Pain First

Just when you think Washington politics couldn’t get dirtier, Congress finds a new low.

To hold onto their illegal ObamaCare subsidy that no other American earning $174,000 could get, members of Congress are trying to silence the subsidy’s chief critic, Sen. David Vitter, by dredging up a 2007 unproven accusation that Vitter patronized a prostitute before being elected to the Senate.

Shockingly, the cabal also proposes that any member of Congress who votes for Vitter’s proposal would be ineligible for the subsidy if Vitter fails and the subsidy stays. Has anyone in Congress read the Constitution? You can’t make a lawmaker’s future remuneration dependent on how he votes.

At the center of this tawdry cabal are none other than the chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee, Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Here are the facts behind the stench:

The Affordable Care Act Sect. 1312(d) requires that members of Congress and their staffs enroll in the health plans offered on the exchanges. The thinking behind that provision is that what’s good enough for the public ought to be good enough for Congress.

It sounded good in 2010, when the law was enacted, but now politicians are getting cold feet.

Until now, members of Congress received a 75% subsidy funded by taxpayers to enroll in the Federal Health Benefits Program. Signing up for ObamaCare will cost them thousands of dollars because the law does not entitle anyone earning $174,000 (base salary for Congress) to get a subsidy.

Yikes! Congress doesn’t think the Affordable Care Act is affordable for them.

Just before Congress’ August recess, Republican and Democratic leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Reid, pressed President Obama to do something. Ignoring the fact that the president has no constitutional authority to change the law and arrange for a subsidy that will cost taxpayers at least $55 million a year, members of Congress put their self-interest first.

The president complied and weaseled an illegal arrangement with the Office of Personnel Management to award members of Congress and their staff a 75% subsidy to pay for their own ObamaCare health plans. It’s in a new official OPM ruling.

Whistleblower

But surprise, surprise: There’s still a handful of lawmakers with scruples. Vitter of Louisiana, along with fellow Republican Sens. Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and Mike Lee of Utah, held up a Senate vote last week on an unrelated energy bill by trying to attach an amendment eliminating Congress’ ObamaCare subsidy. In the House, Rep. Ron DeSantis of Florida offered the same measure. (IBD)

Like the president said, “of you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” Well, unless you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who can’t. Including, it turns out, lots of Walgreens employees (via Ed Morrissey):

Walgreen Co. (WAG), the biggest U.S. drugstore chain, will move its workers into a private health insurance exchange to buy company-subsidized coverage, the latest sign of how the debate over Obamacare is accelerating a historic shift in corporate health-care coverage. Walgreen’s decision affects about 160,000 current employees and follows similar action this year by Sears Holdings Corp. (SHLD) and Darden Restaurants Inc. (DRI) As an alternative to administering a traditional health plan, all three will send their employees to an exchange run by Aon Plc.

 

IBM and GE recently announced similar changes in their retirees plans, which are not to be confused with UPS’ decision to drop spousal coverage.

As the CBS correspondent points out, Walgreens made this move to insulate itself from anticipated rising healthcare costs, which Obamacare was ostensibly going to reverse. Based on CBO projections published yesterday, health costs will continue their inexorable climb, approximately doubling within the next 25 years.

But has to remember the goal here. The goal is to get everyone dependent on Government -Only Health Care.

The very last thing on their minds is actual Health Care reform.

They want the whole thing to collapse so that you’ll go running to them and beg for your Lord and Masters graces.

And above all, that it was not their fault!

It was evil Corporate America.

This is a long game. They have been waiting for this for nearly a 100 years, they can wait another decade or so.

They want what they want, and they’ll happily destroy you to get it.

Confronted with this $2 trillion law’s undeniable failures, its cheerleaders are already making the pivot to their next bad idea, Single Payer Government Control of everything, but they want you to demand it first.

Pain first. Demand later.

That’s how it’s done in “compassionate”, “caring”, “Morally superior” Liberal Land!

137633 600 Obamacare Fine Print cartoons

137298 600 Congressional Malpractice cartoons

 

Choice, Liberal Style

Just in case you had any doubts:

Reid said he thinks the country has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program “Nevada Week in Review.”

“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said.

When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.” (LV Sun)

Major health insurance companies–Blue Cross, Aetna, United, Humana–have decided not to participate in various states in the Obamacare health-insurance exchanges that will be the only place Americans will be able to buy a health insurance plan using the federal subsidies authorized under the Obamacare law.
In Connecticut you had 6 choices. Now you’ll have 3.
That’s your “expanded” choice, Liberal Style.
 
Mind you, when I started this blog nearly years ago I came to the conclusion that this all ultimately led to driving the Insurance Companies out of business so you only had Mama Government to depend on anyhow.
That’s the Liberal definition of Choice. You choose what they want you to choose.
Nothing else. They know best.

If You Like Your Doctor,’ Hope Your Insurer Is Participating in the Exchange

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period,” Obama said on June 15, 2009.

“If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period,” he said.  “No one will take it away. No matter what.”

That promise, however, has been revised by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which now says, “you may be able to keep your current doctor” in the health insurance marketplace.

“Most health insurance plans offered in the Marketplace have networks of hospitals, doctors, specialists, pharmacies, and other health care providers,”HHS said on its website for the health reform law.  “Networks include health care providers that the plan contracts with to take care of the plan’s members.”

“Depending on the type of policy you buy, care may be covered only when you get it from a network provider,” they said. (CNS)

DON’T MAKE TOO MUCH NOW, YA HEAR…

Millions of families could be facing a bizarre situation: If they earn one extra dollar a year, their insurance costs will climb by thousands. It’s just one of the many perverse outcomes ObamaCare will create.

Whenever the topic of ObamaCare costs comes up — something that is occurring with increasing frequency as insurance companies start to announce sky-high ObamaCare rates for next year — backers boast about subsidies.

Who cares if premiums are high, they say, since many will get subsidies through an ObamaCare exchange. (TAXPAYER FUNDED OF COURSE!) But what ObamaCare groupies fail to consider is that these subsidies phase out, and do so in a way that will be extraordinarily punishing for many families.

