein and brought new hope to Iraq's terrorized citizens. The Press and their Democratic Party fellow-travelers in the United States Congress have been claiming with increasing hysteria that 'Bush lied, people died'. Never mind all those who died under Saddam Hussein's brutal rule, or all those who deals under the many other dictators that Democrats and MSM types have cuddled up to for so many years- Castro, Mao, Stalin, Che Guevara, etc.

However, there is now news that might finally lay this tired falsehood to rest. According to Fox News, it appears that not only were the Democrats wrong, George Bush was right- a piece of news almost certainly destined to produce hair-tearing amongst the Democrats and most of the media. In a story published today, Fox reports that Weapons of Mass Destruction HAVE been found in Iraq.

The story says that the United States "has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, according to two Republican lawmakers." This is good news, at least to those of us who believe that the President was entirely justified in his actions since the September 11 attacks on the United States by Islamic elements. While the Press probably wouldn't recognize a WMD if it was placed under their seats in their Bush Derangement Syndrome feverpits, most responsible people recognize the chemical weapons are actually WMDs, and thus Bush's arguments leading up to the 2003 invasion were justified.

The Republicans in question are Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Representative Pete Hoekstra (R-MI). Both made the point that while the weapons found appear to have been manufacturered prior to 1991, they prove two important things- first that Saddam Hussein lied when he claimed all WMDs had been destroyed. Second, and more importantly, these weapons show that the 'weapons inspections' vaunted by the United Nations were in fact not working and were probably enabling Hussein to continue his little game of divide and conquer vis-a-vis the Western powers in order to circumvent the sanctions placed on Iraq following the 1991 Gulf War. They also make fools of the dictator-loving Democrats who claimed so loudly that no WMDs had been found in Iraq. It also raises questions as to the competency of Democrats to run the United States, since they can't even tell the truth about clearly proven issues such as this.

Now we await the Mainstream Media to actually leave off their jihad against the Bush Administration and report that he was in fact correct when he went to war in 2003 against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Of course, I expect we will be waiting for a long, long time. After all, to actually report this would require the media to report good news for the Republicans and the Bush Administration. And we all know that they are completely unable to report honestly when Republicans in general and this President in particular are involved. It is too much easier to slavishly cover Cindy Sheehan's little circus, without delaying with the fact that they might be in the wrong.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Energizing the Dem Base...

...or not. According to a new Los Angeles Times poll, (which should be taken with a large grain of salt, considering the lack of trustworthiness the Times has displayed recently, it appears that Democrats are less enthusiastic about a guest-worker program than Republicans. It also appears that among Democrats without a college degree, only 38 percent support legalizing the aliens who are invading our country. The support among Democrats in general is at only 59 percent, as opposed to 67p percent among Republicans.

Mickey Kaus, comments on this in the online version of Slate magazine, writing, "I think this means that black Democrats without a college degree oppose guest-worker plans by something like a 3-1 ratio, but the Times doesn't give the "especially low" breakout. Talk about demoralizing the base! Can Democrats afford to alienate the black vote going into the midterms?"

I wish that this was true. However, I would remind Mr. Kaus that the black vote has been loyal to the Democrats despite repeated evidence that the Republicans are actually much more aligned with their interests. They have been loyal despite bigots like Byrd and Kennedy sitting in Congress. The Democratic Party bought the black leadership a long time ago, and in election after election, the blacks vote the same party line without so much as a chirp. The few who do think for themselves are the Condoleeza Rices and the Thomas Sowells of the world- and they vote conservative. It seems that most blacks either cannot or will not get off the victimhood train- and will not think for themselves either. Apparently they would rather let their so-called 'leaders' do their thinking for them- as long as the welfare checks keep coming. And this embrace of victimhood is irritating, especially to sometone who has seen real racism- and it isn't here in the United States! As long as we are on the subject, the Asian immigrants, most of whom are legal, by the way, (Chinese, Japanese, etc) had a much harder time when they first got here than did the blacks post-Civil War. And they have mostly turned out fine, though they also seem to vote in a Dedmocratic bloc, which I don't reallly understand, unless they are hoping for some of the same victimhood handouts as the blacks and Latinos usually get.

In any event, while I respect Mr. Kaus' opinions, I do not think that the Democratic Party has much to worry about as regards their black membership. They can say or do anything and those reliable, 'disadvantaged' dupes will still vote the Democratic party line, sending racist ignoramouses like Cynthia McKinney to Congress, no matter what. Makes one sad, doesn't it?

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

A Military Response

How come the Left in general and Democrats in particular (with the usual exception such as Senator Lieberman) have nothing good to say about their own country's military forces? Why is it that "news" organs such as the New York Times cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the debt they owe to our soldiers, but have no problem criticizing them at every turn? Well, today an un-named member of our great navy decided to answer all of these gutless naysayers in the Press, the Senate and in their comfortable, taxpayer-funded universities around the nation. The column can be found at Navy SEALs.com. The anonymous author closes with a suggestion for the military's many armchair critics, writing,

I'd like to close with an invitation to those
journalists, analysts,
experts, and politicians who sit up at night dreaming
up new ways to
criticize our armed forces. The next time you see a
man or woman in
uniform, stop for ten seconds and reflect upon how
much you owe that
person, and his or her fellow Sailors, Marines,
Soldiers, and Airmen.

...

Two words -- that's all I ask. "Thank you." If that's
too hard, if you
can't bring yourself to acknowledge the dedication,
sincerity and
sacrifice of your defenders, then I have a backup plan
for you. Put on
a uniform and show us how to do it right.

Good point. So how about it, Pelosi? Are you listening, Durbin? How about you, Sulzberg? Maybe you should cut out the shrillness and think about a little loyal opposition for once in your selfish, unpatriotic lives. Maybe? Link courtesy of Instapundit.