Mefisto, I'll be long asleep by then.

Hey, I might be too, and I'm on the West Coast.

Management isn't trying to force the employees to follow Catholic doctrine. That's not even wrong. If management were threatening to fire anyone who used contraception, that would be trying to force the employees to follow Catholic doctrine.

You left out the part where employee benefits are a form of wages. Management is telling employees how the employees can use their own compensation.

No, they're not. That's even more confused. Benefits are not "their own compensation" until after those benefits are given to the employees. They're absolutely not telling employees how they can use their own compensation; they're telling employees what compensation they'll get in the first place.

Imagine that an employer decides that it is going to give all employees a tablet computer this year. Is that tablet a form of wages? Sure. But if the employer insists on giving everyone Kindles -- instead of iPads -- is the employer telling the employees how they can use their own compensation? No, that's silly. He's simply deciding what compensation to give them. It's not their compensation until after he gives it to them.

Similarly, if he decides to give them contraceptionless health insurance rather than contraceptionful health insurance, he's not telling them how they can use their compensation; he's deciding what compensation to give them. Those are different products, like a Kindle and iPad.

No, they're not. That's even more confused. Benefits are not "their own compensation" until after those benefits are given to the employees.

In most cases, and in the specific case of Hobby Lobby, the policies are already in effect. Thus, even by your own standard they are "already given to the employees".

As for the future, see my 5843.

Fivehirtyeight.com is sooooo last month. But nevertheless, here's an interesting article about the statistical decline of "swing districts" in the House, some reasons why, and the impact this change is having on legislative action (or inaction). See: cliff, fiscal.

Too bad it wasn't published during the BBTF discussion about increasing Congressional incumbency; this double nugget would have been apropos:

Because there are so many fewer swing districts today, the amount of turnover in the House is much less. The 63 seats that Republicans gained in 2010 was large by modern standards — but relatively small by historical ones considering that there had been more than a 17-point swing in the national popular vote for the House.

This year also featured a relatively large swing in the popular vote for the House: Democrats won it by one point nationally rather than losing it by seven in 2010, an eight-point shift. But they gained only eight House seats out of 435. The House has arguably never been so partisan — and yet there have probably never been so few members of the House who were at risk of losing their seats.

Hertitage and the AFL-CIO hate this deal, so it's got that going for it.

The libertarian position is ALWAYS to defend the most thuggish and authoritarian institution they can find rather than the rights of actual people.

Government is the biggest thug on the block, and the one that progressives don't just defend, but they worship.

But this doesn't really get at the heart of the problem. HL is saying that it wants to control the lives of its employees.

Non-responsive and borderline hysterical. Hobby Lobby simply doesn't desire to offer a specific provision as part of its negotiations with other free parties. It's no different than arguing that McDonald's not offering pizza or stew is an attempt to control the diets of their customers.

Maybe. Depends on the reliance interests the employees have in the policies. Even if there are no reliance interests, what happens in the future depends on lots of variables. For example, there may zero policies offered without contraception coverage. In this case, HL could try attracting employees at the lower implied wages of offering no health care coverage, or it could raise wages and the employees would use some portion of that compensation just as they do now: to buy a health care policy that includes contraception.

Except this is completely nonsensical. Hobby Lobby did not offer coverage for morning-after pills at any time previously or make any promises or suggestions of any type that they were going to offer coverage for morning-after pills at any time. There are no reliance damages involved here whatsoever.

Government is the biggest thug on the block, and the one that progressives don't just defend, but they worship.

As someone who has spent the better part of the past two years around card-carrying progressive communists from the 60s, I'm going to be comfortable calling this rather gross hyperbole.

Government is the biggest thug on the block, and the one that progressives don't just defend, but they worship.

As opposed to libertarians, who prance about talking about "thugs" and "freedom" and "liberty" while scuttling along like scarab beetles in the castle's sewer systems.

*yawn*

Given the choice between having a fiscal cliff deal made in a last minute panic tonight, and giving everybody a chance to sleep on it and work on it some more over the next week, I'd much prefer it if Congress went to sleep.