As Terence Jeffrey explained on CNSNews.com, a middle-class family earning just one more dollar could, because of the way the subsidies are structured, end up paying thousands of dollars more for health insurance.

Jeffrey discovered this when he plugged sample income data into the Kaiser Family Foundation’s “Subsidy Calculator.”

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

A 56-year-old couple with two kids and $110,280 income would be right at the limit for ObamaCare subsidies, according to that calculator. (Subsidies phase out on incomes over 400% of poverty.) Even so, if they bought a $19,832 “Silver” plan through an ObamaCare exchange, they’d get $9,355 in premium subsidies.

But if their income were to climb to $110,281, their subsidy would drop to zero.

It’s even worse than that. ObamaCare also subsidizes out-of-pocket costs for lower-income families who buy Silver plans. And these, too, go away as income climbs.

A Commonwealth Fund report shows what this will mean to a family at the edge of the ObamaCare cliff. Once it goes over the income limit, its out-of-pocket maximum jumps from $8,066 to $12,100.

In other words, a family that has big medical bills and gets a tiny raise could suddenly face more than $13,000 in additional premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.

There are mini-cliffs along the way, too, as the premium and out-of-pocket subsidies step down at various incomes.

Let’s say a family making $55,125 buys a $9,000 plan in an ObamaCare exchange. If its income climbs to $55,126, the premiums shoot up $1,800 and the out-of-pocket maximum jumps $2,000, according to a separate analysis by the American Cancer Society.

As a result, ObamaCare will create a huge incentive for millions of families either to hide income, earn it underground, or turn down a raise in order to avoid getting hit with these huge leaps in insurance costs.

But at least they won’t be “rich” assholes.

Oh, and many of them won’t have to worry about the cliffs of doom because they’ll be working part-time because their boss can afford them otherwise.

Utopia.

And this is only the first step to a much better Complete Government Control.

Rejoice.

This is on top of the many other unfortunate economic incentives ObamaCare will create.

Employers who want to avoid or minimize the massive cost of the employer mandate, for example, will do well to cut part-time hours to below 30 a week, since ObamaCare considers 30 hours full-time work. Many are already taking this step.

Companies also have an incentive to keep their full-time workforce below 50 people, since going over that exposes them to the employer mandate and potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in new costs.

And as the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s James Capretta explains, ObamaCare will encourage employers to avoid hiring low-income families. Why? Companies pay a penalty only if a worker gets subsidized coverage in an ObamaCare exchange. Since wealthier families don’t get subsidies, the company won’t face any fines.

As a result, ObamaCare will end up hurting the very middle class families it was supposed to help.

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!  A Liberal “feel good” policies goes bad. Never saw that coming. I know they don’t. And I also know, they don’t care.

Anyone who thinks this all can be fixed with more tinkering to the law is missing the point. Whenever the government gets involved in a marketplace, it creates distortions that ripple across the economy. And these distortions almost always end up making the country less productive, less efficient and less prosperous.

The only way to avoid the perverse incentives that ObamaCare will create is to get rid of the law entirely.

But it’s the Holy Grail of The Left. Imagine the power of life and death at your command….

The Doctor: Davros, if you had created a virus in your laboratory, something contagious and infectious that killed on contact, a virus that would destroy all other forms of life, would you allow its use?
Davros: It is an interesting conjecture.
The Doctor : Would you do it?
Davros: The only living thing, a microscopic organism reigning supreme… A fascinating idea.
The Doctor : But would you do it?
Davros: Yes… Yes…
[raises hand as if holding the metaphorical capsule between thumb and forefingers]
Davros: To hold in my hand a capsule that contains such power, to know that life and death on such a scale was my choice… To know that the tiny pressure of my thumb, enough to break the glass, would end everything… Yes, I would do it! That power would set me up above the gods! AND THROUGH THE DALEKS, I SHALL HAVE THAT POWER!

Now just substitute Harry Reid for Davros and ObamaCare for Daleks….

Enjoy. 🙂

 
 
 

Responsibility

Despite endless talk of spending cuts and fiscal restraint in Washington over the past year, lawmakers continued to act as though the government doesn’t spend nearly enough.

They introduced 874 bills in the House and Senate that would have boosted annual federal spending by more than $1 trillion if they’d all been signed into law, according to an analysis done for IBD by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation.

In contrast, lawmakers offered up just 215 bills to cut spending last year that would have reduced federal outlays by about half a trillion had they all been signed into law.

The analysis also found that for every dollar in cuts, lawmakers in the House proposed nearly $3 in spending hikes, and in the Senate $1.40 in hikes.

“Even at a time of massive deficits, Congress is still mostly occupied with pushing ideas to expand government spending,” said Demian Brady, senior policy analyst at the NTUF, which has been tracking spending bills for more than 20 years through its BillTally project.

Brady notes that a big chunk of the spending tab comes from proposals by liberals in Congress that would transform the nation’s health care into an entirely government-run “single payer” system. Absent those single-payer bills, the net effect of all the legislation introduced would be close to a wash.

The analysis also found a shift, at least, toward more spending cuts. “We are seeing more and bigger cut bills,” said Brady, “and a smaller ratio of increase to cut bills than in last Congress.”

That could change, however, should Democrats succeed in winning back control of the House in November.

The NTUF analysis found that congressional Democrats are by far the biggest spenders. Last year, 692 spending-hike bills had either all or majority Democratic sponsorship. Republicans, in contrast, sponsored just 126 such bills.

At the other end of the spectrum, GOP lawmakers introduced 172 bills that would have cut federal spending, compared with just 33 such bills offered up by Democrats.

Even if few of these bills were likely to make it all the way to the president’s desk, they are a sign of the ongoing pressure in Congress to boost spending, budget experts say, since there is far more time and energy spent on proposals to expand government than to shrink it.

It’s one reason budget caps have typically failed to hold in the past, and why proposed spending cuts often fail to materialize, these experts note.

For example, presidents routinely offer up dozens if not hundreds of programs they think should get the axe — President Clinton’s 1995 budget had 115 of them — but few ever got acted upon and many show up on target lists year after year.

