Tag Archives: Affordable Care Act


How the Community Reinvestment Act oppressed blacks and other people of color

On September 2, I authored an article entitled “My Thoughts on Colin Kaepernick.” My thoughts when I initially learned about Kaepernick’s actions were, how is the United States currently oppressing black people or all people of color, for that matter? Affirmative action programs are still in place which allow blacks to get “bumped up” ahead of whites with respect to employment, promotions, college acceptance, etc. Along that line, Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act paved the way for many people to qualify for loans to purchase homes when those same people were not capable of making the house payments. A lot of those folks were black. Furthermore, being able to collect welfare for having a child out of wedlock, a part of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, was directed toward blacks in order to keep them voting Democrat.

According to discoverthenetworks.org, in his book, Back to Work, former president Bill Clinton attributed the housing market crisis of 2008 to the greed of banks that were over-leveraged, with too many risky investments, especially in subprime mortgages and securities and derivatives that were spun out of them. Clinton opined that the crash occurred because there was too little government oversight of, and virtually no restraint on, risky loans without sufficient capital to back them up. President Obama attributed the crisis to the failed policies of the days when Wall Street, unencumbered by government regulators, played by its own rules.

Discoverthenetworks.org further indicated that the earliest roots of these government policies can be traced back to the mid-1970s when progressive Democrats in Congress began a campaign to help low income minorities improve their economic condition through homeownership. At that time, the homeownership rates of blacks and Hispanics alike were just above 40%, while the white rate hovered nearly 70%. Because the Congressional Democrats felt that these inequities were evidence of America’s persisting racial injustice, many Democrats pushed for measures to rectify the situation.

Henry Reuss, a far-left McGovern Democrat sponsored the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977. Title VIII of this bill, known as the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), required each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to assess each bank’s record of helping to meet the credit needs of its entire community, including low and moderate income neighborhoods. In other words, this was a mandate for banks to make special efforts to seek out and lend to minority borrowers of meager to modest means. The bill passed with near unanimous Democrat support and was signed into law by President Carter in 1977.

The law was founded upon a principle with far reaching implications that government intervention was necessary to counteract the racist and inequitable nature of American society, including the free market. In the early 1990s, implications of this premise began to “hit the fan” when studies showing disparate mortgage loan approval rates for blacks and whites resulted in sensational media headlines. In 1992, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston released the results of a seminal study which found that whites and blacks with equivalent incomes had been denied mortgages at the rates of 17% and 38% respectively.

As a result of the study, then Attorney General Janet Reno warned that no bank would be immune to an aggressive Justice Department campaign to punish discrimination in lending practices. Also, Comptroller of the Currency, Eugene Ludwig told the Senate Banking Committee, “We have to use every means at our disposal to end discrimination and to end it as quickly as possible.”

Media institutions including not only the liberal Boston Globe, but Business Week jumped on the bandwagon with Business Week sporting a headline that read, “There’s no Whites Only Sign, but…”

A second study that was done for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston showed that black loan applicants not only had greater debt burdens and poorer credit histories than their white counterparts, but also tended to seek loans covering a higher percentage of proper values in question. The later study determined that after correcting for these and other standard credit criteria such as income, net worth, age, education, and probability of employment, the loan rejection gap between racial groups dwindled to 11% for whites and 17% for blacks. By manipulating the numbers, The Boston Federal Reserve Bank report chose to imply that racism played a role in the disparity. For additional statistics, visit DiscoverTheNetworks.org.

The Federal Reserve Board in Washington later re-examined the original Boston Fed Study and found its conclusions difficult to justify. Similarly, Nobel Prize winning economist, Gary Becker, found that the first Boston Fed study had some serious methodological flaws, making its results dubious. Furthermore, in 1988, it was reported that the data used by that study contained literally hundreds of errors via such variables as the net worth of the applicants and the interest rates of the loans they sought. When those data errors were corrected, evidence suggesting that lenders had discriminated against minority borrowers disappeared.

As we all know, Democrats don’t use facts when determining their plans of action, they float on emotions while considering how they, the governing powers, can further intrude into our lives and make us more dependent on big government. Thus, the Clinton administration was determined to transform the CRA from an outreach effort into a strict quota system. Under this new arrangement, if a bank failed to meet its quota for loans to low income minorities, it ran a high risk of failing to earn a satisfactory CRA rating from the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). Because this could derail bank operations and expansion, the banks had no recourse other than to drastically lower their standards on down payments and underwriting in order to approve many loans even to borrowers with weak credit credentials.

