More Los Angeles restaurants add #Obamacare surcharge

September 4, 2014
"Obamacare has arrived"

“Obamacare has arrived”

First it was Republique, announcing they were charging customers an additional 3% to cover the added costs imposed by Obamacare and being ripped for it by outraged liberals. Now the owners of Lucques and other trendy restaurants have decided to add a healthcare surcharge, too.

Economics — it’s the law:

The cost of offering these benefits is significant and the reality is that restaurants, particularly smaller restaurants like the ones many of us own, have a very high ratio of staff members to revenue and run on very slim profit margins. Successfully run restaurants generally make between 5-10% net profits so a health care benefit which eats away 3% of gross sales will take away anywhere from 30% to 50% of annual profits for a restaurant. We’ve discussed simply raising menu prices, but ultimately food prices are tied in many ways to the ingredients we purchase. Those ingredient costs have increased astronomically recently so we’re already struggling with working creatively to keep menu prices down and don’t feel it’s right to try to factor health care costs into menu prices as well. We’d rather keep our menu costs as an accurate refection of our ingredient prices so that customers know that if we have to raise them it’s because we can’t avoid passing on our increased costs.

Like I’ve said before, labor is a cost. If you increase the cost of labor –in this case, by commanding employers to provide  expensive health insurance coverage– something has to give. Either the restaurant takes a huge hit in their profit margin, calling into question the reason for being in business in the first place, or they cut hours and jobs, or they raise prices. There is no way to avoid that choice. These restaurant owners have chosen the third option: raise prices, and they have chosen to be bluntly honest with their customers about it.

Good for them, and I hope all businesses follow the trend. Why shouldn’t customers know why their meal or other commodity or service has become more expensive? Isn’t transparency good? Or is it gauche to remind the largely progressive clientele of places like Melisse that their legislated largesse to the proletariat actually has a cost?

The ACA is an anti-constitutional monstrosity of a law. It needs to be repealed; it’s inflationary effect is just one reason why.

More under Elections have consequences.

via Truth Revolt

Advertisements

Saturday Links Fiesta

March 3, 2012

Time to clear out some backlogged links; I think you’ll find something worth reading under each category:

MEDIA:

If you’ve ever doubted that the MSM is full of hypocritical cowards, this should clear things right up: BBC Chief admits Christianity treated worse than other religions. And by “other religions,” I don’t think they mean Judaism… (via Howie)

ECONOMY:

I’ve said before that the Democrats’ policies (“Quantitative easing,” aka “printing money;” a devotion to radical environmental agendas) will cause inflation, for example in the cost of gasoline. But the Consumer Price Index (CPI) pegs inflation at a modest 3.1%. So, was I wrong? No, I wasn’t. Real inflation for the things you buy everyday is at more than 8% for the previous year. And it will get worse. (via Fausta)

Meanwhile, James Pethokoukis rips into Treasury Secretary Geithner’s arrogance and financial ignorance. I’m so glad Turbo-Tax Timmy is watching our money. Aren’t you?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:

The One has warned Iran not to call his bluff over his opposition to their development of nuclear weapons. Ed Lasky asks “Why shouldn’t they?” Hey, it’s worked so well in the past!

In light of the coming election, George Will has argued that Republicans should concentrate on capturing Congress, making Obama a relative lame-duck with a limited opportunity to do harm for the next four years. While I agree we need to take Congress to implement much-needed reforms, I strongly disagree that Obama would be a gelded president. So does Bryan Preston, in a must-read article. Three words: Supreme Court appointments.

As part of his class-warfare campaign to get reelected, Obama likes to excoriate oil companies for the supposedly obscene profits they rake in. And gullible people lap it up. At Power Line, John Hinderaker shows how much ExxonMobil puts back in to the American economy, making them a good corporate citizen, not evil.

