HEADLINE: Amendment One Passes; A Majority of Tennessee Voters Found to be Illiterate

Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother. – Amendment One, Article I, Tennessee Constitution

Rant Begin.

If the headline didn’t catch your attention, then I am unsure as to why you are even reading this article. If you voted “yes” on Amendment One, then I am unsure as to if you can even read. If that doesn’t already piss you off, keep attempting to navigate this narrative. I’m sure it will just be the beginning.

I am Republican. There… I said it. Happy now? However, I am not a Republican in the sense that I believe abortion is wrong and gay rights should be shunned. That’s just ignorant. We live in the 21st century people – get over yourself. However, my issue with Amendment One has nothing to do with abortion rights. In fact, if you read the amendment then you would find that the amendment had nothing to do with abortion rights at all. “What? What do you mean, Nikki? It has everything to do with abortion – it says so directly in the body of the amendment.” I’m telling you – Nothing. To. Do. With. Abortion. Everything. To. Do. With. Government. Control. So, congrats if you find yourself a Republican (or Democrat) voting for this because you believed abortion was the main concern and that abortion is wrong in all circumstances. In the words of the Arrow – “You have failed this city (err… state).” Let’s get to the bottom of what 53% of you voted to be an Amendment to our Tennessee Constitution.

Well, That Was Awkward…

First and foremost, I am not here to give you a background on Amendment One. You should have already read (or attempted to read) the amendment and codified the amendment’s meaning. I’m here to tell you why 53% of voters were wrong. Now, just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean that I do not still like you. It just means you might piss me off in a conversation if you ever bring up the fact that you voted “yes” on this amendment. Here we go.

Help! I Can’t Get The Government Out of My Vagina!

Read my heading again – and say thanks to my mother (who is also a Republican) for helping me with it. Now, let’s move forward with the medical changes that will occur with Amendment One’s passing. A scenario might make this narrative a little more intimate.

You are pregnant. You go to your trusted doctor for a check-up, and your doctor tells you that if you continue your pregnancy there is a 100% chance that you or your child will die during childbirth. Without Amendment One, you, your family and your doctor would have complete control over what happens from here on out – whether that be a termination of the pregnancy or not. With Amendment One, however, these personal, private medical decisions are now subject to government control. You have no say as to what occurs. If the government passes a law that is contrary to the health or life of the woman then so be it.

That scenario doesn’t bother you? How about this one:

You pull into your apartment complex after working the late shift at a grocery store. You have to park a few buildings down, as there is not enough parking near your building. As you begin walking toward your building, and unbeknownst to you, a man approaches you from behind.  That person grabs your arm, throws you to the ground, and covers your mouth to avoid screaming. In the process of this violent attack, you are raped. You are scared and do not inform anyone of the rape (note: if anyone comments with “Well, she could have told someone” you are extremely ignorant). You become pregnant and go to your local physician. After informing your physician that you wish to terminate the pregnancy, you and your physician discuss termination procedures. With Amendment One, however, these personal, private medical decisions are now subject to government control. You have no say as to what occurs. If the government passes a law prohibiting a woman who has been raped from terminating a pregnancy then you must carry that pregnancy to term.

After re-reading the above section, I am crying. Reread the language of Amendment One. You (if you are apart of the 53%) just handed over ALL control to the government. Exceptions for health and welfare of the woman, incest, and rape are not covered in this amendment – they are fair game for the legislators to twist and turn. I do not see how the voters in Tennessee could allow this Amendment to pass where a woman’s rights are so freely handed over to the government for control. If you voted “yes” then you believe there should be no exceptions for abortion whatsoever – and for that I am appalled at your judgment. Medical concerns, however, are not the only issue with Amendment One. Let’s move on.

Oh, You Thought You Deserved Privacy? That Doesn’t Exist Anymore.

Notwithstanding medical records, privacy is at issue with Amendment One. The Tennessee Supreme Court previously ruled that certain abortion restrictions violated privacy rights under the Tennessee Constitution. These restrictions hindered the ability of a woman to have a safe and legal abortion. Most Amendment One supporters pushed the notion that Tennessee law does not regulate abortion procedures due to the Tennessee Supreme Court’s above ruling. However, that is not the case. Under Tennessee law, abortions are already highly regulated where it counts. Examples of such regulations include the following: (1) Mandatory reporting guidelines to the Tennessee Dept. of Health; (2) Parental consent for minors; (3) Requirements for physicians performing abortions to obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals; (4) Patients have to sign a consent form prior to the procedure; (5) Abortion clinics must post conspicuous signs with specific language stating it is against the law to coerce someone into having an abortion; (6) No physician or hospital has to perform an abortion; (7) Medicare will not pay for abortions, and the state will not fund them (unless the pregnancy resulted from rape, incest, or the health and welfare of the mother is at stake).

Amendment One allows regulation of the following areas: (1) Mandatory waiting period to give the woman “time to think” about the procedure; (2) Requirement that doctors give women specifically worded information about abortions and fetal development – not crafted by the doctors themselves, but crafted by lawmakers; (3) A ban on abortions past a certain fetal stage of development; (4) Stricter standards of ambulatory surgical centers; (5) End to exceptions as mentioned previously. A few of these changes give me cause for concern – especially number 2. Allowing the legislators to craft their own legalese for use in medical facilities that is not recommended by doctors or medical staff seems to be a bit of an overreach.  Have you read Obamacare? Probably not. Well, go read that (and the proposed regulations), and then let me know if you want legislators to craft legislation without medical review.

In short, Amendment One strips the private, personal medical discussions you have between you and your doctor. It also allows the government (not your doctor) to control your decisions regarding those medical decisions. Say goodbye to physician-patient privilege and hello to the physician-patient-government triangle of despair.

Why You Should Have Voted “No” On Amendment One..Even If You Are Pro-Life

Amendment One hands our private decisions to lawmakers and allows these lawmakers to interpret and define laws on our behalf. This law does not have to stop at abortions – you can apply it to anything considered “private.” I’m not sure that passing laws such as the one related to Amendment One would really make abortions safer. It seems that the legislators just want to make it harder for women to gain access to abortions which is control in and of itself. Control over waiting times – which limit the access of abortions to those that need to take off of work or travel far distances. Control over documents provided for consent in waiting rooms – which limit doctor-patient confidentiality and the doctor’s ability to provide truthful information about the procedure to a patient. Control over women’s rights – it is a woman’s choice as to what happens with her body, not a legislator’s poorly crafted language.

