Brandon Looks To Give “Dreamers” Medicaid And Obamacare

By William Teach April 14, 2023 – 10:30 am

Even though they are here illegally, what is known as “unlawfully present”, because they are “documented” via an un-Constitutional means Biden and the DHS thinks they have the authority to use taxpayer funds to give them even more perks of being in the country illegally

Biden moves to expand Obamacare and Medicaid for Dreamers

illegal alien DemocratWhile the fate of the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Act is currently in limbo, the Biden administration announced Thursday that it would expand health care coverage for DACA recipients — commonly known as Dreamers — by allowing them to enroll in a health care plan through Obamacare or Medicaid.

“Health care should be a right, not a privilege,” President Joe Biden said in his announcement. “My administration has worked hard to expand health care. And today, more Americans have health insurance than ever. Today’s announcement is about giving DACA recipients the same opportunity.”

DACA, which was put into place by then-President Barack Obama in 2012, shields undocumented individuals who were brought into the country as children from deportation and allows them to obtain work authorization. Recipients are currently barred from accessing the health care marketplace, as they do not qualify for most federal benefits.

The only ones he’s worked to expand it too are illegals. They do not have the right to the fruits of someone else’s labor.

Roughly 34% of Dreamers currently lack health care coverage, according to the National Immigration Law Center.

Through Biden’s proposal, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would propose a rule that amends its definition of “lawful presence” to allow DACA recipients to qualify. Those who qualify may also be eligible for financial assistance based on income and their state Medicaid agency, and all eligibility information will be verified electronically, according to a White House fact sheet.

They’re welcome to get it through their jobs or some other method, rather than have the legal residents of the U.S. pay for it.

(Breitbart) While DACA, created by former President Obama through executive action, has helped shield close to a million illegal aliens from deportation through the years, the Migration Policy Institute states that about 600,000 are currently enrolled in the program.

Previously, Center for Immigration Studies researchers estimated that the cost of opening Obamacare and Medicaid rolls to illegal aliens would cost American taxpayers about $4,600 per illegal alien.

At this rate, Biden’s Obamacare and Medicaid for DACA illegal aliens has the potential to cost American taxpayers roughly $2.8 billion every year.

This surely won’t entice more illegals to cross the border, especially those who are going to use their children as a means to stay, right? I wonder how many parents of the “Dreamers” will then end up on Medicaid and Ocare?

Read: Brandon Looks To Give “Dreamers” Medicaid And Obamacare »

Posted in Democrats, Healthcare, Illegal Immigration, Joe Biden | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post Totally Knows What’s The Biggest Impediment To Everyone Driving An EV

By William Teach April 14, 2023 – 7:15 am

See, it’s not the exorbitant cost

Here’s the biggest hurdle facing America’s EV revolution

The Biden administration just unveiled some of the most aggressive auto climate rules in the world – the latest step for an administration that has gone all-in on EVs. But America’s EV transition could soon stumble: not because of high car costs or a lack of automaker support, but thanks to the country’s broken and dysfunctional public charging system.

How can it be broken and dysfunctional when it really hasn’t been built out yet?

Most electric vehicle drivers charge their vehicles at home. But as Americans buy EVs – to the tune of 7 percent of all new vehicle registrations in January – more and more people are finding that the public charging system is unreliable, inconvenient and simply confusing.

Surprise? These things take time. And someone has to pay for them. Seriously, with so many living in apartments and homes with no garages, there would need to be a lot more. Oh, look, there are gas stations everywhere.

The Working Class Isn’t Down with the Green Transition

Nothing defines the Democratic economic strategy more than a single-minded focus on fighting climate change—an “existential crisis” as Biden, other top Democrats and a galaxy of Democratic-leaning pundits have termed it. In practice this has meant restructuring the economy around “green” industries and a rapid transition to an energy system based around wind and solar. Democratic elites and activists are very, very committed to this approach and are willing to pay high costs to make it happen. In the end, they assert, not only will the existential crisis be averted, but everyone will be happy and prosperous. In the meantime—well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs!