And in the past 50 years, annual inflation-adjusted spending on domestic programs — education, transportation, the environment, etc. — has declined just six times; and five of those years occurred during the Reagan administration.

(and in California they want to spend $100 Billion dollars on a High Speed Rail that is a pure boondoggle–it used to be $10 billion when proposed- in a state with Budget deferrals, required reimbursements and related debt now total nearly $40 billion.)

As a result, spending on these programs as a share of GDP has climbed by more than 26% since 1962. That doesn’t include spending on entitlement programs, which has seen its share of the economy nearly triple over those years.

Defense spending, in contrast, is not nearly as immune to spending cuts — the Pentagon’s annual budget was cut in 19 of the past 50 years. And even with the recent buildup, defense spending as a share of the economy is about half what it was in 1962.

When President Obama introduced his budget last year, he made it clear that spending cuts were a critical part of getting federal deficits under control.

“All of us agree,” he said referring to Democratic and Republican congressional leaders, “that we have to cut spending, and all of us agree that we have to get our deficits under control and our debt under control.”

But unless that message sinks in on Capitol Hill, it’s not clear that real, deep spending cuts will ever actually materialize. (IBD)

Because the lead Drug dealers (the drug: money) won’t cut themselves off. They have to pimp themselves and pimp others to keep their supply going.

And the others want to be pimped.

So the drug addict pimps the drug dependent and the drug dependent pimp the drug addict.

Cut the other guys “greed” but don’t you dare cut mine!

My drug dealer is ok, it the other guys jerks that need to be defeated.

And people like me who want to the whole thing to stop are shut out as “whackos” “racists” “morons” “stupid”.

Disparity Part II By Thomas Sowell

One of the ways of trying to reduce the vast disparities in economic success, which are common in countries around the world, is by making higher education more widely available, even for people without the money to pay for it.

This can be both a generous investment and a wise investment for a society to make. But, depending on how it is done, it can also be a foolish and even dangerous investment, as many societies around the world have learned the hard way.

When institutions of higher learning turn out highly qualified doctors, scientists, engineers and others with skills that can raise the standard of living of a whole society and make possible a better and longer life, the benefits are obvious.

What is not so obvious, but is painfully true nonetheless, is that colleges and universities can also turn out vast numbers of people with credentials, but with no marketable skills with which to fulfill their expectations. There is nothing magic about simply being in ivy-covered buildings for four years.

Statistics are often thrown around in the media, showing that people with college degrees earn higher average salaries than people without them. But such statistics lump together apples and oranges — and lemons.

A decade after graduation, people whose degrees were in a hard field like engineering earned twice as much as people whose degrees were in the ultimate soft field, education. Nor is a degree from a prestigious institution a guarantee of a big pay-off, especially not for those who failed to specialize in subjects that would give them skills valued in the real world.

But that is not even half the story. In countries around the world, people with credentials but no marketable skills have been a major source of political turmoil, social polarization and ideologically driven violence, sometimes escalating into civil war.

People with degrees in soft subjects, which impart neither skills nor a realistic understanding of the world, have been the driving forces behind many extremist movements with disastrous consequences.

These include what a noted historian called the “well-educated but underemployed” Czech young men who promoted ethnic identity politics in the 19th century, which led ultimately to historic tragedies for both Czechs and Germans in 20th century Czechoslovakia. It was much the same story of soft-subject “educated” but unsuccessful young men who promoted pro-fascist and anti-Semitic movements in Romania in the 1930s.

The targets have been different in different countries but the basic story has been much the same. Those who cannot compete in the marketplace, despite their degrees, not only resent those who have succeeded where they have failed, but push demands for preferential treatment, in order to negate the “unfair” advantages that others have.

Similar attempts to substitute political favoritism for developing one’s own skills and achievements have been common as well in India, Nigeria, Malaysia, Fiji, Sri Lanka and throughout Central Europe and Eastern Europe between the two World Wars.

Such political movements cannot promote their agendas without demonizing others, thereby polarizing whole societies. Time and again, their targets have been those who have the skills and achievements that they lack. When they achieve their ultimate success, forcing such people out of the country, as in Uganda in the 1970s or Zimbabwe more recently, the whole economy can collapse.

Against this international background, the current class warfare rhetoric in American politics and ethnic grievance ideology in our schools and colleges, can be seen as the dangerous things they are. Those who are pushing such things may be seeking nothing more than votes for themselves or some unearned group benefits at other people’s expense. But they are playing with dynamite.

The semi-literate sloganizing of our own Occupy Wall Street mobs recalls the distinction that Milton Friedman often made between those who are educated and those who have simply been in schools. Generating more such people, in the name of expanding education, may serve the interests of the Obama administration but hardly the interests of America.

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. —George Orwell

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever. —George Orwell

In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
—George Orwell

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
—George Orwell

And my own Contribution: FEAR IS HOPE 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

The Secret Pork

Then Speaker of The House Pelosi: “[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

Now that someone is opening this can of compressed worms, the stink bugs are escaping too.

Investigators for the House Energy and Commerce Committee have discovered that a little-known provision in the national health care law has allowed the federal government to pay nearly $2 billion to unions, state public employee systems, and big corporations to subsidize health coverage costs for early retirees.  At the current rate of payment, the $5 billion appropriated for the program could be exhausted well before it is set to expire.

It’s a waiver slush fund BUILT INTO the Law. Gee, now that’s confidence in your legislation.

Unless, of course, the ultimate goal was not “to insure everyone”. 🙂

The discovery came on the eve of an oversight hearing focused on the workings of an obscure agency known as CCIO — the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.  CCIO, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, oversees the implementation of Section 1102 of the Affordable Care Act, which created something called the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program.  The legislation called for the program to spend a total of $5 billion, beginning in June 2010 — shortly after Obamacare was passed — and ending on January 1, 2014, as the system of national health care exchanges was scheduled to go into effect.