Additional pressure was applied to banks by community organizations such as ACORN and the Greenlining Institute. By accusing banks, however frivolously or unjustly, of having engaged in racially discriminatory lending practices that violated the mandates of the CRA, these groups could stall or prevent banks from expanding or merging as they wished. Moreover, these groups routinely threatened to file lawsuits or negative publicity campaigns against such banks.

As a result of such pressures, CRA commitments, which from 1977 to 1991 had cumulatively totaled just under $9 billion, suddenly jumped to $34 billion in 2991 alone. Then over the next 16 years, those commitments would amount to $6 trillion.

However, the CRA was not the only mechanism designed by government to impose lending quotas on financial institutions. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the leadership of Henry Cisneros, developed rules encouraging lenders to increase their approval rates for loans to minority applicants by a hefty 20% within one year. In 1993, HUD began filing legal actions against mortgage bankers who had turned down a higher percentage of minority applicants than white applicants, regardless of their reasons for doing so. This caused lenders to lower their down payment and income requirements for minorities. Moreover, HUD pressured the government sponsored institutions, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two largest sources of housing finance in the United States, to earmark a rising number of their own loans for low-income borrowers.

No one supported these reckless lending practices more fervently than Democratic Congressman, Barney Frank, a member of the powerful House Committee on Financial Services. Subsequently in 2004, Frank said that the federal government had probably done too little rather than too much to push Fannie and Freddie to meet the goals of affordable housing.  Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, called Freddie and Fannie, of the greatest success stories of all time.

It should be noted, though, that some Republicans were also in favor of lower mortgage approval standards. In 2002, the Bush administration pressed Congress to pass the American Dream Down Payment Initiative to subsidize the down payments and closing costs of low income and first time home buyers. After ADDI was enacted, President Bush also pushed Congress to pass legislation permitting the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to make zero down payment loans at low interest rates to low income individuals.

These political pressures entirely restructured the landscape of the mortgage lending business. Subprime loans, which had constituted just 7% of all mortgages in 2001, accounted for 19% of mortgages by 2006. The situation was exacerbated further by the fact that many banks securitized the risky loans.

The result of these ill-conceived lending practices was a full-blown financial crisis characterized by countless home foreclosures and skyrocketing employment rates. The primary victims of these calamities were non-white minorities of modest means, the very people who were the intended beneficiaries of the CRA, the ADDI, and the aforementioned HUD and FHA policies. As of November 2011, approximately one quarter of all black and Hispanic borrowers had either already lost their homes to foreclosure or were seriously delinquent, compared to just under 12% of white borrowers. These disparities in foreclosure rates were, for the most part, due to African Americans and Hispanics having comparatively poor credit ratings and being disproportionately represented among those who had fallen into the financial trap of the high-priced subprime mortgages encouraged by the CRA and similar government policies.

Is stated by discoverthenetworks.org that the housing market crisis cast a black cloud over what had been one of America’s greatest success stories, the rise of the black middle class. Between 1949 and 1994, the proportion of African Americans in the middle class had nearly quadrupled, from 12% to 44%, an unprecedented advance for any formerly oppressed group in any society on record.

In addition to foreclosures, other indignities suffered by non-white minorities included the loss of jobs and the rising unemployment rates. And if these blows to the black community were not enough, left-wing Democrats, for reasons of promoting economic justice, tried to resurrect the CRA in 2009. In that year, 53 Congressional Democrats sponsored the Community Reinvestment Modernization Act in order to close the wealth gap in the United States by increasing home ownership and small business ownership for low and moderate income borrowers and persons of color. Specifically, the legislation sought to extend the CRA’s strict lending requirements to credit unions, insurance companies and mortgage lenders and to make its mandates more explicitly race-based by applying lower lending standards not only to low and moderate income borrowers, but to any non-white minorities, regardless of income.

Every American, man, woman, and child, was hurt by the Community Reinvestment Act and other  liberal/progressive policies that were put in place over the years since the late seventies, with minorities and people of color being hit the hardest.

While very few people “on the street” can intelligently discuss the Community Reinvestment Act, implemented by the far left and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, this law, to date, as wreaked more suffering on the American people than any other piece of passed legislation and it took it took nearly a generation after its enactment for the full effects to be realized.

I have often said that the Affordable Care Act AKA Obamacare is the most insidious piece of legislation that has ever been wrought on the American people and I sticking to my statement. It took thirty years for the American people to realize the full results of the Community Reinvestment Act. What is in store for the American people thirty years from now?

Note: The facts and substances of this article originated from the website, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org.





According to the Democrat party, the current president accomplished a lot in 2014:

  • Millions more people gained health insurance coverage.
  • Executive actions on immigration.
  • Landmark climate change initiatives.
  • More jobs created so far in 2014 than any year under George W. Bush.

While millions more people may have purchased insurance in the market place, premiums are due on January 1, 2015. I will be anxious to see how many people actually pay their first month’s premium. We’ll know a little more as we get into January. And while millions of people may have purchased insurance, many of us who already had insurance, but were forced into the market place to purchase insurance saw their premiums skyrocket, along with their deductibles and co-pays. Maybe the Democrats who can’t seem to see past their noses and don’t care about facts and statistics think this is a good thing, but for the American people overall, this is a bad thing.

So, the current president used his pen to sign an executive order granting illegal amnesty to millions. Executive orders by a president, any president make me nervous and I would rather presidents not use them. Furthermore, most presidents in the past have signed executive orders and kept their mouths shut about them, not wanting to advertise. However, this president touts his executive orders and has threated to do what the hell he wants if Congress won’t authorize what he wants. That sounds like a dictator to me. Of course, there are many Obama zombies out there that think he cares so much about them and the United States of America. They think everything he does is wonderful and they trust him to care for all of us and do the right things. Well, let me tell you something, this country was not set up to be a dictatorship. If you like dictatorships, please move to one of the many places on the planet where the government is a dictatorship.

According to whitehouse.gov, the current president launched a Climate Action Plan to cut carbon pollution, prepare communities for the impacts of climate change, and lead international efforts to address the global challenge.  Delivering on a commitment in the President’s Climate Action Plan, the Obama Administration launched the Climate Data Initiative on March 19, 2014, a broad effort to leverage the Federal Government’s extensive, freely-available climate relevant data resources to stimulate innovation and private-sector entrepreneurship in support of national climate-change preparedness. So, this president is spending time on a problem that a lot of us think doesn’t exist. Even though there is credible evidence to refute man-made climate change, the current administration still forces it down our throats, stating that it is a fact and refuses to discuss it any further. Again, THIS IS TOLERANCE! Sorry, but I’m just not impressed.

According to washingtontimes.com, nearly six years after the current president’s election, America is as bad off as it was on that day. Even though the unemployment rate has dropped from 6.8 to 6.1 percent, the number of Americans actually working has plunged since the current president was elected. Then, about 66 percent of Americans were employed. Now it is 62.8 percent, the lowest since January 1978.  Slashing the workforce participation rate means dropping millions of unemployed people from the pool of workers. Once eliminated, the unemployment rate calculated by the federal government is lowered. Can you say, “Cooking the books?”

With millions unemployed, millions more underemployed (Gallup puts that number at 15.3 percent), millions forced to work just part time so employers can avoid the burdensome Affordable Care Act, and millions of 18 to 30 year olds moving back in with the parents, the president still insists that the economy is great.

At a recent Congressional Black Caucus awards dinner, the president indicated that 10 million new jobs have been created over the last 54 months. He called it the longest uninterrupted stretch of job growth in this nation’s history.  However, the current president took office in January 2009, so he’s into his 70th month as president. Why does he only talk about the last 54 months? The answer is that the economy lost nearly 5 million jobs in his first 15 months in office. Once again, he’s cooking the books.

When Ronald Reagan was president, some 16 million jobs were created. During the Internet boom and housing bubble days when Bill Clinton was president, more than 22 million jobs were created. So, for the current president, the number is 5.1 million. Furthermore, the job report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics published in September showed just 142,000 jobs having been created, down from an average monthly increase of 298,000. Meanwhile, more than 500,000 fulltime jobs were lost as some 800,000 part time jobs were created. Also, the Federal Reserve Bank in Philadelphia said that about 18 percent of employers cut full-time workers because of the Affordable Care Act. So, while the number of uninsured may be down, the cost to the U.S. economy has just begun.

I know the stock market is up and the price of gas is down. But my health insurance premiums have gone up 50% because of ACA. My portfolio should be a little fatter and I’m not paying as much for gasoline. So, the extra in my portfolio will probably be offset by the increased cost of my health insurance.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, when the price of gas falls and we have a Democrat president, falling gas prices are due to the wonderful Democrat president and his policies. If the price goes up on a Democrat’s watch, the president doesn’t have anything to do with the price of gas. On the other side of the coin, if a Republican is in office and the price of gas falls, the president doesn’t have anything to do with the price of gas. Lastly, if a Republican is in office and the price of gas increases, it is due to the Republican president and his policies.



There’s so much going on in the political world at this point in history. There are so many things to write about and I could easily spend all of my time writing political blog posts, but I do have other priorities with respect to the next couple of weeks of my life. Since I write about what I want to write about, I’ve chosen to write about the latest developments in Obamacare.

According to the website, hotair.com, Obamacare architect, Jonathan Gruber, who has forcefully insisted that the basis of the upcoming Supreme Court case, King vs. Burwell, was based only on a typo in the Affordable Care Act, was captured on camera insisting that the language in the ACA denying federal subsidies to states that do not elect to set up their own exchanges was by design.

Also according to Hot Air, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor later admitted that the law (Obamacare) was designed in a deceptive manner in order to promote the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to score it in a manner conducive to passage. Gruber went on to say that the bill was written in a tortured way to make sure that the CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If the CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill would die. Gruber went on to add that lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and can be quoted as saying, “Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass.

Of course, we’re now hearing that Gruber’s comments were at an academic conference where he claimed to be “speaking off the cuff.” He further said that he spoke inappropriately when he took credit for pulling the wool over the eyes of the American people in order to insure the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

So, Gruber is trying to do some damage control. Big Woo! When the American people were told if they liked their health insurance plan that they could keep their insurance plan, they were lied to. When the American people were told that if they liked their doctors, they could keep their doctors, they were lied to. When the American people were told that insurance premiums for the average family would go down approximately $2,500, they were lied to.

Obamacare was supposed to be great. All those pool souls who were never able to afford health insurance would now have access to quality healthcare. When ACA was signed into law, some bleeding heart liberals wept for joy. It was truly an emotional moment and a big turning point in our nation’s history. The uninsured would have insurance/access to healthcare, the American people would see their premiums drop, the deficit would be lowered, jobs would be created, and the economy would once again boom.

YEA RIGHT! A half decade later, many of us, including me are scared to death regarding the future of their healthcare. My investment portfolio has surely gone up with the rise in the stock market, but how much will my insurance premiums go up when I go off of my COBRA plan at the end of this year. Will it take the increase in my net worth just to provide myself with health insurance? I don’t know and I’m scared. And I’m sure that I’m not the only one. I’ve worked hard and I don’t feel that I should have to worry about health care. I don’t deserve any of this stress and neither do millions of Americans.

ACA was sold to us by a bunch of snake oil salesmen, also known as Democrats. We were told that this will make the quality of our lives better. This was implemented as a tool to enhance the lives of the American people. Of course, it’s none of the above.

The government is supposed to work for the American people, and as it says in the preamble of the United States constitution, promote the general welfare. The pieces legislation passed by Congress and signed into laws are supposed to make the lives of the majority of the American people better, aren’t they?

The fact that the implementers of ACA knew that they couldn’t get it passed except through secrecy, through lies, and through taking advantage of every legislative trick in the book should speak volumes to everyone that this law is poison, evil, and does not promote the general welfare of American citizens. But why would our elected officials who are supposed to be looking out for our best interests do something that’s going to hurt everyone and weaken the country as a whole? They’re supposed to be working for us, aren’t they?

The sole purpose of this law was not to enhance the lives of Americans, much less provide much needed access to healthcare for those uninsured; instead, its purpose is to further expand the federal government and increase the dependency of Americans on the federal government. With ACA, the federal government has snatched up one-sixth of the nation’s economy and nationalized it. It was never intended to enhance our lives or to provide for those poor souls who don’t have access to health care; it is about further government intrusion into our lives and taking control of as many aspects of our lives as possible.