But did anyone ask the working class whether they wanted to sign up in the climate change army? Public opinion data have repeatedly indicated that the climate change issue does not have high salience for these voters and they are not terribly interested in making sacrifices for the cause. Recent data underscore these voters’ lack of commitment.

  1. In a new Monmouth poll, just one percent of working-class (noncollege) voters in an open-ended question identify climate change as the biggest concern facing their family. On the other hand, half of working-class voters say actions of the federal government in the last six months have actually hurt their family’s main concern; only 9 percent say federal action has helped. And 55 percent of working-class voters believe that “middle-class families” have not been helped at all by Biden’s policies. Hmm…
  2. The Biden administration is putting on the full court press for electric vehicles. But the working class is not too interested. In a new Gallup poll, just 2 percent of working-class respondents say they currently own an electric vehicle and a mere 9 percent say they are “seriously considering” purchasing one.

There are several more points, here’s one I really want to note

Critically, in terms of costs Americans would be willing to absorb to fight climate change, the survey finds that just 38 percent of Americans would be willing to pay even $1 extra on their monthly household energy expenses to combat climate change. That’s the lowest figure since AP-NORC started asking this question in 2016. It’s down 14 points since 2021 and an amazing 19 points since its high point in 2018.

It dips to just 31% are willing to pay $10, and down and down as the cost goes up. The rest of the article makes clear that this will all bone the working class hard. There’s something else in that poll. While 8 in 10 cite the dearth of charging stations as a reason not to buy an EV

Across income levels, about 8 in 10 Americans cite the cost of new electric vehicles as a reason why they would not buy one.

Seven in 10 say they would not purchase one because they take too long to charge and the battery technology isn’t ready.

So, the Washington Post had one part correct, but, it is way more than that.

Read: Washington Post Totally Knows What’s The Biggest Impediment To Everyone Driving An EV »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Democrats, Global Warming | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Whitmer Signs Gun Bills That Would Not Have Stopped Shooter, Lawsuits Expected

By William Teach April 14, 2023 – 7:00 am

None of this will affect a citizen capable of passing a background check or a criminal

Whitmer signs gun control bills passed in response to deadly MSU shooting

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed the most far-reaching new laws aimed at curbing gun violence in decades in Michigan on Thursday, two months after a mass shooting on the campus of Michigan State University left three students dead and five severely injured.

This will do what, exactly?

(Breitbart) The MSU attacker used a handgun, so there was already a law on the books for that gun purchase. Moreover, NBC News noted he got his guns “legally,” which means he complied with gun control laws.

The gun storage law applies to people with minors in their home, but the MSU attacker was a 43-year-old man who lived with his 67-year-old father, both too old to trigger the requirements in the gun storage law.

There’s also a red flag law, which wouldn’t have stopped him

Local Attorney Reacts to New Gun Laws, Gun Store Owner Raises Concerns About Possible Impact on Business

Not everyone is pleased with the new gun laws as some people in Northern Michigan are raising concerns.

Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s signing of two new gun control laws, with a possible third on the way, has some people upset, and gun advocates threatening to sue.

“All of the second amendment support groups are going to sue on these things and [the laws are] not going to withstand constitutional scrutiny,” claims local attorney David Bieganowski.

Thursday, Governor Whitmer signed two new laws, one for universal background checks and the other requiring safe storage. Bieganowski says the safe storage law prevents gun owners from adequately defending themselves and says universal background checks are just not getting to the root of the problem.

However, he says the biggest concern is the proposed red flag laws.

“There’s not enough due process, you violate the second amendment,” Bieganowski points out. “It’s clearly unconstitutional I think they know that and they’re just going to pass it, run it up and let us sue them,”

And will violate the 4th Amendment, along with Michigan’s 10th (ex post facto), 11th

The person, houses, papers, possessions, electronic data, and electronic communications of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things or to access electronic data or electronic communications shall issue without describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to bar from evidence in any criminal proceeding any narcotic drug, firearm, bomb, explosive or any other dangerous weapon, seized by a peace officer outside the curtilage of any dwelling house in this state.