The idea was to subsidize unions, states, and companies that had made commitments to provide health insurance for workers who retired early —  between the ages of 55 and 64, before they were eligible for Medicare. According to a new report prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services, “People in the early retiree age group…often face difficulties obtaining insurance in the individual market because of age or chronic conditions that make coverage unaffordable or inaccessible.”  As a result, fewer and fewer organizations have been offering coverage to early retirees; the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program was designed to subsidize such coverage until the creation of Obamacare’s health-care exchanges.

The program began making payouts on June 1, 2010.  Between that date and the end of 2010, it paid out about $535 million dollars.  But according to the new report, the rate of spending has since increased dramatically, to about $1.3 billion just for the first two and a half months of this year. At that rate, it could burn through the entire $5 billion appropriation as early as 2012.

Where is the money going?  According to the new report, the biggest single recipient of an early-retiree bailout is the United Auto Workers, which has so far received $206,798,086.  Other big recipients include AT&T, which received $140,022,949, and Verizon, which received $91,702,538.  General Electric, in the news recently for not paying any U.S. taxes last year, received $36,607,818.  General Motors, recipient of a massive government bailout, received $19,002,669.

The program also paid large sums of money to state governments.  The Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio received $70,557,764; the Teacher Retirement System of Texas received $68,074,118; the California Public Employees Retirement System, or CalPERS, received $57,834,267; the Georgia Department of Community Health received $57,936,127; and the state of New York received $47,869,044.  Other states received lesser but still substantial sums.

But payments to individual states were dwarfed by the payout to the auto workers union, which received more than the states of New York, California, and Texas combined.  Other unions also received government funds, including the United Food and Commercial Workers, the United Mine Workers, and the Teamsters.

And Unions make the the majority of people getting the over 1,000 waivers from ObamaCare.

The UAW, which ended up with a majority share of Chrysler (and much of GM) stock after it went bankrupt – they were paid before bond and shareholders – made out like bandits but The Democrats felt the need to pork them anyhow.

But don’t worry, there’s nothing corrupt going on, that dead fish smell is just your imagination. 😦

Republican investigators count the early-retiree program among those that would never have become law had Democrats allowed more scrutiny of Obamacare at the time it was pushed through the House and Senate.  Since then, Republicans have kept an eye on the program but were not able to pry any information out of the administration until after the GOP won control of the House last November.  Now, finally, they are learning what’s going on.

It comes back to the question: If this law was so fantastic, why all the waivers, cons,pork, and Machiavellian maneuvers to avoid it for your political apparatchiks??

Hmm…. Maybe they they knew that Obamacare, the epitome of socialism, and the redistribution of wealth, does not and cannot work.  It never has and it never will.  This is why they cheat the system.

But since they already have a sense of “entitlement” to everyone else’s money and craving for power that is insatiable I suppose we should expect nothing less.

Now that’s “Winning the Future”. 🙂

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”–George Orwell

Reach for Hope

“Don’t give in to fear,’’ Obama said yesterday, urging voters to turn back GOP efforts to gain control of the House and Senate in November’s midterm elections. “Let’s reach for hope.’’

Elect me, and I will bring Hope and Change. 18 months later, Reach for that same hope.

Do you suspect that the reach will be like Sisyphus and the rolling the boulder up hill. For his assignment was to roll a great boulder to the top of a hill. Only every time Sisyphus, by the greatest of exertion and toil, attained the summit, the darn thing rolled back down again.

Obama and the Democrats thrive on stress, fear, anxiety and lack of hope. So just in them and all will be wonderful…someday….maybe…but if it’s not it’s Bush’s Fault and you just have to re-double your faith in “hope”. 🙂

They don’t want to actually thrive because you won’t want them to run your life for you then. So it’s better to just “hope”.

WASHINGTON  — Nearly half of the homeowners who enrolled in the Obama administration’s flagship mortgage-relief program have fallen out.

A new report issued today by the Treasury Department said that approximately 630,000 people who had tried to get their monthly mortgage payments lowered through the effort have been cut loose through July. That’s about 48 percent of the 1.3 million homeowners who had enrolled since March 2009. That is up from more than 40 percent through June.

The report suggests foreclosures could rise in the second half of the year and weaken the ailing housing market, analysts say.

Another 421,804, or 32.3 percent of those who started the program, have received permanent loan modifications and are making their payments on time.

Many borrowers have complained that program is a bureaucratic nightmare. They say banks often lose their documents and then claim borrowers did not send back the necessary paperwork.

The banking industry said borrowers weren’t sending back their paperwork. They also have accused the Obama administration of initially pressuring them to sign up borrowers without insisting first on proof of their income. When banks later moved to collect the information, many troubled homeowners were disqualified or dropped out.

(Should sound familiar–Community Reinvestment Act anyone?) 🙂

Obama officials dispute that they pressured banks. They have defended the program, saying lenders are making more significant cuts to borrowers’ monthly payments than before the program was launched. And some of the largest mortgage companies in the program have offered alternative programs to those who fell out.

The Obama plan was designed to help people in financial trouble by lowering their monthly mortgage payments. Homeowners who qualify can receive an interest rate as low as 2 percent for five years and a longer repayment period.

And These are the bureaucrats who are going to save you on Health Care? 🙂

Well, at least that’s what they said during the 15 month fight. As was pointed out yesterday, it’s not what they want to tell you now.

And that Mandate that wasn’t a Tax, is a Tax. They admit it now.

But you’re going to love having government bureaucrats decide how you live and when you die. 🙂

Reach for Hope!

Essentially, we’ve now transitioned from the aforementioned terminology (Saved or created jobs), on to ‘jobs funded’, and eventually landed on something reminiscent of an after school special, ‘lives touched’.

So what exactly defines a touched life?

A spokesperson from the CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company explains:

“Lives Touched” is a figure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) uses to track the amount of people who have been positively affected by the Recovery Act funds.  This total would include people who have been provided full time employment (i.e. saved and created jobs) through the Recovery Act and people who at some point have supported a project funded by the Recovery Act.

In other words, the administration has stumbled upon another way to inflate their job numbers.  They were already reporting on those saved or created, but will now include ‘people who at some point have supported a project.’