This legislation was pretty well-crafted, in that it was extremely deceptive to both the Republican and Democratic parties. The law was something that allowed for government oversight (which Democrats love and Republicans loathe) for an issue that is a hot-button social topic of regulating abortion (which Republicans love and Democrats loathe). I’m not shocked that the vote turned out the way it did – I am more shocked that my fellow Republicans (and even some Democrats) could not read more deeply into this law. It is an overreach of government and allows the government to hold the power over regulating our private decisions. Not just our private decisions, but a woman’s private decisions. As a woman,this is what shocks me the most.

Who decides what is best for a woman’s health? The woman herself? The woman’s doctor? Not according to Amendment One. According to Amendment One, the Tennessee government is the best at deciding a woman’s reproductive care. Legislators need not consult physicians or medical personnel in coming to a decision on changes to the abortion law. So, next time you have a personal, private medical question don’t bother asking your doctor. All of that medical school business was for nothing.  I recommend that you call your friendly neighborhood legislator the next time you need a personal, private medical question answered. I’m sure that with the vast knowledge Amendment One supporters believe our legislators have on the issue of abortion, that Tennessee legislator will have an answer to your medical question no matter the concern. If you think I am crazy, then you should have voted “no” on Amendment One. If you think that’s a great idea, well then you are this country’s problem.

Rant over. 


Obamacare Pt. 2: If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep It (Or Not…)


If you have yet to read my post from Sunday, January 19th, I highly recommend you do so before reading today’s post. You will have more of an insight into the Individual Mandate (“IM”) and how you could possibly be taxed by Obamacare for failure to purchase healthcare under the new law. You can find “Obamacare Pt. 1: Steal from the Rich, Give to the Poor” at http://wp.me/p49Dtk-aa. If you have read this and now semi-understand the IM, today I will be talking about key parts of Obamacare that seem to coincide: the Employer Mandate & Expansion of Medicaid. Let’s start with the Employer Mandate.


Similar to the IM, the Employer Mandate (“EM” for simplicity) is a per-month fee for employers with over 50 full-time equivalent employees who do not provide healthcare coverage to such employees.  The EM is also considered a “shared responsibility fee” (like the IM) and is a tax penalty to ensure that applicable large employers are providing healthcare to employees.  If the employer does not have at least 50 full-time equivalent employees, these penalties do not apply (in fact, some small businesses may qualify for a health insurance tax credit). If an employer does have at least 50 full-time equivalent employees that are not provided health insurance, and at least one of the employees receives a tax credit or cost sharing subsidy, then the employer will be taxed $2,000 per employee not covered (with the first 30 full-time employees exempt from this calculation). This penalty increases each year with the growth in insurance premiums.

What happens when one of these employers provides healthcare insurance but it is not affordable to the employee?  There are two different instances in which an employer could be penalized if this occurs:

(1) If the employer provides healthcare coverage but it does not cover 60% (bronze level insurance) of healthcare expenses, then the employee has the opportunity to obtain different coverage in the Healthcare Exchange and receive tax credits or subsidies. If this happens, the employer of that employee is charged $3,000 annually for each full-time employee receiving a tax credit, up to a maximum of $2,000 times the number of full-time employees (minus the exempt 30). This penalty, like the penalty above, is increased each year with the growth in insurance premiums.

(2) Additionally, if the employer provides healthcare coverage but the employees have to pay more than 9.5% of family income for the employer coverage, the employees have the same opportunity to join the Healthcare Exchange and receive tax credits or subsidies. If this happens, the employer of that employee is charged $3,000 annually for each full-time employee receiving a tax credit, up to a maximum of $2,000 times the number of full-time employees (minus the exempt 30). This penalty, like the penalties above, are increased each year with the growth in insurance premiums.

So starting in 2015**, employers that have over 50 full-time equivalent employees will have to pay this per-month fee as 1/12 of the $2,000 or $3,000 amount for either not providing affordable healthcare insurance or any healthcare insurance at all.


Note that I said “full-time equivalent employees” (“FTEs” for simplicity) when describing the type of employees to which the EM applies. FTEs include those at full-time status (30 hours or more per week) plus the combined number of part-time employees divided by 30 hours. A list of those that are not included in the FTE calculation are seasonal employees, independent contractors (1099 filers), and business owners. On top of this, in order to determine the number of FTEs for a particular month (which is necessary under Obamacare), the employer must combine the number of hours of service for all employees not employed at least 30 hours per week for a month and then divide that number by 120. This calculation results in the number of FTEs for that calendar month. I do not want to go too far into this calculation, as it is not the basis of my argument (which I promise I have an argument, you just have to wait until the Medicaid section). I will leave you with an example of how this calculation would work.  The Washington Post’s article entitled “Small Business Advice: How to Count Full-Time and Part-Time Employees Under Obamacare” explained this calculation in more simpler terms than I ever could:

For example, if the aggregate number of hours for all employees who do not work on average 30 hours per week is 1200, the number of FTEs for that month would be would be 10 (1200/120). The employer would then add those 10 FTEs to the number of employees who are employed on average at least 30 hours per week, to determine if the employer is an “applicable large employer.”

The term “applicable large employer” is based on a controlled group. If a corporation owns a subsidiary then that subsidiary’s employment would count toward the controlled group’s employment as a whole. In short, all subsidiaries (i.e., sister companies, daughter companies) owned by a holding company (i.e., parent company) will become one with the parent company for purposes of the EM under Obamacare.


The EM covers FTEs. The actual coverage provided by the companies does not cover FTEs. In order to make a company an “applicable large employer” under Obamacare, the amount of employees must be 50 full-time equivalent employees. In order to make a company provide coverage under Obamacare, 95% of the full-time employees must be provided affordable healthcare coverage. Thus, FTEs do not matter for coverage purposes. FTEs only matter when trying to prove a company’s “applicable large employer” status. Got it? Good.

Even though the EM does not start until 2015, the numbers that matter for the EM start in 2014. The EM is based on a look-back period of 3 to 12 months. Therefore, employers must start calculating their full-time employee and full-time employee equivalent base now. A problem for companies is the tax deduction associated with the EM. The problem? There is no tax deduction. If the employer provided coverage for all full-time employees through an Employer Shared Responsibility Plan, then the employer contributions to employee premiums would be tax deductible. For some companies, the costs might outweigh the benefit. That being said, it might be better to take the hit on taxes rather than take the tax deduction for providing all employees with coverage.