And 6th

Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

That’s pretty specific, is it not?

Read: Whitmer Signs Gun Bills That Would Not Have Stopped Shooter, Lawsuits Expected »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 13, 2023 – 7:20 pm

…is an Evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is No Tricks Zone, with a post noting that 50% of Germans will soon not be able to afford a vehicle.

My bad, forgot to set this for autopost before going to work.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

I Haz A 55 Sad

By William Teach April 13, 2023 – 6:30 pm

A little story. So, I have an ancient Tmobile plan, with an add on that gives unlimited data, including 5G, with no slowdowns. The add on was supposed to end in 2016. It didn’t. Last year I was looking to see if any of the newer plans made sense, since you could get Netflix free. They didn’t. I would have paid a lot more.

I happened to be looking again yesterday to see if anything change, do a comparison. With the Magenta Max you get Netflix basic free (you can pay a little more to get higher teers, I do not need), Apple TV, unlimited everything, the ability to stream up to 4K (my old plan would only give up to 720p), tons of international and flight perks and freebies and such, Scam Shield Premium for free (I do use the non-premium version now), and voicemail to text for free (that’s nice).

Now, that would be $85 a month with autodraft, taxes included. But, add $16 for the phone insurance. Not sure why I keep that, I have never broken a phone since my first in 1994, even when they were company owned and I did not care about them. But, here’s where the sad comes into play: they have a MagentaMax 55+ plan, which is just $65 a month (plus the $16), with autodraft. So, I’m paying just about the same for a lot more stuff.

Great deal, right? But, my first discount for being 55

Now I have to figure out who else has 55 discounts

Read: I Haz A 55 Sad »

Posted in Pirates Cove | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Biden Regime Claims Tougher Emission Rules Will Save Consumers $1.6 Trillion Or Something

By William Teach April 13, 2023 – 3:00 pm

Covering a mule fritters sandwich with barbecue sauce still makes it a mule fritters sandwich. If this is so great, why is Biden not cruising around in one? How about all the EPA employees?

Tougher emissions rules will save consumers $1.6 trillion, White House says

Electric vehicleThe Biden administration’s plan to tighten tailpipe pollution limits on cars and light trucks — and propel electric vehicle sales — would generate as much as $1.6 trillion in savings for consumers through 2055, a top White House climate official said Tuesday.

The proposal, which would establish standards for model years 2027 through 2032 was unveiled Wednesday. It would yield big consumer benefits, White House National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi said in an interview with Bloomberg News. That includes some $4,000 in savings during the initial years of auto ownership — doubling over the lifetime of the vehicle — and a newly compelled 80,000-mile, eight-year warranty for EVs.

The requirements will drive “astronomic benefits through public health” and “through fuel savings,” Zaidi said, amounting to at least $850 billion through 2055.

The proposed standards, the toughest in U.S. history, are designed to cap pollution allowed per mile, encouraging the sale of electric vehicles that do not produce tailpipe emissions. The limits on carbon dioxide, smog-forming nitrogen oxide and other pollutants are expected to pare respiratory ailments and premature deaths while combating climate change and unlocking consumer savings tied to maintenance.

So, they’re basically making the numbers up, and expecting consumers to keep the cars for 10+ years. The average right now is that people get a new car every four years, which factors in all the people leasing, which are rarely more than three years. Health benefits? Sure, because people won’t be able to afford the vehicles, unless they are taking out loans that are 7+ years. Yeah, I see some people get loans I didn’t expect them to get, much less at a decent rate. One was able to roll $8k in on a $20K vehicles. Another just got a $34K loan at 6.25Apr for 72 months, when she had only been approved for $21K 4 months ago. And others. But, those are outliers. They will not be the norm. Consider, an easy calculation is for every $5 financed that’s a $100 in payment on a 5 year loan at 6.97apr. That’s not that far off these days with the APRs so high.