Just like the rogue regimes of Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, China, Iran, and more; the government has intentionally harmed its citizens with the ACA and knows exactly what it’s doing. The United States of America has its own Axis of Evil, make no mistake about it. America’s Axis of Evil includes Barak Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi. There; I’ve said it. It’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

Nancy Pelosi’s power has been greatly diminished and Harry Reid’s power will soon go the way of Ms. Pelosi’s. We will have Barak Obama, though. As a result, the next two years are going to be very important ones and will surely determine whether we can reverse the trends of the past six years and take our country back or whether the United States of America, land of the free and home of the brave, be only a fading memory.



In part one of my series on the current president’s executive order that will direct the Labor Department to require overtime pay for millions of Americans classified as executive or professional employees; I stated my opinion that this order/stroke of the pen was an abomination that could be just as insidious for the American people as the Affordable Care Act. I said that this executive order would cost jobs by resulting in layoffs and a reluctance by private companies to hire additional people. Also, companies in incurring these extra costs can and will pass the prices of their goods and services onto the consumer. The probable stifling of energetic twenty-something professionals, who are just starting out, if they’re forced to only work the standard forty hours per week was another reason I cited for this order being insidious. The other and most important reason that I cited was that THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T BE INVOLVED IN THIS AT ALL!

The threshold for the paying of overtime to salaried professionals has not yet been determined, but my research shows that those who could potentially receive fatter paychecks are the entry level/junior professionals and certain administrative employees such as office managers and executive assistants. Companies don’t like to pay overtime, and most aren’t going to pay it unless a situation that upper management deems appropriate to permit the authorization of overtime arises. There are many reasons for this and the discussion of these reasons is outside the scope of this article.

Twenty-something professionals usually have tons of energy. At this young age, many do not have the responsibility of a family and a home plus their parents have not yet reached the age where they require extra care from their children. A twenty-something can work a twelve hour day, eat pizza and burgers without gaining weight or staying up all night with acid reflux, and wake up after five hours of sleep ready to do it all again. Furthermore, the twenty-something professional generally has a great attitude, wants to work hard, wants to learn, and wants to advance in his or her respective field.  This is a time when employers can really benefit from the younger junior level professionals AND the twenty-something junior level professionals can benefit from their employers.

As I said above, companies are going to do their dead-level best to minimize the amount of overtime that is paid, and it’s highly likely that the junior professional will be limited to the standard forty hour work week. Thus, the company will be unable to take advantage of smart, energetic individuals, and the twenty-something may be unable to distinguish himself or herself from the pack, and will probably not have as great an opportunity to learn. It’s a lose-lose situation here.

Companies will probably have junior professionals on board, but will only work them forty hours a week to keep costs down. So, who takes up the slack that you could once put on the junior professionals. Well, let those higher paid older professionals take up the slack, the ones that have already worked their way up the ladder and put in their time. While the older and better paid professionals still work the long hours, their jobs are higher level and they are expected to do the more difficult tasks. With the lower level professionals not able to work as much, more and more work is put on the backs of the older and better paid professionals; those professionals who are likely to have families and mortgages. Also, their parents may be entering the phase of life where help from children is needed. As one gets into their late thirties, forties, and fifties, energy levels go down. Metabolism slows and eating that burger and fries at 11:00 pm and going straight to bed is likely to result in weight gain and a night of being awake several hours with acid reflux. The next day at work is probably not going to be as productive. Health problems also may develop at this stage of life. The more you put on that $90,000 a year forty-something professional that has a mortgage, teenagers, aging parents, and high blood pressure; there’s a greater likelihood that things aren’t going to end well for the forty-something nor for the company.

If I’m having this discussion with a liberal, the liberal’s going cite individual situations, get emotional, and scream a bunch of what ifs. To the liberal I say, “Corporate America is not a perfect place because there are no perfect places and there’s no solution or groups of solutions that are going to fix all ills everywhere.  

Because I was burned out and tired of having to exist under the thumb of one or more SOBs, I dropped out of corporate America and now I’m working at starting my own multi-faceted business. So there you have my thoughts.

Be that as it may, corporate America does work for the majority of the folks employed there, and it did work for me for many years. If you feel that you are overworked and underpaid, discriminated against in some manner, or taken advantage of; just look for another job. You can’t expect the government to maximize things for you, only you can do that.