To anticipate the inevitable tax, most large employers have reduced full-time and part-time employees to under 30 hours per week. According to Obamacare statistics, 10,000 companies out of 6,000,000 will actually need to provide insurance to full-time employees or pay the EM. That statistic looks wonderful on paper, but it does not actually provide the number of employees that are currently employed by those 10,000 companies. Large conglomerates will be reaping a large tax which will result in reducing the pay and hours for the average worker making just above minimum wage. I am not sure how this will be beneficial to our economy. Obamacare is digging a grave for job growth and the individual’s potential to make a living. Whether it be through the IM or EM, the government is sucking the life out of the economy one tax dollar at a time.


Medicaid is a joint funded program by the federal and state government to provide healthcare to low-income Americans. Obamacare provides for the expansion of the Medicaid program by increasing the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) to allow for additional people to receive healthcare.  States can opt into the Medicaid expansion or opt out and keep the Medicaid program the same.  So, how does Medicaid apply to large employers within a state? Employers are not penalized for employees signing up for Medicaid. Employers are penalized for employees receiving tax credits or subsidies for healthcare policies (as discussed above). Without the expansion of Medicaid, employees within a certain percentage of the FPL are bound to turn to tax credits and subsidies. Employers will be responsible for a larger percentage of tax associated with these costs.

Great. Why does this matter to you? Tennessee is one of the states that chose not to expand Medicaid. Tennessee is not the only state that did not expand Medicaid. If you are reading this and located in a different state, I have included the states and their current decisions below:

Expanding: AZ, AK, CA, CO, CT, DE, D.C., HI, IL, IA, KY, MD, MA, MI, MN, NV, NJ, NM, NY, ND, OH, OR, RI, UT (just occurred 3 days ago), VT, WA, WV

Not expanding: AL, AK, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, LA, ME, MS, NE, NC, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, WI, WY

Still Considering: MO, NH, PA

There are plenty of reasons why Medicaid is good and bad for our country as a whole. Let’s take a look at the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare and determine possibilities as to why Tennessee avoided expansion.


Medicaid is a joint program funded by both the federal and state governments to provide healthcare to low-income Americans. Every state has it’s own eligibility requirements (on top of those federally mandated) as to who qualifies for coverage under Medicaid. In order to qualify for Medicaid, you must be a member of an eligible group (e.g., children, pregnant women, people with disabilities, elderly) and you must meet the financial eligibility requirements for that eligible group. Depending on your financial situation, it could be the difference between affording insurance and receiving Medicaid.

Prior to Obamacare, all states were federally mandated to cover pregnant women and children earning under 133% of the FPL. Children are also covered under the CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Plan) program, which works closely with Medicaid. Parents and adults without dependent children were not covered in most states, as they did not fall below the financial eligibility requirement threshold of making under 100% of the FPL. Seniors gain a large advantage through Medicaid.  If a senior qualifies for Medicaid then he or she also qualifies for Medicare Part D (prescription drug) coverage. Medicaid also covers benefits not covered under Medicare, such as nursing home and personal care services.

Under Title II of Obamacare, the law calls for an expansion of the Medicaid program and provides healthcare to all Americans earning under 138% of the FPL ($15,281 single individual with no children; $23,550 for a family of four). The federal government picks up 100% of the Medicaid tab in the first year. After this and through the year 2020, the federal government provides 90% and the state picks up the remaining 10%.  This is one of the temptations to the states in providing for the expansion. If the federal government is going to pick up most of the tab, why not agree to an expansion and allow for more people to be covered under Medicaid? The question I would rather you ask is “Where is the government getting the money to pick up this tab?” Is it the EM, the IM, a combination of both, China? I am not sure that the government knows where this money is going to come from at all. It seems our country’s deficit might continue to rise if many states continue down a path of expansion.

Every state does not have to agree to expand Medicaid. The federal government wanted to make Medicaid expansion mandatory, and it provided that states must adhere to the expansion or lose all existing Medicaid funding. Twenty-six states sued and the Supreme Court agreed that this provision was too coercive. The Court claimed that the “all-or-nothing” provision should not apply at all. The expansion was to be optional and at the discretion of each state – without the worry of losing money for existing Medicaid. So, as you saw from the list above, most states opted in and other states opted out.


There are many different pros and cons provided by both sides (Republican and Democrat) as to why Medicaid expansion is either good or bad for this country. I am going to list out a few for you so you can make your own decision.


(1) It provides revenue to the state choosing to expand Medicaid. Because the state chooses to expand, the state will receive more funding to support the Medicaid program. This will provide for an influx of funding for the state.

(2) It will result in savings to the state choosing to expand Medicaid. Some states claim to be able to either generate a revenue or save a lot of funds by hosting the expansion. One of these states is Michigan, though I am unsure as to how it is saving money while it’s capital of Detroit just filed for bankruptcy. Either way, many other states are claiming that by expanding the coverage it will save a lot of funding that is normally appropriated to uninsured healthcare recipients down the road.

(3) Rejecting the Medicaid expansion means that other states will receive more money. By rejecting the money given to them, states are handing additional funding over to states that do choose to expand Medicaid.


(1) Accepting federal funding for expansion of Medicaid results in further debt for our country. No explanation needed.

(2) There is a potential trade-off between managing costs and limiting access to healthcare. When a state manages costs of healthcare (i.e., limiting reimbursements to healthcare providers) there is a trade-off that limits access to healthcare. Medicaid is already becoming a trade-off in many state budgets, as it has taken over priorities such as education, emergency services, etc.

(3) Higher taxes reduce economic growth. If states do not want to balance spending programs then states must generate revenue through taxes. Taxes reduce economic growth. Most states cannot afford any type of stunt in economic growth at this time.

My POV: This will actually cost more than states are expecting. States might see savings in the beginning, as federal funding will be at 100%. After this, Medicaid spending will catch up with savings. Additionally, any rejection for expansion does not increase the amount of money given to another state that might choose to expand. The federal portion of Medicaid is based on a formulated calculation. Those funds rejected by states unwilling to accept the expansion of Medicaid do not go into a general fund for redistribution. States that do expand Medicaid are actually perpetuating the fiscal crisis in our country thereby leading this country into a further deficit.