The EVs will be priced high, because of the “tax savings”, and a lot of folks will simply not get approved based on credit, history, and income/debt.

They’re purely guessing at “health savings.” That is also not a direct saving. Less smog will be helpful, but, less CO2? Please. Cult.

And you know that the cost to charge them will go up up up.

As far as the 8 year warranty mandate, well, I’m not really finding any details on it, so, we’ll have to see what the actual details are, what it covers. But, again, that cost is passed on to the consumer.

Let me ask: if the savings are that great why are consumers not buying more EVs, and why is government coercion/mandates required? It makes no logical sense.

On a separate note, let me give you a story: had someone purchase a used 2022 Ford Maverick hybrid, only like 8K miles on it. We sold it for $33K. The Monroney label had the MSRP as just under $23K. It didn’t even have power mirrors. But, the Black Book data (you cannot see this on the web) had it at $35K. Why? Because they are in short supply, were selling well above sticker (when we bought it we paid above MSRP), and there’s a big demand for them used. That’s what you’ll see with EVs: selling above sticker and/or the manufacturers jacking the MSRPs up because of the “rebates”.

Read: Biden Regime Claims Tougher Emission Rules Will Save Consumers $1.6 Trillion Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming, Joe Biden | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

What A Shame: Anheuser-Busch Sees $6 Billion Loss After Trans Stunt

By William Teach April 13, 2023 – 10:30 am

There are consequences when a company does things that perturb your core consumers

Anheuser-Busch Loses More than $6 Billion in Market Value Following Transgender Dylan Mulvaney Bud Light Deal

unintended consequencesAnheuser-Busch has lost more than $6 billion in market value in the days following its promotional partnership with transgender social media celebrity Dylan Mulvaney, with its shares falling amid a nationwide backlash against Bud Light.

Shares of Anheuser-Busch Inbev have dropped nearly five percent after Dylan Mulvaney announced the Bud Light deal at the beginning of the month, wiping out $6.65 billion of the company’s market capitalization.

Dylan Mulvaney — who was born a male but now claims to be a woman — is the latest spokesperson for Bud Light, which has honored Mulvaney with a limited release can with his face on it. In recent social media videos, Mulvaney has promoted the brand by cavorting in a bubble bath and talking about March Madness.

The partnership has instigated a nationwide backlash against the beer brand, with sales taking a significant hit across several states.

As Breitbart News reported, bars across the country are seeing customers avoid the brand. In one Missouri bar, sales of Bud Light and other Anheuser-Busch beverages have reportedly dropped by roughly 40 percent. A bar in New York’s Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood — which has a high population of gays — reportedly saw Bud Light sales drop 70 percent.

Another report found Anheuser-Busch distributors across America’s heartland and the South are being “spooked” by public backlash to the Dylan Mulvaney campaign.

Some are reporting a $3 billion loss (Daily Mail says they dropped in value from $132 Billion to $129 Billion), others say $5 billion. Some even say $7 billion. Regardless, this is just the start, as some might say “meh, that’s a drop in the bucket.” What if consumers consider just opting out of AB products? In fairness, it hit a low of $44.94 last October 10th, when inflation was raging and there were issues with supplies. Now you just have consumers saying “no, thanks.”

Read: What A Shame: Anheuser-Busch Sees $6 Billion Loss After Trans Stunt »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 31 Comments | Trackback URL

US Solicitor General Wants Hotcoldwetdry Lawsuits In State, Not Federal Court

By William Teach April 13, 2023 – 7:00 am

Now, why would U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar want them there, especially when Los Federales keep trying to say that the federal government has the authority to impost climate crisis (scam) policies on the nation? Todd Rokita, the Attorney General of Indiana, and a Republican, has an idea

Why Did The U.S. Solicitor General Flip-Flop on Climate Change?

In a case called Suncor Energy Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar recently told the Supreme Court that climate-change cases should be heard not in federal courts, but in deep-blue, progressive state courts.