With his executive order to extend overtime, this president is doing the same thing to corporate America that he and his comrades have done to the health care industry, an industry that worked for 85% of the American people. In destroying health care, he made things worse for 85% of us Americans just so the other 15% of Americans could have health insurance. The latest statistics show that only 10% of those uninsured have actually signed up for Obama Care, and 23% of those uninsured don’t even know that the ACA exists. The president is now, with this executive order, destroying corporate America that works for billions of people just so a few might have the opportunity to receive the occasional fatter paycheck. Can you say, “Transform the United States of America as we know it?”



On Thursday, March 13, the current president of the United States signed an executive order that will direct the Department of Labor to require overtime pay for millions of Americans classified as executive or professional employees. This is according to the New York Times. Occupations classified as executive or professional would include software engineers, loan officers, claims adjusters, and many, many more job titles. These are jobs where the employees are paid a salary to do a specific job, not work a set number of hours. In other words, salaried professionals do what they have to do to get the job done within the specified time frame. If it takes more than the standard forty hour work week to get your work done, you are to put in whatever is required.

For example, if you are a software engineer and a production issue takes place late in the afternoon with a system for which you or your team is responsible, you stay until that issue gets resolved. It doesn’t matter that you usually leave the office around 5:00 and the issue arose at 4:45. It doesn’t matter what plans you may have had for the evening…your first wedding anniversary, your child’s first birthday. On the other hand, the software engineer position is one that is respected and usually pays well. As a result, when you’re talking to that VP and he or she tells you that the position for which you are interviewing might occasionally require you to work late with little or no notice, most job applicants are willing to accept that. Of course, no overtime is awarded.

In order to further his utopic dream of income equality, the current president wants to change that so the folks in those salaried jobs can get overtime pay. Currently, salaried workers must be paid overtime if they earn less than $455 per week. Based on a 52 week year, this amounts to a yearly salary of $23, 660. According to Fox News, the threshold of $455 could be raised to as much as $950 per week which would amount to an annual salary of $49, 400.

The people that are going to fall into the scope of the president’s executive order will include entry level professionals, perhaps those  just out of college and in their twenties. Also included will be millions of those who work for banks, insurance companies, private utilities, large accounting and law firms, large manufacturing firms, etc.

The amount of money that will have to be paid out by businesses, if this order is implemented in a way that is the president’s intent, is staggering, just staggering. Is this a way to eliminate large profit margins for large companies? Of course! Is this going to punish those evil entities for making too much money and not paying their employees enough, or what the current president and his comrades think is not enough? Of course! Is this going to serve to enhance this country’s middle class and make those individuals more prosperous? According to the president and his buddies on the far left it will.

But wait, what’s really going to happen? What generally does happen when the government imposes stiff regulations on businesses? Everyone lives happily ever after? Not exactly!

Your standard republican/conservative argument against this is that it will cost jobs and of course, it will. Another argument is that the extra costs that the companies have to pay will be passed onto the consumers of their goods and services. Again, of course it will. Also, it was brought out in one of the debates on Fox News that this order could very well stifle the twenty-something energetic professional who wants to work hard and get ahead by just allowing him or her to work only the standard forty hours.

 I’m now awaiting a Nancy Pelosi-Esque argument to surface telling folks that they can use the time not spent at work to relax, pursue hobbies, spend more time with their families, etc.

Having spent all but about six months of my entire career in the private sector, I’ve observed the actions of corporate America when government imposes higher taxes and stiff regulations. When government imposes something, corporate America strikes back. Sometimes it’s very subtle such as raising the rate for dependents on an employee’s health insurance or lowering the percentage points of raises one quarter of a point. Sometimes the effect is more drastic resulting in layoffs and increases in the price of the employer’s goods and services.

In addition to the above, the best argument for fighting such an executive order is pure and simple. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T BE INVOLVED IN THIS AT ALL! Unfortunately, as a people in the United States of America, we have become so desensitized to government involvement and overreach that we seem to think nothing of it.

In closing, I’m saying that this is a very, very bad thing. In fact, it has the potential to be every bit as insidious as the Affordable Care Act. Of course, it’s not getting and won’t be getting as much attention as the ACA. In the next few days, I plan to write two additional articles outlining the ramifications of this atrocity that the current president of the United States has wrought upon the American people.