Honestly, it almost doesn't matter if the deal passes today or next week. If there's no deal in March 1st, then one can legitimately worry.

In most cases, and in the specific case of Hobby Lobby, the policies are already in effect. Thus, even by your own standard they are "already given to the employees"

As a minor point, I think you're mixing up cases. Hobby Lobby offers contraceptive care and has no objection to doing so in the future. It's the so-called morning after pill that Hobby Lobby objects to covering. You're conflating the Hobby Lobby case with the K&L case out of the 7th circuit, I think, where K&L formerly offered contraceptive coverage and now, claiming they didn't realize it, don't want to do so in the future.

But setting that issue aside, no, they are not "already given to the employees"; health insurance is given anew each week/month/whatever. K&L isn't trying to retroactively take away past contraceptive coverage; it's simply trying to not offer it in the future.

Your 5843 is simply based on this same error, and has the same confused idea that not giving someone a type of compensation is "controlling" them. They're not firing employees who buy iPads; they're just not giving out iPads.

Where were they supposed to serve it? It was a search warrant. They would have to go to the compound. what makes you think serving it somewhere else would have made everything hunky-dory when they arrived to search after service?

The issue is the manner in which they served it, not the location.

Side note: when did this Waco tangent start? It's spectacularly uninteresting.

I agree that the Waco thread is mostly uninteresting, except insofar as it further exposes the extreme fascism of Morty.

Hobby Lobby did not offer coverage for morning-after pills at any time previously or make any promises or suggestions of any type that they were going to offer coverage for morning-after pills at any time.

Morning-after pills are no different from any other contraception. If HL believes differently, it simply doesn't understand basic biochemistry. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception

Hobby Lobby simply doesn't desire to offer a specific provision as part of its negotiations with other free parties.

No, HL is intruding itself into a relationship in which the only two relevant parties are the insurer and the employee. It's doing that in order to impose its own religious priorities on them.

Government is the biggest thug on the block, and the one that progressives don't just defend, but they worship.

Government is the only entity which protects the powerless from the thugs and authoritarians whom libertarians worship. In this particular case, libertarians are happy to trample on the religious freedom of the employees; only that nasty, evil government is actually willing to protect their rights. As usual.

See, libertarians have the same utopian view of society as the communists. Just as the dictatorship of the proletariat was never going to fade into an ideal system, neither are the oligarchs whom libertarians defend going to recognize the rights of the proles.

I think you're mixing up cases. Hobby Lobby offers contraceptive care and has no objection to doing so in the future. It's the so-called morning after pill that Hobby Lobby objects to covering. You're conflating the Hobby Lobby case with the K&L case out of the 7th circuit, I think, where K&L formerly offered contraceptive coverage and now, claiming they didn't realize it, don't want to do so in the future.

You may be right. But in that case, as I said above, HL doesn't understand that the "morning after" pill IS contraception. I see no reason to enforce a religious belief that rests on a flawed understanding of basic facts.

But setting that issue aside, no, they are not "already given to the employees"; health insurance is given anew each week/month/whatever.

Of course they are. The employees took the job with the understanding that they would have that coverage. HL is now saying, in effect, "I'm altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it further." Nice company you keep.

Morning-after pills are no different from any other contraception. If HL believes differently, it simply doesn't understand basic biochemistry. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception


Irrelevant. A burger with blue cheese isn't fundamentally different from a burger with American cheese, but that doesn't mean I have a right to have a hissy fit if McDonald's doesn't have one available for me to purchase.

No, HL is intruding itself into a relationship in which the only two relevant parties are the insurer and the employee. It's doing that in order to impose its own religious priorities on them.

Nope, it does no such thing. The specific insurance Hobby Lobby picks forms part of their compensation offer to the employee. The employee is free to accept it and work at Hobby Lobby, decline it and work at Hobby Lobby, or dissolve their business relationship and seek an arrangement from a different free, consenting party.

Government is the only entity which protects the powerless from the thugs and authoritarians whom libertarians worship. In this particular case, libertarians are happy to trample on the religious freedom of the employees; only that nasty, evil government is actually willing to protect their rights. As usual.

You're getting pretty entertaining here. What religious freedom has Hobby Lobby trampled on? Hobby Lobby has denied employees rights to freedom of religion to the exact same degree that Scarlett Johansson has denied me access to sex with Scarlett Johansson. The only authoritarian I see in this discussion is the comedian in your mirror.

Of course they are. The employees took the job with the understanding that they would have that coverage.

If, upon taking a job, you have an understanding you will get a benefit that was never offered to you in any way, shape, or form, it's not a job you need, but a guardian ad litem.

A burger with blue cheese isn't fundamentally different from a burger with American cheese

This is the most ridiculous thing you've ever said.

HL is now saying, in effect, "I'm altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it further." Nice company you keep.

Except none of this actually happened. An employee offers particular services from Hobby Lobby for a particular arrangement, none of which contained any provision for morning-after pills. Is a particular arrangement is unsatisfactory, Hobby Lobby and the employee are both free to go their own way and enter into arrangements with other freely consenting parties.

Hobby Lobby employees had no more right to expect morning-after pill coverage than you have the right to expect sex from a woman you buy dinner for. It may be nice, but you're not entitled to it in any moral sense whatsoever.

This is the most ridiculous thing you've ever said.

Well, on a chemical level, they're very similar substances!

This is the most ridiculous thing you've ever said.

Mostly because blue cheese is just plain vile.

The issue is the manner in which they served it, not the location.

How, in your view, was it served? Why was that wrong? How should it have been served?

Then tell us how they do the actual search.

Government is the biggest thug on the block, and the one that progressives don't just defend, but they worship.

What makes government a thug, and why is it the biggest on the block? Who are the others, and why are they lesser? When did this happen? Was there a time when it wasn't the biggest thug on the block? When and where was that?

Of course they are. The employees took the job with the understanding that they would have that coverage. HL is now saying, in effect, "I'm altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it further." Nice company you keep.

The employees did no such thing. First of all, that doesn't actually happen in the real world. Second, no reasonable person could have done so, since the particular health plans offered by a an employer change on a regular basis. And apparently you don't understand the concept of employment at will. There is no "deal" when you take a job -- just a temporary arrangement subject to alteration at any time.

Government is the only entity which protects the powerless from the thugs and authoritarians whom libertarians worship.

No. The government never protects the powerless; the proverbial invisible hand, on the other hand, does. The government is the thug/authoritarian.

In this particular case, libertarians are happy to trample on the religious freedom of the employees; only that nasty, evil government is actually willing to protect their rights. As usual.

This is so dumb I'm wondering who you let use your computer, Mark. Unless an employee's religious tenet is that her employer should buy her birth control, her religious freedom is utterly unaffected. The employer isn't doing anything to the employee. The employee is free to buy or use contraception if she wants.

Irrelevant.

Not if they want to make a religious argument it isn't. You can't claim a religious belief against abortion and then declare that aspirin is a contraceptive if held between one's knees. At least not if expect to exercise a First Amendment right.

Unless an employee's religious tenet is that her employer should buy her birth control, her religious freedom is utterly unaffected.

Nonsense. It's the employee's money. The employer isn't buying birth control (and management certainly isn't), the employee is. She's taking compensation in lieu of wages and using it for contraception. It's exactly the same as using wages. Her manager wants to prevent her from doing that, a clear violation of her religious (and market) freedom.

No. The government never protects the powerless; the proverbial invisible hand, on the other hand, does. The government is the thug/authoritarian.

Come off of it. The invisible hand doesn't give a #### whether anyone lives or dies. Embarrassing tripe.

Not really. There are plenty of occupations available outside of providing health insurance policies.

Odd. When I suggested that there were plenty of jobs available for Walmart workers to get instead if they didn't like working on Thanksgiving night (the horror), I believe you and your cohorts jumped on me and fought me to the ground.

"Hey, there are plenty of women available for gay men to marry! What's the problem?!"

Not if they want to make a religious argument it isn't. You can't claim a religious belief against abortion and then declare that aspirin is a contraceptive if held between one's knees. At least not if expect to exercise a First Amendment right.

Who cares? It's their business, not mine, not yours, not the governments. For all the business it is of ours, a just law would let them offer unlimited birth control, zero birth control, or anything they choose to offer in the context of negotiations between two consenting parties. You've have no more moral ground for interfering in the practices of mutually consenting adults than Fred Phelps does. You can tell yourself how caring and how special and how well-intentioned and how superior are, but your whole overwrought elitist liberal shtick bears little difference from a thug waving a bible and demanding other parties conform to your beliefs.

As opposed to libertarians, who prance about talking about "thugs" and "freedom" and "liberty" while scuttling along like scarab beetles in the castle's sewer systems.


Considering you are on record as believing black slaves prior to the civil war had no rights violated, that's rich.

deal reached in the senate. goes to the house today:

Major elements of the compromise would permanently raise tax rates on income over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for jointly filing couples; raise rates on capital gains and dividends for those same households to Clinton-era levels of roughly 20%, from the current 15%; and limit the value of personal exemptions as well as the value of itemized deductions. Those last two restrictions would kick in at $250,000 for individuals and $300,000 for couples. Those limits disappeared in 2010.

The deal would also set the estate-tax rate at 40% on estates over $5 million; currently there’s a 35% rate for estates over $5.12 million. The compromise rate isn’t as high as the 45%, with a $3.5 million exemption, sought by Mr. Obama.

The deal would delay for two months part of the $110 billion in spending cuts that otherwise would have taken place in early January—cuts that would be replaced by tax increases and cuts in other programs.

It continues an existing pay freeze for members of Congress for the current fiscal year, but doesn’t extend the pay freeze for federal government workers.

The bill also included a measure preventing a sharp increase in the price of milk that was feared early in the new year, and extending some other agricultural programs through September. The last five-year farm bill expired at the end of last September due to the inability of lawmakers to reach a deal on the sweeping legislation.

Left out of the bill were any disaster-relief funds to help assist the recovery effort from the devastation caused by Superstorm Sandy across the Eastern U.S. in October. The Senate passed a bill last week providing $60 billion in emergency relief, but the House has yet to act to bring forward similar legislation.

It continues an existing pay freeze for members of Congress for the current fiscal year, but doesn’t extend the pay freeze for federal government workers.

Yeah, like that'll pass the house.

best wishes to secretary clinton:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a blood clot in a vein that runs between her brain and her skull, her doctors said, complicating health problems that have kept the top U.S. diplomat out of public view for more than three weeks.

Clinton has suffered no neurological damage or stroke, is in good spirits and is expected to make a full recovery, Dr. Lisa Bardack of the Mt. Kisco Medical Group and Dr. Gigi El- Bayoumi of George Washington University said in the statement released by the State Department yesterday.

No. The government never protects the powerless; the proverbial invisible hand, on the other hand, does. The government is the thug/authoritarian.

I'm curious: when you say things that are this stupid, are you dumb enough to be convinced, or is it just a tenet of your faith?

Who cares? It's their business, not mine, not yours, not the governments.

Uh, Dan, they're demanding that the government protect rights which they assert under the Constitution. That makes it everyone's business.

Look, the ACA functions like the minimum wage. If employers paid less, the employees wouldn't be able to buy contraceptives (or abortions). Now the government requires that, in addition to a minimum salary, the employer pay a minimum amount for health insurance. The only relevant fact for the employer is the amount of money paid. The coverage offered is between the insurer and the employee.

deal reached in the senate. goes to the house today:

Yet again, Obama snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

Should it be mandatory for businesses run by Jehovah's witnesses to provide employee coverage for blood transfusions? Or for businesses run by Christian Scientists to offer non-faith-based medical coverage? Or for Scientologists to offer psychiatric care?

Yes, yes, and yes.

You can avoid almost all of this issue by going to a single-payer system.

Hell yes.

No. The government never protects the powerless; the proverbial invisible hand, on the other hand, does. The government is the thug/authoritarian.

I'm curious: when you say things that are this stupid, are you dumb enough to be convinced, or is it just a tenet of your faith?

David is to lawyers what Jane Fonda is to actresses. They both excel in supporting themselves with their work, but beyond that, the less said the better.

Yet again, Obama snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

I'd rather not agree with this, but I'm pretty sure I do.

Considering you are on record as believing black slaves prior to the civil war had no rights violated, that's rich.

You realize every time you say this it makes you looks more and more stupid, right?

deal reached in the senate. goes to the house today:

Harveys, do you still think the House is going to sit on it until after the Speaker election on Thursday? Or do you think that's now off the table and they will vote before then? If the markets crash on Wednesday because the House hasn't passed the bill, they are going to get a lot of criticism. (Ridiculous criticism since the government shouldn't operate for the short-term daily fluctuations of the market, but still.) Can Boehner both get this bill through and keep his job? If the House starts amending the bill, can anyone restrain them from amending it out of existence?

It is interesting to me that Cantor allowed King to split the Hurricane Sandy bill into two parts, so all Republicans could vote for the short-term relief, while the longer-term projects would be passed by a majority of Democrats with (presumably, King says, 30-40 Republicans.) That bodes something about being open to working with some majorities that have lots of Democrats plus a decent number of influential Republicans.

No. The government never protects the powerless; the proverbial invisible hand, on the other hand, does.

Good god almighty, David. It's not even necessary to construct a caricature when you drop in. You're a national treasure, just due to the way you make the underlying elements of the Randian stupidity so clear and evident to anyone outside of the cult. (This does, of course, put into normalized light your desire to defend the Koreshian cultists; all of you irrational rubes need to stick together in your combined, multipronged assault on reality, I suppose.)

You realize every time you say this it makes you looks more and more stupid, right?

Yes, stuff like that is pathetically desperate. And they do it likes it's an addiction.

Yet again, Obama snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.

I'd rather not agree with this, but I'm pretty sure I do.

I am also tempted to agree with this but will say let's revisit in March. Walking the tax rate from 250k to 400k was mostly optics; it's not a huge amount of revenue. And the extension of unemployment was obviously important, and was something that had to be traded for, so I don't disagree with that. Setting the capital gains and estate tax rates was also important. I would have liked to keep the payroll tax cut another year for a bit more stimulus. But nothing was given up on Social Security.

If February comes, and the grand resolution of the sequester and the debt limit is something like chained CPI and some increase in revenues with some mild cuts, then it's a good deal.

If February comes, and it's trillions of cuts plus no new revenue plus continued threats of blowing up the credit any time they don't get 100% of their Santa's list, then it's a disaster.

The White House seems to think they can navigate the debt limit fight. Hope they're right.

I'm still interested in whether this House will pass it. Or the next one. Or any House at all.

This has already been talked about (I was at lunch), but explain to me what part of "follow the law when you have employees" violates their moral code? Are Catholics being forced to use contraception? Where in the moral code of Catholics does it say don't allow your employees access to health care?/quote]Like many non-religious people, you have a very cramped view of religion. It's not merely a matter of private personal belief to an observant person. Are Catholics being forced to use contraception? No, but they're being forced to buy contraception for other people. Since they regard the use of contraception as a sin, they're being forced to participate directly in a sin, which is itself a sin. A Jew is not merely forbidden from eating pork; he's forbidden from providing pork to another Jew.

And even if it is that terrible then stop engaging in the activity that is forcing you to break your moral code. If the codes for building a house are unacceptible and doing that break your moral code, then stop building houses.

And now we're back to that love-it-or-leave-it liberal line. If a contractor in the Jim Crow south were ordered to build all buildings with separate bathrooms, entrances, water fountains, etc. for black and white, and he protested on the grounds that segregation violated his religious beliefs, would your response have been, "Oh well. If you don't like it, shut down your business"?

If February comes, and the grand resolution of the sequester and the debt limit is something like chained CPI and some increase in revenues with some mild cuts, then it's a good deal.

If February comes, and it's trillions of cuts plus no new revenue plus continued threats of blowing up the credit any time they don't get 100% of their Santa's list, then it's a disaster.

The White House seems to think they can navigate the debt limit fight. Hope they're right.

I would say that any deal made over the debt ceiling is a mistake. The official policy of POTUS has always been to not negotiate with terrorists for a reason. The nation's credit is too important to negotiate over. IMO, any negotiation that does not re-routinize the debt ceiling is a failure.

I'm still interested in whether this House will pass it. Or the next one. Or any House at all.

McConnell's too good a politician to get rolled like Boehner. It will pass the house.

greg

i think the speaker is working to explain to his guys that this will be the very last tax related measure that will be placed in front of them for a vote

the president got one chance to pass a tax related measure where house members 'might' vote without thinking their political careers might end.

the president won't get a second bite at that apple.

that's all i am sure about

Like many non-religious people, you have a very cramped view of religion. It's not merely a matter of private personal belief to an observant person. Are Catholics being forced to use contraception? No, but they're being forced to buy contraception for other people.

As a matter of Catholic teaching, it is not immoral or an ethical issue for the university or hospital to provide coverage that includes birth control options.

Unless an employee's religious tenet is that her employer should buy her birth control, her religious freedom is utterly unaffected.

Nonsense. It's the employee's money.

No, it isn't. Or, to explain this in small steps: when you say, "It's" the employee's money, the issue is what the "it" is. And the "it" is only what the employer has already given to the employee. The employer isn't giving her insurance that covers contraception, so such a policy was never the employee's to begin with. Limits on what insurance covers are inherent in the policy itself.

The employer isn't buying birth control (and management certainly isn't), the employee is. She's taking compensation in lieu of wages and using it for contraception. It's exactly the same as using wages.

She can't use a health care plan that doesn't cover contraception and use it for contraception. The compensation that the employer is willing to pay her does not involve anything that can be used to get contraception. It's a Kindle, not an iPad. It can't be used to buy things from the iTunes store, no matter how much she wants to. If the employer offers health insurance but not dental insurance as compensation, is it her money that she can take and use for dental care if she wishes? No, because that's not what's being given to her.

The insurance policy that the employer provides does not cover cosmetic surgery. Does that impinge on the employee's religious or economic freedom? Does it prevent her from using her compensation as she sees fit?

Her manager wants to prevent her from doing that, a clear violation of her religious (and market) freedom.

Her manager is not preventing her from doing anything. She is free to take her money and buy contraception with it. She is free to use contraception. I realize abortion and birth control are sacraments to the left, but nothing in this impacts her religious freedom in any way. Not giving someone an item that isn't against her religion does not prevent her from practicing her religion. A Jewish-owned business that does not serve ham in its company cafeteria does not impact on a Christian's religious freedom, even though the Christian is allowed to eat ham.

Every DMN post can be boiled down to: "tough titty".


edit...Happy New Year, DMN.

I would say that any deal made over the debt ceiling is a mistake. The official policy of POTUS has always been to not negotiate with terrorists for a reason. The nation's credit is too important to negotiate over. IMO, any negotiation that does not re-routinize the debt ceiling is a failure.

I am resigned to the debt limit fight being a fight. If one outcome is taking future fights off the table and making the debt limit a part of the budget bills, then I'd be happy with that. I don't see how it's not a fight this year, and doesn't involve some horse-trading.

McConnell's too good a politician to get rolled like Boehner. It will pass the house.

Does McConnell have influence over House members? Why would they listen to him if they won't listen to the guy they elected leader?

I think McConnell adroitly helped himself and his colleagues look reasonable. I have no idea whether anybody can do anything with the House unless Boehner and Cantor let a bill go to the floor with significant but perhaps not majority support among Republicans.