Papa John’s Pizza Raising Prices Because Of Obamacare

After President Obama’s health care law takes full effect, Papa John’s CEO John Schnatter says that the new law will result in a $0.11 to $0.14 price increase per pizza, or $0.15 to $0.20 cents per order.

The company, which is the third-largest pizza takeout and delivery chain in the United States, will have to offer health care coverage to more of its16,500 total employees or pay a penalty to the government under Obamacare.

One Papa John’s franchise owner in Texas, Judy Nichols, says the law could interfere with her ability to open more restaurants.

“I have two options, I can stop offering coverage and pay the $2,000 fine, or I could keep my number of staff under 50 so the mandate doesn’t apply,” she told Legal Newsline. Nichols added that the law may cost her between $20,000 to $30,000 extra in taxes. “Obamacare is making me think about cutting jobs instead,” she said.

With strong sales and more than 1,500 new retail locations planned in the near future, Schnatter doesn’t seem all that bothered, probably because he intends to pass those health care costs on to customers.

“We’re not supportive of Obamacare, like most businesses in our industry,” Schnatter was quoted as saying in Politico. “But our business model and unit economics are about as ideal as you can get for a food company to absorb Obamacare.”

McDonald’s also expects Obamacare to cost each of its 14,000 franchises between $10,000 and $30,000 annually, according to Businessweek. Like Schnatter, the company believes it is well placed to handle the extra costs.

Representatives from other restaurant chains may be less hopeful, however, including Burger King, Quiznos and Dunkin’ Donuts, all which have expressed concern the law may hurt business, according to the Wall Street Journal.

U.S. Gov. Admits Surveillance Violated Constitution, At Least Once

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has admitted that recent surveillance efforts violated the Constitutional prohibitions on unlawful search and seizure on at least one occasion.

The admission comes in a letter declassifying statements that a top U.S. Senator wished to make public in order to call attention to the government’s 2008 expansion of its key surveillance law.

“On at least one occasion,” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court found that “minimization procedures” used by the government while it was collecting intelligence were “unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Minimization refers to how long the government may retain the surveillance data it collects.  The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees our rights against unreasonable searches.

There was no specification as to how extensive this “unreasonable” surveillance was; when it occurred; or how many Americans were affected by it.

In the letter, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asserts a serious federal sidestep of a major section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

That section, known as Section 702 and passed in 2008, sought to legalize the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance efforts. The 2008 law permitted intelligence officials to conduct surveillance on the communications of “non-U.S. persons,” when at least one party on a call, text or email is “reasonably believed” to be outside of the United States. Government officials conducting such surveillance no longer have to acquire a warrant from the FISA Court stating the name of the individual under surveillance. Only a “significant purpose” of the surveillance has to be the acquisition of “foreign intelligence,” a weaker standard than before 2008.

Wyden says that the government’s use of the expanded surveillance authorities “has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law”. The office does not challenge the statement about the FISA Court on at least one occasion finding the surveillance to conflict with the Fourth Amendment.

Suspicions about abuse of the government’s new surveillance powers go back to 2009 when citing anonymous sources the New York Times reported that “the N.S.A. had been engaged in ‘overcollection’ of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic,”. The Justice Department said that it already resolved the problem.

Wyden has been the lone congressional voice against renewing the government’s broadened surveillance powers. Last month, he quietly used a parliamentary maneuver to stall the renewal after it passed a key Senate committee.

 

NYC’s Nanny Mayor Bloomberg Sets His Sights on Baby Formula

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has taken the government nanny state to new levels, banning smoking in public parks and trying to ban the sale of sugary drinks greater than 16 ounces.

Now the mayor has set his sights on another target: baby formula.

He wants city hospitals to lock up formula in an attempt to force new mothers to breast feed. He said it’s what’s best for newborn babies and as everyone knows the nanny state always knows what best for it’s citizens. “Latch On NYC” is the name of the citywide initiative to support mothers who choose to breastfeed and limit practices that interfere with that choice.

“Most of the public health officials around the country think that this is a great idea. I gather that the immunities that a mother has built up get passed along to the child so the child is healthier,” Bloomberg said.

Bloomberg’s pro-breast milk program is the most restrictive in the nation. Beyond just requiring hospitals to lock up their baby formula, they will no longer be allowed to give out samples of formula and every time a new born is given a bottle the hospital will have to document a medical reason.

“I kind of find it hard to believe that he can do that,” Upper West Side resident Elizabeth Passarella said. “I don’t think it should be something legislated by the government. Obviously, mothers should have that choice.”

“No, I don’t think that the nurses should have to document a medical reason to give a baby a bottle.”

“It’s up to the mother to choose what’s right for her and her child. I don’t think the government should be doing anything to prevent the mom from being a mother and making her own decisions,” added Lisa Tacy, also of the Upper West Side.

“I think breast feeding is a good idea and I think mothers should be educated and helped in the process, but I don’t think they should be denied the option to use formula,” added Christine Zinbelmann of Washington Heights.

Someone needs to explain to these women that as a man, mayor and bureaucrat that Mister nanny state knows what’s better for their children than they do.

Bloomberg defended his actions and said he is looking for even more things to do to make people healthier. From smoking to soda to baby formula, one reporter wanted to know what’s next.

“Anything that we can think of that will improve your health,” the mayor said. “Life expectancy in New York City is three years greater on average in the U.S. Why don’t you just focus on the big number?”

Officials said mothers who “demand” a bottle will get it, but they’ll first get a lecture on how they are somehow harming their baby and why breast feeding is better.

“We’re not making anybody do it. We’re suggesting, and the same thing with full sugar drinks,” the mayor said. “I was behind a truck this morning, and they said ‘Don’t limit our drinks.’ Nobody’s limiting. It’s just the size of the cup.”

So far, 27 of the city’s 40 hospitals have agreed to participate in the program. It goes into effect on Sept. 3, but ads are already on subways.