OPERATION FAST & FURIOUS:

Here’s an excellent summary of what we know about “Gunwalker’ and the scandalous behavior of the administration, so far. Long, but very worthwhile. (via Moe Lane)

In what is one of the better examples of chutzpah I’ve seen in a while, Attorney General Eric Holder wants credit for stopping Fast and Furious. Really, this guy knows no shame.

CBS’ Sharyl Attkisson, one of the few MSM reporters giving Gunwalker serious coverage, reports that the gun used to kill ICE Agent Jaime Zapata in Mexico in 2010 also came from an ATF undercover operation. That is, it was ultimately supplied by our Department of Justice. That makes two US federal agents and over 300 Mexicans killed by “walked” guns.

I wonder if Eric Holder wants credit for that, too?

Oh, and as Mary Chastain points out, the gun that killed Mr. Zapata came from a second Gunwalker-style operation. Just how many of these fiascoes lie waiting to be discovered? Well…

MEXICO:

A potentially larger problem than Operation Fast and Furious is the danger of our southern neighbor becoming a failed state, or, at the least, the Mexican government losing control of large swathes of its territory on our mutual border. Some say that’s overstating the problem. But, what if the warning is coming from the governor legislators of a Mexican state bordering Texas? “Nuevo Leon on the verge of collapse.”

But, that’s okay. Obama and Napolitano say the border is more secure than ever.

I feel reassured, don’t you?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Gas prices: Democrats think we’re idiots

April 24, 2011

You may have noticed that gas prices have gone in recent months — 30 cents per gallon on average in the last month alone. Since rising gas prices tend to hurt the party in power, the Democrats have decided the answer is not to do what it takes to bring prices down, but launch a witch hunt. Connecticut’s Senator Richard Blumenthal (D)(1) has gone so far as to suggest a grand jury:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) on Sunday called for an aggressive federal probe – including a possible grand jury – into whether rising gasoline prices stem from illegal manipulation of energy markets.

President Obama and the Justice Department last week announced a multi-agency task force to explore whether there is price manipulation or fraud afoot, and the role of speculative trading in energy futures.

Blumenthal, Connecticut’s former attorney general, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that federal officials need to play hardball.

“I commend and applaud the president for focusing on this issue but I think there really needs to be an investigation involving, for example, subpoenas and compulsory process which I used as attorney general in similar investigations. There needs to be very possibly a grand jury to uncover the potential wrongdoing,” said Blumenthal, who was elected to the Senate last year.

“The Justice Department should take the lead, seize this moment and send a message, a very strong deterrent message that this country will not tolerate the kind of illegal speculation and trading and hedge fund activity that may be driving prices up,” he added.

I’ve often said that to be a liberal Democrat or progressive requires one to surrender any knowledge of basic economics and embrace ignorance, but I don’t think Blumenthal is ignorant, here. Rather, as gas prices approach $5 per gallon in some parts of the country, Democrats, and Blumenthal is just the latest example of Democratic demagoguery on this, have resorted to blaming witchcraft greedy oil companies and wealthy people(2), because they dare not admit as we head into election season that, in accordance with immutable economic laws(3), their own policies have largely contributed to the rise, thus making the voting public miserable and likely to take it out on Democrats.

Let’s review:

First, several of the major world suppliers of oil (aka The Middle East and North Africa) are undergoing a period of turmoil and revolt that makes oil supplies uncertain. This potential for disrupted supply means that buyers (us included) have to pay more to compete for oil from other areas, because of the greater demand.

On top of that, thanks to the Luddites of the environmental movement, the United States has failed to extract enough of its own oil and refine its own gas to keep up with its needs, thus meaning we need to buy more on the open market, further driving up prices.

This is something called “supply and demand,” a law the Democrats just hate, because it makes them face the consequences of their actions, such as:

  • A deliberate policy of seeking gas prices that match the obscene amounts charged in Europe.
  • A “permitorium” meant to block almost any new exploration and drilling off our coasts or on land, even in defiance of a federal judge’s order, while at the same time driving up the cost of doing what business is allowed — or even when doing nothing.

