Wednesday, February 12, 2014

The Compulsion Continues Unabated

"You are required to swear that you are not practicing the easily predictable consequences of this law."  That's essentially what the feds are now saying to businesses regarding Obamacare:
Consider what administration officials announcing the new exemption for medium-sized employers had to say about firms that might fire workers to get under the threshold and avoid hugely expensive new requirements of the law. Obama officials made clear in a press briefing that firms would not be allowed to lay off workers to get into the preferred class of those businesses with 50 to 99 employees. How will the feds know what employers were thinking when hiring and firing? Simple. Firms will be required to certify to the IRS – under penalty of perjury – that ObamaCare was not a motivating factor in their staffing decisions. To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs. You can duck the law, but only if you promise not to say so.
When you have to compel lying in order to get your way, there's really something wrong.  When you have to keep postponing and changing requirements because your signature piece of legislation is as screwed up as anyone can imagine, you should really wonder if it's such a good thing.

I have to believe that the only people left supporting Obamacare are idiots and bitter-clingers, but then I might be repeating myself.

For further background information I refer you to two of my prior posts from the last few days.


Jerry Doctor said...

For obvious financial reasons any business with just over 100 people will lay off enough workers to get under 100. Considering the savings that would result it would be financially irresponsible not to do so.

The Obama administration knows this and doesn't care. What they do care about is evidence that they are responsible for the lay offs. That cannot be allowed.

maxutils said...

The report I heard, also from FOX, was that you were required to show that the lay-offs must be sworn to be 'financially necessary' ... and, if that's the case, as I commented elsewhere...the cost of Obamacare could certainly be included in the decision. Why would they be any different from any other cost?