In my opinion, Medicaid expansion is not smart.  Medicaid is struggling to provide healthcare to those currently on the program today.  I know that it sounds like a wonderful idea to add those that are under the FPL percentage to Medicaid.  The underlying problem is not where the FPL should be set. The underlying problem is fixing Medicaid. I would push for Medicaid reform and do away with the expansion entirely. Here are a few other reasons I like Medicaid reform over expansion:

(1) Lesser dependence by the states on federal government funding. It is bad policy to mix state and federal funding to the point of no return. This is bad policy and this is bad healthcare policy. There is no need to sustain a failing program that needs to be fixed.  Pumping this program with billions of (soon to be) wasted dollars is not the answer.

(2) Review eligibility levels and scale down where necessary. As mentioned in the beginning of the Medicaid discussion, states are allowed to extend eligibility past the federally mandated eligibility requirements. Most states have done this and the amount of funding has continued to climb over the years. This funding could be used to supplement education, emergency services, criminal justice, etc. In order to have the funding to balance the state budget, state officials should focus on bringing the original purpose back to the Medicaid program.

(3) States should come up with an alternative to Medicaid. Medicaid has always been defined as a “one-size-fits-all” program. You wouldn’t want to wear a “one-size-fits-all” pair of jeans would you? Everyone is different, just like every state is different. Every state has a different population with different needs. Thankfully the states know what their constituents need through the failing program of Medicaid. The states should be able to come up with a program that is tweaked to provide for their citizens’ needs.


I highly recommend that you do your own research on this law. Everyone has different opinions about it but not everyone understands why they have that opinion.  Become educated and stay informed on the issues that are going on around you.

I would love to hear your perspective on anything I have talked about today, last week, or any week before this. I appreciate you for reading this post and hopefully you will continue to read my blog.  I plan to tackle Obamacare’s changes to Medicare next week – you will not want to miss it! Thanks again!

**As of 2/10/2013, this date has changed to 2016 for medium-sized businesses. More information will be provided later.

Obamacare Pt. 1: The Individual Mandate – Steal from the Rich, Give to the Poor


Today I embark on a journey into the unknown (and sometimes unseen) land of Obamacare. Do not worry if you have not yet read this policy – Nancy Pelosi is probably still in the same boat. Let’s start with the basics of Obamacare.

Basics of Obamacare

Actual Title: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Aliases: Obamacare (note: this is my personal reference to the law, as Obama himself uses the term), Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), Taxcare

Creation: Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010; upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in a 5-4 vote on June 28, 2012

Initial Goal: “To give more Americans access to affordable, quality health insurance & reduce growth in health spending in United States.” [note: this was not supposed to override or replace private insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare]

Rollout of Law: Enacted in 2010; starts rollout in 2013-2014 and continues throughout the year of 2022

Actual Document: Obamacare has ten titles spanning over 1,000 pages with most key provisions under Title 1, which is around 140 pages.  Most of the bill encompasses the problems associated with Medicare.  Prior versions of Obamacare as a bill were 2,400 pages. The final document as produced, however, is actually around 1,000 pages (depending on the website or PDF document).

Favorite Lines from Obamacare Deliberations: (1) “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” – then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D); (2) “If Obamacare had been fully implemented when I caught cancer, I’d be dead.” – GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain (R); (3) “I have no problem with folks saying, ‘Obama cares.’ I do care. If the other side wants to be the folks that don’t care, that’s fine with me.” – President Obama (D), responding to Republican use of the term “Obamacare”; (4) “He’s the baby daddy of Obamacare.” – Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) referring to GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney; (5) “If I’m the godfather of this thing, then it gives me the right to kill it.” – GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney (R); (6) “I just see a huge train wreck coming down.” – Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.); (7) “I’m a physician. I’m quite worried about the privacy of medical records…I’m quite worried that your medical records now will be evaluated by the IRS.” – Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) after IRS scandal

Obamacare: A Big Effing Deal

In the words of Joe Biden, Obamacare is a big effing deal. From additional taxes to unnecessary burdens, you or someone you know will be affected by this law. The next few years of this law’s rollout will not be pretty.  I’m not sure it was the appropriate time to rollout a massive tax on the American people during an economic slump. No matter what statistics the government alleges, everyone is experiencing some sort of decrease in funding or income at this time.  This tax burden hits the younger generation harder than any other generation – as we are left to save the baby boomer generation from themselves. This will be tough considering the job market is tougher to break into than the healthcare market. All in all, I have already come to an educated conclusion that Obamacare is a failure.

During the next four weeks, I will set forth the facts of Obamacare in four different segments. I will not provide my opinion on each of these segments until the end of each. Whether you agree or not, I could care less. I do, however, care that you are educated as to what this law will provide and what it fails to provide.  I care that you understand what we as a country are getting into with Obamacare. Finally, I care that our generation is knowledgeable of this law as it will affect us more than any other generation.

I do not have a list of each of the four segments that I will cover in Obamacare. The available information is never-ending and I am sure that I will not be able to cover everything in these four parts. At this time, however, I am confident in my knowledge of the Individual Mandate (which starts on or around page 143 of Obamacare). I covered this topic somewhat in depth within my tax LL.M. program at University of Denver. Because my background is in tax law, you will have to bear with me if I use terminology that is hard to comprehend. I will try my best to put it in plain English, but if I fail to do so on some of it you will have to give me a break.  If you do not recognize the term, look it up.  It might do you some good to do your own research anyway considering this is a confusing topic as is. I do not want to waste anymore time or space on this blog post with senseless information – let’s begin.

Individual Mandate: A (Large) Tax on American Citizens

The Basics

Starting in 2014, individuals are required under Obamacare to either obtain health insurance, get an exemption from obtaining health insurance, or pay a “per-month fee.”  The health insurance obtained must be the “minimum essential coverage” that complies with the rules set forth under Obamacare.  “Minimum essential coverage” includes most employer-based coverage, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP program funds, private insurance (unless your insurance does not comply with Obamacare rules, hence all of the talk of rejection letters from private insurance companies), and all insurance within your State’s healthcare marketplace.

If an individual fails to meet the requirements of obtaining health insurance or an exemption the individual is then hit with a “shared responsibility fee,” also called the Individual Mandate (or “IM” as I will refer to it from now on to save space).  The IM is just one of around 20 new taxes created under Obamacare and goes toward funding Obamacare and subsidizing hospitals that will have unpaid hospital emergency room costs.  The IM also provides as a “downpayment” into the healthcare system that you will eventually have to pay into in the future.

