Typical dishonesty from a dishonest writer. Here’s Hiltzik: Here are the main points. See if you can guess which one has gotten the most headline play in the news. 1. Wages would rise for 16.5 million workers. 2. Income for families living below the poverty line would rise by a combined $5 billion, and by $12 billion for those earning less than three times the poverty level. 3. About 900,000 people would be moved out of poverty. 4. The raise would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers. Those are the main points? How about I quote, in its entirety, the summary at the head of the report: Increasing the minimum wage would have two principal effects on low-wage workers. Most of them would receive higher pay that would increase their family’s income, and some of those families would see their income rise above the federal poverty threshold. But some jobs for low-wage workers would probably be eliminated, the income of most workers who became jobless would fall substantially, and the share of low-wage workers who were employed would probably fall slightly. The way Hiltzik explains it, there is only one “main point” that is negative — yet the full summary I just quoted notes not only that half a million people would likely be out of work, but that (duh) their incomes would “fall substantially” and that the general effect on employment for low-wage workers would be bad. The report also notes near the top: Moreover, the increased earnings for some workers would be accompanied by reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, for business owners, and for consumers facing higher prices. Funny, I don’t see higher prices for consumers among Hiltzik’s “main points.” Nor do I see lower income for business owners among Hiltzik’ “main points.” And while Hiltzik is happy to tell us about the $5 billion increase in income for those in so-called “poverty” and the $12 billion increase in income for some relatively less well-off people, the report actually lists three different effects on income in one place, and four in another. Hiltzik gives us the two rosiest income effects, but fails to mention this one: Real income would decrease, on net, by $17 billion for families whose income would otherwise have been six times the poverty threshold or more, lowering their average family income by 0.4 percent. Funny how increases in income for some are among the reports “main points” — but decreases in income for others are . . . not. After a while, it starts to look like Hiltzik’s “main points” have been cherry picked by a reporter with a history of dishonesty and sneakiness, who wants to sell readers his partisan and slanted view of the report’s findings. Shockingly . Thanks to Dana.
Brotherhood official Twitter account (Arabic of course): 3 Zionists were killed in the Taba tourist bus explosion. pic.twitter.com/rguXFEXfZo — The Big Pharaoh (@TheBigPharaoh) February 16, 2014 Don’t worry, the MB is still a “moderate” Islamist party. (CNN) – At least four people died and 14 were wounded Sunday by an explosion on a tourist bus in […]
[guest post by JD] What are some of your favorite Sochi highlights? Lowlights? In no particular order: Highlights TJ Oshie game winner Short track speed skating US ski slopestyle sweep Watching the X-country skiers all laid out on the ground after their races. Lowlights Ice skating Ice skating announcers US speed skating Shawn White People dissing Bode —JD
See more here:
Olympic Open Thread
Fox News sure knows how to bury the lede . This passage is nine paragraphs into the article — a seemingly offhand comment in a story titled “Republicans renew ObamaCare battle after latest mandate delay”: Some lawmakers, though, have claimed that the mere threat of the employer mandate is causing companies to shed full-time workers in the hope of keeping their staff size below 50 and avoiding the requirement. Administration officials dispute that this is happening on any large scale. Further, Treasury officials said Monday that businesses will be told to “certify” that they are not shedding full-time workers simply to avoid the mandate. Officials said employers will be told to sign a “self-attestation” on their tax forms affirming this, under penalty of perjury. Attest that you didn’t do something you have a right to do — and if you’re lying you go to jail. How about that ? Let’s be very clear about this. I feel confident in saying that there is no law in existence that prevents employers from laying off (or reducing the hours of) workers in order to avoid a burdensome federal regulation . I feel confident in saying this because if such an incredible intrusion into the management of small business were ever proposed, I think we would have heard about it. If I am wrong, and there is some small poisonous overlooked provision in ObamaCare or another law that imposes such a requirement, then this is an even bigger story than the one we’re currently looking at. I sincerely doubt it. So take it as a given: the Obama administration says they will require employers to certify, under penalty of perjury, that they have not taken an action that they have every legal right to take. . This is a breathtaking abuse of power that deserves to be screamed from the rooftops of every home in the land. It should be a banner headline in every newspaper, not just a muttered afterthought in a mundane story about politics. This bogus certification has at least two pernicious effects. First, it will cause some employers to believe that this is the law, even though it isn’t. Raise your hand if you can say that you have read every word of every law that pertains to employer responsibilities in this country. You guys with your hands up are all lying. Put those hands down and shut up and listen to me. If employers are forced to attest that they didn’t do something, many if not most will assume it was illegal to do what they did. A QUICK ASIDE: This reminds me of the stunt that our wonderful Caliornia State Bar pulls on their membership fee forms. On the bill, which must be paid by every lawyer, they include in the printed total about $15 of contributions, which (you learn if you read the fine print) are actually voluntary and can be subtracted from the total. You can (and I always do) subtract those amounts from your total. But if you are not paying close attention, you may just write a check for the total amount on this bill, which after all, is mandatory for members of the bar. The only reason to structure the bill this way is to trick some lawyers into thinking that the contributions are mandatory when they aren’t. It’s nothing less than a fraud on State Bar members, perpetrated by the people entrusted to ensure that lawyers don’t defraud people. But these people have regulatory authority over me, so I had best not complain too loud, huh? Forget I said anything. BACK TO THE POINT: Some people, of course, will not be fooled. Those people know that they have absolutely no obligation not to fire workers to avoid the mandate. But they are being asked to attest that they didn’t. What are the consequences of failing to sign this attestation? The story does not say, and legally, I can’t imagine there could be any. I have no doubt that some employers will refuse to sign the attestation, some will challenge it in court, and several years and thousands of dollars of legal bills later, they will win. But in the meantime, what consequences will there be for failing to sign the illegal attestation? I don’t know, but I know this: THOSE TAX RETURNS ARE GOING TO BE PUT IN A DIFFERENT PILE. Beyond that, I don’t know what will happen. The people who refuse to attest to something they have no obligation to attest to may not be arrested. They may not pay fines. They may not be audited at a higher rate. (Raise your hand if you believe that. I see no hands.) But we know that their return will go in a different pile . Because, why else ask the question? I guess this may be the first in a glorious parade of new attestations we will all have to sign. Just imagine the possibilities. “I certify under penalty of perjury that I am paying each woman in my company the same salary that I pay the men.” “I certify under penalty of perjury that I am spending my company’s profits on hiring as many additional workers as possible.” “I certify under penalty of perjury that I am paying my workers the highest possible wage I can afford.” I think I will start a new shtick on this blog, where I refer to Obama having people certify things on their tax forms that he just kind of feels like having them attest to. When I do that, I will include a link to this post. The gimmick is designed to raise awareness of this outrage in some small way. Because nine paragraphs into a boring political story from one news outlet does not cut it. UPDATE: Commenter DF specifies the consequences for failing to sign the illegal attestation: employers can’t take advantage of the illegal delay of the mandate. Sign this thing we can’t legally ask you to sign, or we will not give you the break we have no right to give, but that we will give anyway to people who do sign. Great.
The NAACP is holding a march in North Carolina today to protest voter ID laws among other liberal causes. In the NAACP’s typical hypocritical style, they told the people attending to bring a photo ID. Via Strategic Red Group HT: Liberty Unyielding