Calling this proposal politically opportunistic would be an understatement.

Sixteen states disagree, as we have made known through a brief filed by my office. Federal law should govern this and similar cases, according to legal precedent.

My office always stands for the rule of law and fights for it in the courtroom. This case is no different, as it represents a sharp departure from the Justice Department’s longstanding view that global climate change is a federal issue that belongs in federal court.

Well, of course Democrats want them in far-left courts and areas with lots of far left climate cultists, there’s a much better chance of winning, even if the law is not on their side. That way, policies will be enacted (do the peasant class Warmists realize they will harm their lives?) and allowed to stand for years as the cases go up the legal food chain, till they end up in federal court, and potentially the Supreme Court.

The jurisdictional issue may seem mundane, but the stakes are high.

At a time when energy costs already burden hardworking families, environmental activists insist on banning cost-efficient, safe energy production practices. Unable to push their environmental agenda through Congress, they have turned to a series of multi-billion-dollar lawsuits against energy companies in state courts across the country alleging that state and local governments suffer harm from climate change.

The central claims of these cases are that fossil fuel extraction imposes net harm on the world, leading to climate change, and that energy production and promotion are a “public nuisance” for which energy companies must pay.

Federal courts would undoubtedly reject these claims, which is why activists are fighting to keep their claims in front of their favorite state courts.

Yup. And I still maintain that the fossil fuels companies should refuse to sell their products to any entities that are suing them. Of course, perhaps they want to argue in court that, if fossil fuels are so Evil, then why is the government, or group, that’s suing them using fossil fuels themselves?

So, in 2022, when the Supreme Court asked the Office of the Solicitor General if lawsuits seeking damages for climate change implicate state or federal issues, and whether they should proceed in state or federal court, the answer should have been simple. But the solicitor general instead said these cases should proceed in state court.

This flip-flop lacks credible explanation.

Here, the solicitor general seems to be acting for special interests and attempting to fix President Joe Biden’s failure to achieve the climate change outcomes he promised.

Again, the point here is to win and implement, and hope that once implemented no court will kill it.

Read: US Solicitor General Wants Hotcoldwetdry Lawsuits In State, Not Federal Court »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: The US Foreign Policy Under Biden Is A Steaming Hot Mess

By William Teach April 13, 2023 – 6:45 am

The NY Times has run an interesting piece on just how bad foreign policy is, but, stops short of actually blaming Biden. Peter Baker almost made it, but, either pulled back or the editors forced him to pull back. Now, just imagine how it would go if Trump was president (Times piece here, I’m using a reprint which is not behind the paywall)

Biden faces an era when treaties are more likely to be broken than brokered

Biden Brain SuckerPresident Biden leaves today for Northern Ireland to mark the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, which ended decades of sectarian violence. But the commemoration also serves as an unspoken reminder that such diplomatic breakthroughs have become a thing of the past.

At a time of ferocious warfare in Europe and crackling tension elsewhere around the globe, the sort of bold, painstaking negotiation that brought peace to the Emerald Isle a quarter-century ago has largely disappeared from the scene. Bargaining tables sit empty these days. Shuttle diplomacy planes have been grounded. Treaties are more likely to be broken than brokered.

It would be too much to call it the death of diplomacy, but there certainly is a dearth of diplomacy for now. While Biden fervently believes in deal making, his efforts to revive the Iran nuclear accord have collapsed, and it is widely considered futile to even try to end the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict or negotiate with North Korea at this point. The Russians have suspended the New START treaty, the last major Russian-American arms control agreement, and there appears to be little prospect for diplomacy to halt the fighting in Ukraine in the near term.

As Michael Goodwin writes about the article

The real questions are ones that Baker never touches: Why is this happening on Biden’s watch? And don’t great leaders write history instead of being victims of it?

After all, Baker concedes that Donald Trump secured the historic Abraham Accords in the Mideast and a new and improved NAFTA trade deal, while failing to get a new trade deal with China.