These and other administration actions —deliberate choices done in full knowledge of what will happen– drive up the price of fuel for all of us. The Democrats know this and they know the public will get angry and thus hammer them on Election Day because of it.

Hence the appearance of tools and flunkies like Blumenthal on the talk-show circuit, trying to distract us by blaming corporations, “speculators,” and price gougers for a problem they themselves set in motion. They’ve taken their lead from Obama and, dagnabbit, they’re going to follow it right off that electoral cliff.

Go ahead, guys, treat us as if we’re ignorant rubes, and then the adults can clean up your mess when they take charge in 2013.

TANGENTS:

(1) As if we’re supposed to trust a guy who lied about his service in Vietnam.

(2)I wonder if this includes the wealthy who paid $38,000 per seat at Obama’s recent fundraiser?

(3)Liberals and other Leftists just hate these things, because they’re mean and make them face reality.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Indexing the capital gains tax

September 21, 2010

Sounds like a snoozer of a topic, right?

Hey, wake up! It’s your money we’re talking about here!

That’s right. If you’re an investor (and everyone should be in some form, even in this lousy economic climate), then you’re being ripped off by the capital gains tax. Not only is it a form of double taxation that should be eliminated, but, even at the current relatively low rates, you still lose because of inflation. In fact, as this Center for Freedom and Prosperity video demonstrates, it is quite possible to pay taxes on a “gain” that is actually a loss:

It’s like getting mugged and then being forced to pay for the mugger’s cab fare. Some fun, eh?

More seriously, this kind of taxation eventually discourages investment, which hampers economic growth and job creation, something we just don’t need.


The Pelosi-Obama deficits

August 26, 2009

Forwarded by a reader, this Wall St. Journal editorial provides a very clear summary of the administration’s deficit and spending binge and the fantasies on which it’s based:

Earlier this year when President Obama was selling his first budget blueprint, he promised to end years of “borrow and spend” budgeting. Yesterday, reality struck.

Mr. Obama’s White House and the Congressional Budget Office told us that current U.S. fiscal policy is “borrow and spend” on a hyperlink. The good news is the deficit for 2009 will be “only” $1.58 trillion, about $250 billion lower than expected thanks to less need for TARP funds. But the Obama fiscal plan envisions $9 trillion in new borrowing over the next decade, which is $2 trillion more debt than the White House predicted earlier this year. The 2010 deficit also rises by about as much as the 2009 deficit falls from January, so even the TARP windfall gets spent.

We’ve never fretted over budget deficits, at least if they finance tax cuts to promote growth or spending to win a war. But these deficit estimates are driven entirely by more domestic spending and already assume huge new tax increases. CBO predicts that debt held by the public as a share of GDP, which was 40.8% in 2008, will rise to 67.8% in 2019—and then keep climbing after that. CBO says this is “unsustainable,” but even this forecast may be optimistic.

The Journal’s editors are being kind to use the word “optimistic.” The more fair description is “delusional.” The progressive’s “plan” to control the deficit assumes Congress will hold spending to just the rate of inflation for the next 10 years – here’s a bipartisan reality check. Even funnier are the progressives’ assumption that crashing federal revenues will not just recover, but reach historic highs, sort of like running your credit cards to the max on the assumption you’re going to get that big raise. And the economic growth they’re counting on to provide those revenues is sure to be crippled thanks to the taxes imposed by their health-care reform plans and cap-and-trade scheme.

Whatever they’re smoking, I want some of it.

As I’ve said before, there are only three ways to pay for the deficits the Democrats are running (and growing): borrowing from overseas, leaving future generations saddled with the debt and its interest (think credit cards, again); printing money, which inevitably will cause high inflation and make creditors angry as their debt becomes worth less – and thus less likely to loan more; or raising taxes on everyone to massive levels, thus breaking another of the Lightworker’s promises and again crippling economic recovery.

And, let’s face it, they’ll probably come up with a combination of all three.

November, 2010, can’t get here fast enough.  Praying