Although the IM goes into effect on January 1, 2014, a 3-month continuous grace period provides relief to most Americans searching for health insurance on the marketplace.  Thus, if you fail to obtain health insurance by March 31, 2014, you will have a penalty applied to your taxable income for each month that you do not have health insurance. This is considered the “per-month fee” paid into the system.  However, there is a catch: you must obtain this health insurance by March 15, 2014.  If you obtain this insurance by that date you will be covered starting April 1, 2014. If you obtain your insurance after March 15, 2014, your coverage actually begins on May 1, 2014, and you will be susceptible to the “per-month fee” as you are not covered by April 1, 2014. Instead of a 3-month continuous grace period, this should have been labeled a 2.5-month grace period to avoid confusion.  Let me inform you again – make sure to get covered by March 15, 2014. If you do not, you will be charged for a portion of the IM. I guarantee this will cause confusion, and I guarantee the IRS will collect a ton of penalties during this time.

In order to collect this fee, the IRS will withhold the money from your income tax return refund. There is no other way for the IRS to enforce this provision.  The IRS cannot enforce jail time, liens or any other means of collection.  You must have a refund in order for the IRS to collect the IM.

The IM was meant to be a “trade-off” between the American people and government. The requirement to obtain healthcare is considered the people’s trade-off for the new benefits, rights, and protections including the requirement for those to obtain insurance that could not afford it otherwise.  Proponents of the IM were met with backlash from 26 different states, several individuals and the National Federal of Independent Business.  All combined sued over the unconstitutionality of Obamacare and more specifically the IM. On one side the government claimed that the law was regulating an area that everyone was already in (as purchasing healthcare was already inevitable).  On the other side those against the law claimed that the law forced Americans to enter a market and purchase something against one’s own will. Both sides clashed in the Supreme Court case of National Federation of Independent Business Et. Al. v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Et. Al., 567 U.S. ___ (2012).

The Court Case of the Century

National Federation hinges on two key parts of Obamacare – Medicaid expansion and the IM. I do not wish to talk about Medicaid right now as I’m sure that will be a topic for a later post. I will be focusing on the IM. This case is around 200 pages long and includes opinions from each of the Supreme Court Justices. I actually read this opinion after it was produced for the American public to read. I will not go into too much detail about this case so as to not bore you.  I will, however, give you a brief synopsis of why the Supreme Court voted to uphold the IM and thereby uphold Obamacare.

The first holding in the case involved the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for purpose of retaining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). The government used a tactic to reply to the suit basically implying that those suing must pay for the alleged tax before suing for a refund. The government lost on this notion.  Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the majority opinion for the Court, stated that the government never intended this law to be a tax but instead labeled it a “penalty.” Thus, the Anti-Injunction Act did not apply to the instant case.  However, for purposes of the Constitution, the labeling of “penalty” does not control the Court’s ruling as to whether this is a “tax” from a constitutional standpoint.

Moving forward, the second holding in the case involved whether the IM was a valid use of Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate commerce.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3. In order to regulate commerce, there must be something actually in commerce to regulate. According to the Court, most cases involve the regulation of commerce to reach an “activity.” E.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 560. The IM does not regulate an activity.  Instead, the IM creates an activity by requiring Americans to purchase into a marketplace for healthcare.  Congress already has a pass to regulate what people do; Congress should not have a pass to also regulate what people do not do. If the Court were to uphold the IM under the Commerce Clause, it would give powers to Congress to regulate and compel commerce. That is too far outreaching and the Court could not foresee that being in and of itself constitutional.

Furthermore, the Necessary and Proper Clause argument does not hold muster in this case. Each of the prior cases decided by the Court upholding laws under this Clause involved “exercise of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power.” The IM allows Congress to step outside of its bounds and create the power to regulate the healthcare marketplace. According to the Court, even if the IM is a “necessary” means to carry out the healthcare plan, such expansion of Congress’s power is not “proper” way to go about doing so.

The third holding involves the taxing power of Congress and whether or not the IM should be considered a tax on the American people. According to supporters of Obamacare and Obama himself, this IM has never been a tax on the American people.  However, if the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause did not stand (which as I previously explained, both did not stand), the government would have to take the alternative stance that the IM was a tax after all. The government cites the Constitution in claiming that the IM may be upheld within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. Taking this argument, the Court had to decide whether the IM was a tax on those people refusing to purchase healthcare.

The Court first comments on the labeling issue – penalty v. tax. The use of “penalty” disallowed the government’s argument under the Anti-Injunction Act. On the other hand, the use of “penalty” would not disallow the government’s further argument that the IM was in fact a tax. Next, the Court starts to delve into the main issue – whether this penalty could be an undercover tax. In order to support this stance, the Court claims that the penalty does not punish unlawful conduct. The penalty is not too high, the payment is not limited to willful violations, and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through normal means of taxation. Finally, the Court ends with explaining why the Direct Tax Clause does not apply. Basically, the tax is on health insurance and is not like the type of taxes covered under the Court’s previous cases.  Thus, the Court agreed that the IM could be construed to be a tax and the government won the battle for Obamacare on this notion.

The rest of the case involves Medicaid and I am not open for discussion on this just yet. In the end, the government both won and lost it’s case. The government won the case in court on a 5-4 vote (5 for: Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan; 4 against: Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito), but the government lost the case with a majority of the American people by handing the citizens the nation’s largest tax in history.

So, what does all of this actually mean?

This means that if you do not have health insurance then you will be taxed for not having health insurance. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. Here is a list of those that are exempt from the penalty enforced by the IRS:

(1) Unaffordable coverage options exemption: If you are paying more than 8% of your household income for health insurance, you are exempt from taking part in the healthcare purchase altogether.

(2) No filing requirement: If your income is below the threshold for filing taxes (i.e., $10,000 for singles in 2013 and $27,800 for married filing jointly with two children in 2013). Thus, if you are under these amounts, you will not have to “obtain minimum essential coverage” as you will technically have no income tax return to file.

(3) Hardship: If the Affordable Insurance Exchange finds you to have suffered a hardship making you unable to obtain coverage then you are exempt from coverage.

(4) Short Coverage Gap Exemption (i.e., 3-month Continuous Gap): Remember that this is actually a 2.5-month rule – not a 3-month as the government would like for you to believe.

(5) Religious Conscience: These are administered by the Social Security Administration.

(6) Healthcare Sharing Ministry

(7) Not Lawfully Present in the United States: You are an undocumented immigrant or are not a U.S. citizen, nation or alien lawfully present in the United States

(8) Incarceration

(9) Indian Tribes: Members of federally recognized Indian tribes 

The above nine exemptions are not required to get healthcare from the market exchange. If you are required to have healthcare and refuse to do so, here are the taxes that will be imposed on your income tax return refund:

2014: $95/person/year or 1% of your Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI), whichever is greater

2015: $325/person/year or 2% of your MAGI, whichever is greater

2016: $695/person/year or 2.5% of your MAGI, whichever is greater

2017: Increases by rate of inflation/person/year or 2.5% of your MAGI, whichever is greater

By 2017, the amounts should eventually level off. The government, however, could amend the percentage attributable to your MAGI.  The word “amended” is used over 100 times in the Obamacare law. It is possible that this legislation is never exempted from further amendments. Here are a few additional random facts regarding the tax:

(1) The total penalty can never exceed the national average of the annual premiums of a bronze-level insurance plan offered through the healthcare marketplace.

(2) The maximum penalty per family is no more than 300% of the minimum penalty amount (using 2016’s numbers – $695 x 300% = $2,085). [as an aside, children under the age of 18 are assessed at 50% of the minimum penalty]

(3) The penalty is also prorated for every month you do not have coverage, though there is no penalty for the 3-month continuous gap rule.  As an example, if you are not covered for six months out of the year you are responsible for half of the penalty.

(4) If you are under the age of 26 you are still allowed to piggy-back off of your parent’s insurance plan.  Remember that if your parent is over the age of 65 and receiving Medicare, you are no longer eligible to be covered under their plan.

(5) If you make less than $45,960 (individual) or $94,200 (family of four) [both of these are considered to be up to 400% of the federal poverty level for 2014 and you must file an income tax return to qualify] you may be eligible for free or low-cost health insurance due to cost assistance subsidies like Tax Credits. These Credits reduce premium costs and cost-sharing subsidies that lower cost-sharing on copays, coinsurance, and deductibles. Subsidies are not available to employees or their dependents if an employer offers “affordable” coverage to meet the “minimum essential coverage” standards under Obamacare. The average marketplace subsidy per subsidized enrollee is said to start at $5,290 in 2014. These subsidies offset your premium costs and lower out-of-pocket expenses. However, as a reminder, these subsidies are considered to be picked up through taxing the American people. Think about this – who is paying for these taxes?

My Thoughts on Obamacare’s Individual Mandate

I believe the smartest person during the deliberations and implementation of Obamacare was Chief Justice Roberts. This is not to say that I agree with what he put forth in the National Federation case, as I am not sure he completely agreed with his own argument. It was an extremely smart move on his part to join the four liberal Justices and justify the IM as a tax on the American people. By implementing the IM as a tax, the Court provided the fatal blow to Obama’s credibility as the leader of this country. Obama ran his campaign on a string of lies, starting and ending with Obamacare. This just shows what kind of person, and what kind of Congressional leaders, we have running our country today.

Moving forward with the case, it is apparent that the IM is unconstitutional.  Anyone who can read our Constitution knows this to be true. It forces the American people to pay into a healthcare system that was created in order for Obamacare to be carried out. Anyone who knows me knows that I am a fan of originalism and finding the original intent behind the Constitution. Another fan of this theory is Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.  In case you did not know this by now, or you could not realize this by my Second Amendment arguments in one of my previous posts, I am also one of Justice Scalia’s biggest fans. Though some of his theories might be outrageously concocted, I believe that his examples are sound and actually make good points. Let me put forth one of his arguments during deliberations in the National Federation case: “Could you define the market – everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore you can make people buy broccoli.” In his argument, Justice Scalia is trying to determine why the administration defines the healthcare market so broadly in Obamacare. Just because the government believes that the failure to purchase healthcare is included in the unenumerated problems the Constitution authorizes Congress to solve does not mean that this is essentially an activity that Congress can regulate. If it is determined later on down the road that broccoli provides essential vitamins and nutrients that prevent cancer, can Congress through the ruling under National Federation consider this an “unenumerated problem” that can be solved through a new law? I’m not sure I can answer that. I’m not sure I would want to answer that.

I highly recommend you either take the time to read this case or read a summary of this case. It is actually a good read and gives you the background to many of our country’s cases surrounding the Commerce Clause and Congress’s taxing power. Plus, why would you want to take anything I am saying as fact? Educate yourself and make your own decision on this matter.

So far, I am also convinced this legislation has a Robin Hood complex (“steal from the rich, give to the poor”). Or in other terms, an approach that “steals from those that do and gives to those that don’t.” I asked you to think about who will pay for those subsidies given to those that cannot afford the healthcare policies provided under Obamacare. The answer is those that can afford it – the “rich.” So, if you are receiving a tax credit from the federal government to support your healthcare you can thank those that are “well off” in our society for making that happen. As a possible preview into a future post, the IM also targets the younger generation. Young, healthy people subsidize older, sicker people. Most experts explain that younger people will eventually expect and receive the same treatment later on down the road.  I beg to disagree with those experts, but I will save that for a later segment.

I am not completely sure what next week’s post will have to do with as I am still making my way through Obamacare. You can be sure, however, that I will have an opinion and I will make you think twice about this law. Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions for next week’s post. Thanks for reading!

The Second Amendment – Gun Rights vs. Gun Control: Good Luck With That

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I briefly spoke of the Second Amendment in my last article while simultaneously criticizing the writer of another article for an oversight error in numbering the Amendments.  I do, however, want to touch on the subject of the Second Amendment because it is a hot-button issue around both campaign and election season.  The language (above in bold) is kept simple by our forefathers so as to not construe the message of an individual’s rights.

Brief History of the Second Amendment

I don’t want to spend too much time on this area (considering it is plastered on the internet for you to find elsewhere), but I do want to look at the Second Amendment to the extent that our forefathers cover it in the Constitution and other documents.  It is important to remember that the Constitution was not the only document in history that spoke of the Second Amendment’s contents.  Each forefather had a specific reason for placing this in the Constitution, and that reason was exemplified in other documents during that time.  For example, The Federalist Papers by James Madison spoke of “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, The Federalist Papers 299 (Arlington House ed. n.d.).  As an additional example (just to show merit), Patrick Henry argued during the Virginia ratifying convention that “the great object is, that every man be armed…. Everyone who is able may have a gun.” 3 Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 386 (1836).  This (along with other framers’ thoughts not mentioned herein) shows that the framers of the Constitution meant to protect an individual’s rights to bear arms.

Gun Rights: No Government Should Take Away MY Guns

After reading the framers’ intentions, it is easier to transition into the argument to protect American citizens’ right to bear arms. The Second Amendment obviously covers the issue on gun rights, but what other arguments are being used as a catalyst to propel gun rights to the forefront of a political debate? Here is a list of those rights, and why it might be a reason to entertain the discussion.

(1) Criminals will find a way to obtain guns through illegal measures (like they already do today).  In my humble opinion, this is a valid point. What will stop the criminals from bypassing legislation put into place and finding (through No. 5 below) these guns on their own? Criminals already break the law by committing crimes, so what is one extra notch on their gun-toting belt?

(2) Victim gun possession will deter criminals from committing their crime. If you don’t believe this argument, you haven’t read the story of Jan Cooper of Anaheim, California – the gun-wielding grandma that shot at an intruder to protect herself and her wheelchair-bound, WWII veteran husband from potentially inflicted harm.  Here is the article if you don’t believe me (also covered on NBC and CBS if you have something against Fox News): http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/12/grandma-72-shoots-at-intruder-misses-in-calif/. This is one of my favorite arguments for gun rights.  There are numerous stories out there like Jan Cooper’s, and I am not sure the ending would quite be the same if Jan did not have her firearm in hand.

(3) Police are often too busy to protect citizens from (all) crimes committed. I’m going to add another mitigating factor – police officers are too damn lazy to answer all calls for crimes committed. Please see the above link re: Mrs. Cooper if you don’t believe it.  If the police do not get there in time, the police are not held responsible for the crime committed. Protect yourself.

(4) Ban my guns? You are a socialist or totalitarian. This seems to be the most used line by the Republicans (or those supporting gun rights) against the Obama administration’s legislation on gun control.  By restricting a right professed in the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, anyone that would dare take away one of those rights either must be a socialist, a tyrannical leader, or an idiot. Taking away an Amendment requires another Amendment to rectify that situation (e.g., Prohibition and the 18th/21st Amendments).  As that is a whole other argument, I will leave our congressional leaders with four words: Good luck with that.

(5) Banning guns will create a “black market” excursion for these items (i.e., more organized crime; “War on Guns”). As I stated in No. 1 above, criminals will find other means to being criminals.  Just because a criminal cannot find or purchase a gun on the free market does not mean that the same criminal cannot turn around and purchase that gun from an underground, or “black,” market. This black market would lead to additional problems for the government (which is dealing with figuring out what ObamaCare is) and police officers (who already don’t have time to answer your calls about an intruder).  Again, four words: Good luck with that.

Gun Control: Eh… Some Regulation MIGHT Work Today

Now that I have completely blown your mind about gun rights, let’s look at the five opposite arguments for gun control.  Here is the list as to why you (and our government) should entertain the discussion for gun control.

(1) Most violent crimes are committed with guns. Take away the gun, take away the criminal.  This is a valid argument for those entertaining the thought of gun control.  If there are no more guns in this world, then there will be no more criminals.  A new utopia.

(2) Victims holding guns may be in more danger than before as the criminal could kill the victim in self-defense. I’m honestly not sure how I can defend this ill-worded argument, but I will try because I have to remain neutral for now. Scratch that… I can’t.  That’s just stupidity. But if you have an opinion on why this is a valid point, leave me a comment below.

(3) Crimes that were once less dangerous can now be more dangerous with the addition of a gun.  This argument is geared toward drug crimes. A person selling drugs is more than likely using a gun to protect himself or herself from harm in the event that the drug deal “goes bad.” The drug crime itself is a less dangerous crime.  If the drug crime goes bad and the gun is used it is a more dangerous crime.  Reducing or eliminating the gun by gun control laws will in turn keep the drug crime just that – a lesser crime. This could also correlate with No. 1 above of the gun control arguments.

(4) Suicide and crimes of passion are easier to commit with a gun on hand.  This is true. Both suicide and crimes of passion are committed in the “heat of the moment.” It seems that eliminating the gun would reduce the amount of crimes of this nature.  It is important to keep in mind though that most women attempt suicide by overdose or cutting of wrists, which would not eliminate the amount of suicides for women at all.  This is more geared toward the number of men that commit suicide by lethal weapon (which is extremely higher than women). If you want the statistics on this, visit The Community Counseling Service’s page at http://www.hsccs.org/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=13737.

(5) Insane people, children who have been bullied, or other disgruntled people could use guns for the wrong reason. This argument stems from the number of mall shootings, school shootings, work shootings, and every other possible shooting of a nature in which the person was angry or upset.  Let’s take school shootings since it appears to be the most recent.  From Colorado to Connecticut, these shootings are stemming from the fact that somehow children and teenagers are getting their hands on firearms. A link to most of these situations is not the fact that the children had guns, but that these children and teenagers were suffering from psychological problems before reaching for the gun. I’m not saying that bullying or being treated unfairly is right. What I am saying, however, is that these children should stop and reach out for help before reaching for the gun. Most children and teenagers do not know there is an outlet for help at all.  If you or someone you know has been bullied and you are thinking there is no other way out, please go to http://www.stopbullying.gov for more information or to get help.  Either way, I could see how this argument would be a major focal point of the Obama administration during a time such as this.

My Thoughts on Gun Rights vs. Gun Control: My Guns ARE My Right

After going through the arguments for and against gun control, I am happily content in stating that guns are my right and my right is found under the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights.  Gun control is a nasty subject – as it is an “all or nothing” analysis.  I do not like a government that takes away the rights of the citizens without so much as a blink of an eye.  Our forefathers would be ashamed.

If the guns are not necessary, take away Obama’s guns that are protecting him. Oh… that isn’t going to happen? Some criminals might still get to him with their illegal guns? Then there is no need for me to remain unarmed if the President refuses to disarm his Secret Service.  Is my life not as important as the President’s? Also, look at what happened in Chicago. Chicago has one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation and still winds up with not one but four of the “Top 25 Most Dangerous Neighborhoods.”

Our government, however, continues to believe that Chicago-like gun control laws are the answer to the gun problems we have in our country today.

Four words: Good luck with that.

Hiking the Federal Minimum Wage…is a BAD Idea: A “Hot Topic” Issue Among All Americans Today

This is by far one of my favorite “hot topic” issues occurring in the United States right now: hiking the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15.00.  Let’s not waste time and start from the beginning.

What is the Federal Minimum Wage?

The federal minimum wage is contained under the Fair Labor Standards Act (or the FLSA for those of you who like acronyms). If you would like to read more on how the FLSA was created, here is the link to the Department of Labor’s website explaining it’s creation – http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/flsa1938.htm. If not, continue reading. The FLSA is subsidized by the Fair Minimum Wage Act (sorry, no need for acronym here) which phases in an increase to the standard federal minimum wage set in the FLSA.  The Fair Minimum Wage Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush, was created as an addition (or a “rider”) onto the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, & Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007.  This act implemented three increases in specific years through the year of 2009. Here is a chart taken from the Department of Labor as to how the increase has gone in the past few years:

Prior to 7/24/2007: $5.15

7/24/2007 to 7/23/2008: $5.85

7/24/2008 to 7/23/2009: $6.55

7/24/2009 to Present Day: $7.25

There are numerous exceptions to this law, including state minimum wage laws that superseded the hourly wage above if higher than the federal minimum wage. Those exceptions, however, are not of importance in this blog post.  It is important to remember that each year the federal minimum wage increased by $.70 each year in between 2007 to 2009.  If this increase were to continue up until today’s time, the federal minimum wage would currently be $10.05 (7/24/2013 to 7/24/2014).

Political Campaign Leverage – Is it the Elephant in the Room?

All math set aside, raising the federal minimum wage has been a large part of both the Democrat and Republican future political campaigns. Democrats are pushing for a larger wage in order to make amends for the backfire that happened with Obamacare (don’t worry, I will cover that one day when I can figure out what the hell these idiots passed; Nancy Pelosi still has no clue).  Republicans are skeptical of raising the minimum wage because it has a cause-and-effect reaction by the businesses to either (a) fire a number of employees to make up for that amount expended, or (b) raise the prices of products and charge the consumer with the increase in the federal minimum wage standards.  Either way, this is not going to be a pretty political campaign for either side.  The Democrats will probably never get past the healthcare issues to move onto this topic and, even if they did, their reasoning behind increasing wages is useless. The Republicans will look like jackasses trying to defend why the federal minimum wage shouldn’t be increased for the other 99%. So, who’s right? If you do your own research and educate yourself, you will come to a conclusion. Your conclusion might differ from mine, which I will set out below. If so, I would love to hear your take on the federal minimum wage and why it SHOULD be increased.  However, here is why I believe it should not be increased for now.

Why the US Government Should NOT Increase the Federal Minimum Wage

(1) The retail and fast food industry were not meant to provide longstanding jobs for the American people. These jobs are not meant to be careers. These jobs are for 16-year-olds wanting to support their movie and shopping habits. These jobs are not for 25-year-olds with 4 kids, a mortgage, and an SUV. This is just not the job for you. There are other options out there to support these expenses. You did not choose to do so and the government should not have to pick up your slack. Hurtful as it may be, someone had to say it. Additionally, the government’s increase of the federal minimum wage is keeping the man down.  The government is saying “You will never do better, you can never dream bigger.” You will always be what you never truly wanted to be. Congratulations.

(2) There are other more deserving industries that should be eligible for a pay raise. By raising the federal minimum wage, the government is essentially taking away the minimal, yet larger, amount of money that other industry’s employees are making.  Some industries, such as paralegals, nurses, etc., that have to provide certification to work will be making less than the everyday retail and fast food worker. Let me repeat: the certified workers that provide vital healthcare and legal document work will be making LESS money than those that flip burgers and stock shelves. If that doesn’t peak your interest and change your mind I don’t know what will.

(3) Increasing the federal minimum wage will decrease the amount of help those get from necessary government benefits.  You might think that this sounds great. Keep reading.  Government assistance for housing, food and healthcare would be reduced overall if the federal minimum wage increased, and would result in a significant benefit taxpayers and states’ budgets.  I love this statement and it sounds wonderful for the Democratic party’s campaign – look for it in 2014. I don’t particularly like that the people are using these benefits and a significant tax break sounds wonderful. However, I would rather these workers use the government benefits now rather than accompanied with unemployment benefits.  Big businesses have already cited that an increase of almost double the federal minimum wage (or even anything over $10.00/hour) would result in decreasing jobs across the board.  Unemployment will rise and with unemployment comes a number of other necessary government benefits.  This will be an extremely large tax burden resting in the taxpayers’ pockets.

(4) Raising the federal minimum wage kills jobs. Raising the minimum wage kills jobs for the younger generation and for those that are not as skilled in a certain area. Most employers are not going to be willing to hire those from either of those categories because it will be too expensive a task to train the employee. Like you read in my first blog post (wishful thinking), I am currently an unemployed attorney. I do not have a position because I am either overqualified for certain positions because of my Masters of Law in Taxation or underqualified for other positions in my tax field because I do not have enough experience. I know the feeling of not being “skilled” in a certain area. Most firms are not willing to train someone like me let alone take me in as a new hire. Most firms want lateral attorneys that know the bulk of what they are doing. Either way, I am willing to bet more than 75% of college graduates have been through or are going through this today. It is already happening, and it will get worse if the government raises the federal minimum wage. The result will be drastic.  Taking away jobs from the younger generation and the not-so skilled workers will result in a massive caving in of what is left of the middle class.

(5) And finally, raising the federal minimum wage kills jobs. This reason is SO CRUCIAL that I stated it twice. The higher the federal minimum wage, the higher the unemployment rate. Increasing the federal minimum wage by almost double will increase the big businesses’ expenses by just as much. Increasing business expenses will result in decreasing the employees of the company.  If the government increases the federal minimum wage, the business will resort to finding ways to use less employees in order to maintain their budget. So, here is the information I believe to be true in the end:

Increase federal minimum wage –> Increase business expenses

Increase business expenses –> Decrease employees of company

Decrease employees of company –> Higher unemployment rate

What the US Government SHOULD Do instead of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage

The US Government SHOULD focus on job creation. The job market is ugly. Work on creating jobs and prepare to be amazed at what our country’s citizens can do with a paycheck.

***Sorry for this post being a day late… I was busy celebrating my NFC North Championship win with the Green Bay Packers (Go Pack Go)! Leave me a comment if you even make it to the end of this blog post. Thanks!