That’s far more than Biden has done or even tried.

For all the caterwauling about Trump, he at least attempted diplomacy, be it with North Korea’s wackjob leader (yeah, I did think the way he went about it was dumb, but, hey, nothing else worked, right?) or Russia. Remember, no new wars under Trump. He worked to end them.

The answer is something else Baker can’t or won’t say: Biden is the weakest president America has had since Jimmy Carter and the world knows it.

That single fact explains why China, Russia and Iran are making common cause like never before.

They refuse to make deals with the US because they don’t see any reason to make concessions to what they view as a declining power.

If you keep up with the news, you see all the countries that are getting into bed with Russia and China, who are ignoring the U.S. (such as Saudi Arabia). Nations are starting to blow off the US dollar, and allowing the use of other currency, such as from India. French president Macron is blowing of Joe to deal with China.

Mostly what Joe has done is show his weakness, particularly with his Afghanistan debacle, leading to Russia invading Ukraine, and, rather than peace, it’s a slow grind towards WWIII.

Read: Surprise: The US Foreign Policy Under Biden Is A Steaming Hot Mess »

Posted in Joe Biden | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

EPA’s New MPG Rules Will Push People In EVs They Cannot Afford

By William Teach April 12, 2023 – 3:00 pm

The new EPA rule has the climate cultists really, really excited. I wonder how many of the low and middle class ones realize the rule will make new vehicles unaffordable?

E.P.A. Lays Out Rules to Turbocharge Sales of Electric Cars and Trucks

The Biden administration on Wednesday proposed the nation’s most ambitious climate regulations to date, two plans designed to ensure two-thirds of new passenger cars and a quarter of new heavy trucks sold in the United States are all-electric by 2032.

The new rules would require nothing short of a revolution in the U.S. auto industry, a moment in some ways as significant as the June morning in 1896 when Henry Ford took his “horseless carriage” for a test run and changed American life and industry.

The government’s challenge to automakers is monumental; Last year, all-electric vehicles were just 5.8 percent of new cars sold in the United States. All-electric trucks were even more rare, making up fewer than 2 percent of new heavy trucks sold.

And the vast majority of those vehicles are being purchased by people making over $150K a year. This will leave the working and middle class out of being able to afford a new vehicle. It will end the notion of family vehicles, like minivans and midsized SUVs. Take a look at the vehicles sold in Europe: they’re mostly small.

Nearly all major automakers have already invested billions in producing electric vehicles at the same time as they continue to manufacture the conventional vehicles powered by gasoline, which deliver their profits. The proposed regulations would require them to invest more heavily and reorient their processes in ways that would essentially spell the end of the internal combustion engine.

That would be the textbook definition for the economic portion of socialism, where the government is heavily involved in running the economy, up to and including owning the means of production. But, it moves more into the authoritarian model, where the government is forcing citizens to act in a certain manner.

If the two rules are enacted as proposed, they would put the world’s largest economy on track to slash its planet-warming emissions at the pace that scientists say is required of all nations in order to avert the most devastating impacts of climate change.

And it would severely restrict the ability of US citizens to travel. Unless they want to take the bus or train.

The proposed tailpipe pollution limits for cars, first reported by The New York Times on Saturday, are designed to ensure that 67 percent of sales of new light-duty passenger vehicles, from sedans to pickup trucks, will be all-electric by 2032. Additionally, 46 percent of sales of new medium-duty trucks, such as delivery vans, will be all-electric or of some other form of zero-emissions technology by the same year, according to the plan.

So, when do the top end climate cultists practice what they’re forcing everyone else to practice? When does Biden go EV? How about Kamala? How about Michael S. Reagan, the EPA administrator? I wonder how many EPA employees are driving EVs? How many of them will answer “well, that’s just inconvenient, because we have the kids, have to get them around?”

Now, just image the massive fossil fueled convoy taking Biden around

Those do not look like EVs.

Read: EPA’s New MPG Rules Will Push People In EVs They Cannot Afford »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 11 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove