Congressional and presidential exemptions from ACA (Obamacare)

The opponents of Obamacare continue to use the exemptions afforded to congress and the White House as evidence that even those who passed the law don't think it will work.  The problem (one of them, rather) is that this claim is simply false.  Nevertheless, opponents continue to use this canard as a talking point that their followers can use unquestioningly (such as Erick Erickson over at redstate.com).  The conversation is too important for us to allow it to be high-jacked by empty rhetoric (at best, lies as worst).

A followup on Layoff Bomb-gate.

Here is a quick followup to my previous post regarding what is being called the Layoff Bomb (a phrase coined, as far as I can tell, by Michelle Malkin of Twitchy.com).  To be sure and to repeat, I am interested in the argument, not in defending ACA nor scolding businesses that may have legitimate reasons to downsize.  The problem here is the narrative.  Malkin's claim was that Obama would be (and now is) responsible for these jobs lost.  As I suggested in my previous post, it is awfully difficult to argue that ACA (Obamacare) was responsible for the losses, since it has yet to be implemented.  In addition, it is designed to have little negative affect on small businesses (as in, they will not be forced to participate).  As it turns out, and as Media Matters is reporting, many of the larger businesses have cited reasons for the layoffs that are entirely unrelated to ACA.  Have a gander.