Lies, Damned Lies, and Stimulus Statistics! 🙂

NEW YORK: In signs of persisting financial woes in the US, the count of bankruptcy filings jumped as much as 20 per cent to 1.57 million in the year ended June 2010, the highest in four years.

The number of businesses going bankrupt climbed eight per cent to 59,608 during the same period, despite signs of economic recovery.

“A total of 1,572,597 bankruptcy cases were filed in federal courts in that period (year ended June 30, 2010), compared to 1,306,315 bankruptcy cases filed in the 12-month period ending June 30, 2009,” according to the latest data available with the Administrative Office of the US Courts.

Moreover, the bankruptcy filings are the highest since 2006 when the number stood at 1.48 million. (Economic Times)

“The President has shown he is willing to work with anyone who will join us to figure out new ways to create more jobs. The Vice-President spends each week making sure we’re squeezing job out of every Recovery Act dollar,”-White House Spokesman on The Summertime Blues list of 100 stimulus ‘projects’ that don’t create anything but debt.

The biggest circumvention of “we the people” was of course the so-called “health care reform” bill. This bill was passed with the proviso that it would not really take effect until after the 2012 presidential elections. Between now and then, the Obama administration can tell us in glowing words how wonderful this bill is, what good things it will do for us, and how it has rescued us from the evil insurance companies, among its many other glories.

But we won’t really know what the actual effects of this bill are until after the next presidential elections– which is to say, after it is too late. Quite simply, we are being played for fools.

Much has been made of the fact that families making less than $250,000 a year will not see their taxes raised. Of course they won’t see it, because what they see could affect how they vote.

But when huge tax increases are put on electric utility companies, the public will see their electricity bills go up. When huge taxes are put on other businesses as well, they will see the prices of the things those businesses sell go up.

If you are not in that “rich” category, you will not see your own taxes go up. But you will be paying someone else’s higher taxes, unless of course you can do without electricity and other products of heavily taxed businesses. If you don’t see this, so much the better for the Obama administration politically.

This country has been changed in a more profound way by corrupting its fundamental values. The Obama administration has begun bribing people with the promise of getting their medical care and other benefits paid for by other people, so long as those other people can be called “the rich.” Incidentally, most of those who are called “the rich” are nowhere close to being rich.

A couple making $125,000 a year each are not rich, even though together they reach that magic $250,000 income level. In most cases, they haven’t been making $125,000 a year all their working lives. Far more often, they have reached this level after decades of working their way up from lower incomes– and now the government steps in to grab the reward they have earned over the years.

There was a time when most Americans would have resented the suggestion that they wanted someone else to pay their bills. But now, envy and resentment have been cultivated to the point where even people who contribute nothing to society feel that they have a right to a “fair share” of what others have produced.

The most dangerous corruption is a corruption of a nation’s soul. That is what this administration is doing. (Thomas Sowell)

Hope and Change!

Reach for the Hope!

IBD: The consequences of government involvement in health care have become more and more apparent as people have become informed about what the health overhaul law would do. No longer does the government seem to be a fairy godmother but rather a tough enforcer of an avalanche of new mandates, taxes and regulatory requirements.

The assurance that government would make sure all Americans have health care coverage has turned into a mandate that we all must have insurance defined by the government and with the government determining what our “choice” of health policies will be.

The latest example of our loss of individual control over health care decisions is playing out deep in the weeds of definitions over what must be counted as medical care and what counts as administrative expense in health insurance — the so-called “medical loss ratio,” or MLR. According to the new law, at least 85% of premium dollars must be spent on medical care for large firms and 80% for smaller ones.

Or put it this way. You spend 75% of your premiums collected on claims. But now the government mandates 85% because that’s “fair”. So where do you get the extra 10%??

Since you aren’t the government and just raise taxes or print more money you have to either cut services or other expenses, or increase the premiums.

And if you increase the premiums the government and the liberals will scream that you’re ‘raping’ the people with greedy capitalism.

Sucks to be you.

It sounds like a simple and straightforward issue, but a world of challenges and complexity lies beneath the surface. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has been charged with making recommendations to the federal government about what should and should not be counted in the equation.

To show how consequential the decision is, President Obama briefly scheduled, then canceled, a trip to speak to the NAIC meeting in Seattle in mid-August where the MLR issue was being debated.

Many of the decisions being made by regulators could make it almost impossible for private insurance companies to comply, leading inevitably to a government-run health system.

Connecticut state insurance commissioner Thomas Sullivan warned, “What we’ve learned since March, is that if you like your health insurance you may not be able to keep it,” he told the Seattle meeting, “and state regulators will have a role in implementing health care as long as that role supports the goals of HHS (the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), which may not necessarily be what’s in the best interest of consumers.”

He later told reporters: “I’m concerned there’s still a lot left to be done in interpretation … I fear that some have an agenda to interpret … with the express purpose of getting to a single-payer option.”

Many other health actuaries and experts at the Seattle meeting said they believed the MLR was meant to be so disruptive to private insurance that it would eventually push us into a single-payer system.

HHS is not obligated to take the recommendations of the NAIC. Ultimately, the bureaucracy will decide. And their decision will be hugely consequential.

Let the minutiae wrangling begin! And heaven help you if you’re on the wrong side of a bureaucrat!

An issue that is being most hotly debated right now is whether the federal, state and payroll taxes that insurance companies are required to pay must be counted today as administrative expenses or whether they can be subtracted from premium collections before the calculations are made.

Health insurers say the decision could determine whether they have the money to invest in fighting fraud, setting up networks of qualified physicians and updating information technologies. For other companies, the decision very well could determine whether they survive.

Six senior members of Congress also weighed in on the issue with a letter to the president of the NAIC, saying they meant for taxes to be counted as an administrative expense.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents insurance companies, countered that the legislation specifically says taxes shouldn’t be counted. Other independent analysts have validated the AHIP position.

So the politicization of health care begins, with even the president set to weigh in on a decision that would make most people’s eyes glaze over in the minutia. The president will meet with the NAIC at the White House in September or so to discuss the issue.

It now is clear that decisions about what kind of health insurance we have, how much we must pay, what it covers or doesn’t cover, will be made by politicians and bureaucrats.

This evokes a statement by health economist Paul Starr in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, “The Social Transformation of American Medicine”: “Political leaders since Bismarck seeking to strengthen the state or to advance their own or their party’s interests have used insurance against the costs of sickness as a means of turning benevolence to power.”

The process has begun. Unless ObamaCare can be rolled back, the politicization of American medicine will reach into the smallest decisions affecting our medical care for decades to come.

And, just five months after the health overhaul law was enacted, we see how the regulatory bureaucracy may well push us into the single-payer, government-run health care system that even the very liberal 111th Congress couldn’t enact. (Even with all the bribes!)

But was predictable given that the Health Care Reform debate was about control, not Health Care.

Just like Immigration enforcement is about Amnesty, not security.

Global Warming is not about the planet.

Financial Reform wasn’t about reform, as much as it was about control.

Remember, Tort Reform was completely ignored during the Health Care debate because Trial Lawyers are too big to ignore Democrats. And Fannie and Freddie were ignored by Financial Reform because the government and the liberals doing the reform were at fault for it’s continued collapse!

It’s about what the politicians want, not what the people want or need.

You are being told you want this, when in fact they want you to want it.

The Drug Addicts want to addict you to their drugs so you’ll demand more of them from them and to do that they will take more of your soul in the process.

Reach for the Hope, Sisyphus!
Trust in them to bring you the Hope all wrapped up in a pretty bow and all nice and shiny.
They would never take advantage of you.
No, they just want what’s “fair”.
What’s so wrong about that…. 🙂

I Told You So :)

I, like many others who read the health care bills, unlike the mainstream Media, which did it’s best to hide and deny what was going to happen, have now been shown the light of our truth.

But I’m sure the Ministry of Truth will do it’s best to diminish, dismiss and deny it even now.

That is that Mandatory Health Insurance is a TAX.

Shocking revelation, I know… 🙂

On poor people no less!!

CBS Sept 2009: President Barack Obama says requiring people to get health insurance and fining them if they don’t would not amount to a backhanded tax increase. “I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said.

“My critics say everything is a tax increase,” Mr. Obama said on “This Week.” “For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.”

ABC: The—for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore . . .” In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy—don’t call it a tax—is for your own good.

Mr. Stephanopoulos: “But you reject that it’s a tax increase?”

Mr. Obama: “I absolutely reject that notion.”

President Obama said in his not quite State of the Union address that Americans earning less than $250,000 would pay “not one dime” in new taxes.

Well, it’s time to reveal Lie #4,362. The Big Whopper.

The one all of us “racist” “teabagger” “idiots” and “terrorist” warned you about.

WASHINGTON — When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.

In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nation’s economy. Nowhere does Congress cite its taxing power as a source of authority.

They knew they were lying. They didn’t care. Because the end justified the means.

And the Mainstream Media was either brain-dead stupid or in on the lies. Period.

Under the Constitution, Congress can exercise its taxing power to provide for the “general welfare.” It is for Congress, not courts, to decide which taxes are “conducive to the general welfare,” the Supreme Court said 73 years ago in upholding the Social Security Act.

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, described the tax power as an alternative source of authority.

“The Commerce Clause supplies sufficient authority for the shared-responsibility requirements in the new health reform law,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “To the extent that there is any question of additional authority — and we don’t believe there is — it would be available through the General Welfare Clause.”

The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a “penalty” rather than a tax. The Justice Department brushes aside the distinction, saying “the statutory label” does not matter. The constitutionality of a tax law depends on “its practical operation,” not the precise form of words used to describe it, the department says, citing a long line of Supreme Court cases.

Orwell is smiling on you, Mr President and AG Holder.

Masters of Doublespeak.

Orwell on “The Party” of Big Brother: The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.  Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them…(Orwell, New American Library, 1981, p35)

Moreover, the department says the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

In addition, the department notes, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.”

2009: What’s more, the agency is limited in the actions it can take to enforce compliance. “Congress was very careful to make sure that there was nothing too punitive in this bill,” {IRS Chief} Shulman said. “There’s no criminal sanctions for not paying this, and there’s no ability to levy a bank account or do seizures or [use] some of the other tools” available to the agency for enforcing laws.

If necessary, the IRS will levy fines against individuals who fail to purchase adequate insurance and collect them though tax return offsets. But the agency’s “first line of defense is education,” he said.

Because the penalty is a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.

Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, “The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding” the individual-coverage requirement.

Mr. Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax. Because it’s a tax, it’s completely constitutional.”

Mr. Balkin and other law professors pressed that argument in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in one of the pending cases.

Opponents contend that the “minimum coverage provision” is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power to regulate commerce.

“This is the first time that Congress has ever ordered Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.

In their lawsuit, Florida and other states say: “Congress is attempting to regulate and penalize Americans for choosing not to engage in economic activity. If Congress can do this much, there will be virtually no sphere of private decision-making beyond the reach of federal power.”

In reply, the administration and its allies say that a person who goes without insurance is simply choosing to pay for health care out of pocket at a later date. In the aggregate, they say, these decisions have a substantial effect on the interstate market for health care and health insurance.

In its legal briefs, the Obama administration points to a famous New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court upheld a penalty imposed on an Ohio farmer who had grown a small amount of wheat, in excess of his production quota, purely for his own use.

The wheat grown by Roscoe Filburn “may be trivial by itself,” the court said, but when combined with the output of other small farmers, it significantly affected interstate commerce and could therefore be regulated by the government as part of a broad scheme regulating interstate commerce.

But it will bring prices down: Lie #4,264

The Democratic co-chair of President Obama’s fiscal commission said Wednesday that the president’s health care bill will do very little to bring down costs, contradicting claims from the White House that their sweeping legislation will dramatically impact runaway entitlement spending.

“It didn’t do a lot to address cost factors in health care. So we’ve got a lot of work to do,” said Erskine Bowles, former White House chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, speaking about the new health law, which was signed into law by Obama this past spring after a nearly year-long fight in Congress.

Esrkine Bowles is one of the two stooges who will anounce AFTER the mid-term election that all is crap and we have to have massive Tax increases in order to save us all, including likely, the VAT.

And if the republicans are in charge of at least one side or both of Congress it will be even  more there fault! 🙂

And Obama is going to, “Well, I have to do what the report says…”

It’s the ultimate Dog & Pony show.

Just keep that in mind.
Bowles, speaking at an event hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that even with the passage of Obama’s legislation, health care costs are still going to “really eat us alive” unless dramatic changes are made. The commission will submit recommendations on how to fix America’s long term fiscal problems to Congress in December.

Bowles’ point will be amplified Thursday when a conservative think tank releases a paper arguing that Obama’s health plan “is not entitlement reform,” at an event intended to highlight an alternative plan for reforming health care spending that is the brainchild of Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican.

James C. Capretta, a former White House budget adviser on health care to President George W. Bush, will present the paper for the Galen Institute at an event on Capitol Hill with Ryan, one of the Republican Party’s rising stars, and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a top conservative economist.

Even as many on Capitol Hill are talking about addressing Social Security spending, Capretta writes in the 19-page paper that Medicare is the real problem.

Most Democrats and Republicans agree, Capretta says, that the 30 to 35 million seniors in Medicare’s fee-for-service (FFS) insurance program are “the engine … pulling the rest of the health system down the tracks at an accelerated and dangerous rate.”

And who just got recess appointee to the job of head of Medicare, a NHS Single-payer Health Care rationing lover.
No coincidence there mind you. 🙂

Most FFS participants pay nothing out of their own pockets for health care, and hospitals and doctors are incentivized to provide them with as many services and tests as can be loosely justified.

But Capretta says in the paper that the Obama health bill is not reform because it attempts to stop price inflation and inefficient care through top-down government control rather than bottom-up consumer demand.

“When attempts have been made in the past to steer patients toward preferred physicians or hospitals, they have failed miserably because politicians and regulators find it impossible to make distinctions among hospitals and physician groups based on quality measures that can themselves be disputed,” Capretta says.

Capretta goes on to say that Paul Ryan’s plan would move Medicare recipients from defined benefits to defined contributions, in which “cost-conscious consumers choose between competing insurers and delivery systems based on price and quality.”

“Beneficiaries would get to decide which insurance plan they want to enroll in. If the premium were more than the amount they are entitled to from Medicare, then they would pay the difference. If it were less, they would keep all of the savings,” Capretta says.

“Millions of otherwise passive Medicare participants would become active, cost-conscious consumers of insurance and alternative models for securing needed medical services,” Capretta writes. “Cost cutting innovation would be rewarded, not punished as it is today.”

White House officials pointed to recent blog posts by White House budget director Peter Orszag, who said that “if implemented effectively, [Obama’s health care bill] can play an important role in moving toward a healthier fiscal future.” (Daily Caller)

Welcome Big Brother Obama and Big Mother Michelle’s New and Improved IRS:

If it seems as if the tax code was conceived by graphic artist M.C. Escher, wait until you meet the new and not improved Internal Revenue Service created by ObamaCare. What, you’re not already on a first-name basis with your local IRS agent?

National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, who operates inside the IRS, highlighted the agency’s new mission in her annual report to Congress last week. Look out below. She notes that the IRS is already “greatly taxed”—pun intended?—”by the additional role it is playing in delivering social benefits and programs to the American public,” like tax credits for first-time homebuyers or purchasing electric cars. Yet with ObamaCare, the agency is now responsible for “the most extensive social benefit program the IRS has been asked to implement in recent history.” And without “sufficient funding” it won’t be able to discharge these new duties.

That wouldn’t be tragic, given that those new duties include audits to determine who has the insurance “as required by law” and collecting penalties from Americans who don’t. Companies that don’t sponsor health plans will also be punished. This crackdown will “involve nearly every division and function of the IRS,” Ms. Olson reports.

Well, well. Republicans argued during the health debate that the IRS would have to hire hundreds of new agents and staff to enforce ObamaCare. They were brushed off by Democrats and the press corps as if they believed the President was born on the moon. The IRS says it hasn’t figured out how much extra money and manpower it will need but admits that both numbers are greater than zero.

Ms. Olson also exposed a damaging provision that she estimates will hit some 30 million sole proprietorships and subchapter S corporations, two million farms and one million charities and other tax-exempt organizations. Prior to ObamaCare, businesses only had to tell the IRS the value of services they purchase. But starting in 2013 they will also have to report the value of goods they buy from a single vendor that total more than $600 annually—including office supplies and the like.

Democrats snuck in this obligation to narrow the mythical “tax gap” of unreported business income, but Ms. Olson says that the tracking costs for small businesses will be “disproportionate as compared with any resulting improvement in tax compliance.” Job creation, here we come . . . at least for the accountants who will attempt to comply with a vast new 1099 reporting burden.

Meanwhile, the IRS will be inundated with useless information, because without a huge upgrade its information systems won’t be able to manage and track the nanodetails.

In a Monday letter, even Democratic Senators Mark Begich (Alaska), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire) and Evan Bayh (Indiana) denounce this new “burden” on small businesses and insist that the IRS use its discretion to find “better ways to structure this reporting requirement.” In other words, they want regulators to fix one problem among many that all four Senators created by voting for ObamaCare.

We never thought anyone would be nostalgic for the tax system of a few months ago, but post-ObamaCare, here we are.(WSJ)

On Friday, Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, declared that the sky is about to fall on the Medicare system. His plea to fellow Democrats to pass a $22.9-billion fix for Medicare doctors’ fees reveals the fraudulent nature of our new national health care regime.

Remember the health care issue? Well, the fiscal consequences of the socialized medicine scheme enacted by President Barack Obama and Congress just two months ago are already beginning to snowball.

Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, was one of the key architects and advocates of Obamacare. He was back on the House floor on Friday delivering an urgent plea to fellow Democrats that inadvertently—or, perhaps, unavoidably—revealed the fraudulent nature of our new national health care regime.

It was supposed to save the taxpayers money, remember? “This legislation will lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades,” Obama said when he signed the bill.

On Friday, Waxman declared that the sky is about to fall on the Medicare system. He went to the House floor to “urge” his colleagues to vote for a bill that includes $102 billion in new federal spending and would add $54 billion to the national debt over the next 10 years — $25 billion of it in the few months remaining in this fiscal year.

Why did Waxman believe this new borrowing-and-spending was necessary?

“It’s absolutely critical to do this if we are going to keep doctors in Medicare and keep the promise to Medicare beneficiaries that they will have access to physicians’ services,” said Waxman. “This provision will provide a moderate increase in physicians’ fees, 2.2 percent for the rest of the year. If we don’t act, doctors’ fees will be cut by 21 percent from where they are today. This would be unconscionable.”

It would not merely be unconscionable. If the 21-percent cut in Medicare fees for doctors—that, in fact, legally took effect on June 1 — is allowed to stand, many doctors in this country will simply stop seeing Medicare patients. They will not be able to afford it. The cost to them of serving their patients will exceed what they are paid. Their profit margin will be swept away.

To make precisely this point, 12 national surgeons’ associations—including the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery—sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter last Wednesday warning her what would happen if Medicare doctors’ fees are slashed as they are scheduled to be under current law.

“These continued payment cuts, rising practice costs and a lack of certainty going forward, make it difficult, if not impossible, for already financially challenged surgical practices to continue to treat Medicare patients,” the surgeons’ associations told Pelosi.

The letter pointed the speaker toward the results of a survey of more than 13,000 physicians done in February by the Surgical Coalition, a group of more than 20 medical associations. The survey asked these doctors what they would do if Medicare fees were slashed by the scheduled 21.2 percent.

Twenty-nine percent said they would opt out of the Medicare system entirely. Almost 69 percent said they would limit the number of appointments they would take from Medicare patients, 45.8 percent said they would start referring complex Medicare patients to other physicians, 45.3 percent said they would stop providing certain services, 43.8 percent said they would defer purchasing new medical equipment and 42.7 percent said they would cut their staff. Almost 4 percent of the doctors said they would close or sell their practices.

Why did Congress plan to slash the doctors’ Medicare fees in the first place? It didn’t. In the past, the majority in Congress has routinely enacted budget bills that fraudulently assumed that on some future date the federal government would dramatically slash the Medicare fees paid to doctors, knowing that before that date arrived the majority would pass “emergency” legislation postponing the cuts to some still-future date. The majority in Congress does this so the long-term deficits caused by their spending bills appear to be smaller than they actually are.

As originally proposed, Obamacare would have ended this practice, permanently setting Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors at the true anticipated level. But the Congressional Budget Office determined that doing so would have added $208 billion to the cost of Obamacare over 10 years, forcing the CBO to declare that Obamacare added to the deficit rather than reduced it. That would have cost Obamacare votes on the House floor and quite possibly defeated the legislation.

So the congressional leadership stripped the “doc fix” out of Obamacare and left it to another day.

Waxman went down to the floor last Friday to declare that day had come. Unfortunately, for him, the Senate had already left town for its Memorial Day vacation. So, the current fix will have to wait until it returns.

Even then, the fix only accounts for $22.9 billion of the $102 billion cost of the bill the House did pass on Friday. Most of the rest of the money is for extending unemployment benefits and special targeted tax breaks.

The $22.9 billion fix for the doctors’ fees—if passed by the Senate—would only last through September 2011. Then Congress will presumably do it all again—or let the Medicare system collapse.

And they did.

In the meantime, Obamacare is supposed to cut half a trillion in spending from elsewhere in Medicare, while Obama’s budget—not counting the $54 billion in new debt included in this bill—is expected to add $9.8 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.

And then there’s still more on the “Financial Reform” bill related to the IRS:

“Small businesses are America’s job creators and essential to our nation’s economy,” Roberts said in prepared remarks. “Under the new healthcare law, small businesses will be hit with a costly tax reporting provision that will increase the cost of doing business at a time of economic uncertainty.”

Beginning in 2012, the law states that businesses, tax-exempt organizations, and state and local governments must submit a separate 1099 form for every business-to-business transaction totaling more than $600. The impetus behind the requirement is help the IRS better enforce the tax law by forcing companies to disclose whom they do business with.

Several organizations, including the IRS watchdog The National Taxpayer Advocate, have questioned how effective this requirement will be on enforcement.

The new mandate applies to everyday purchases, like shipping costs, supplies, even Internet and phone service. The senators argue this will overburden companies. The Taxpayer Advocate questions the IRS’ ability to handle all the documentation.

“Unless corrected, this time-wasting mandate of 1099 filings on common purchases needed to do business, will stifle economic growth and job creation while the IRS will be handed a paperwork nightmare,” Roberts said.

The senators contend the requirement will affect 40 million businesses nationwide.

“I have heard from many Kansas small businesses and farmers, already burdened with government bureaucracy, that these new reporting requirements will waste time and negatively impact their bottom-line,” Roberts said.

Abortion, anyone?

As reports are coming out that Pennsylvania is receiving $160 million from the Department of Health and Human Services to set up a new high-risk insurance pool program that will fund abortions, we are seeing, yet again, that the Obama Administration will say and do anything to pass their liberal agenda — ignoring public opinion along the way…

LIES: “You’ve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion – not true. These are all fabrications.” — President Obama on August 19, 2009

D*MN LIES: “The executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation’s restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented.” — White House Statement on March 21, 2010

STATISTICS: 67 percent of Americans oppose funding abortions with public funds under the health care bill. — Quinnipiac University Poll, January 14, 2010

As pundits have commented in recent weeks, and many of us have realized, you need to watch what the President really does, not listen to what he says, as the two are often in vast contrast of one another. As you can read above, nowhere is this truer than on the issue of abortion.

Back in March, when the offer to sign an Executive Order was made, many pro-lifers questioned why the order was needed after President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Secretary Sebelius had been saying for months that no federal dollars would be used to fund abortions. On the day of the vote, I personally spoke on the House floor about how an Executive Order has no effect of law and cannot override the clear intent of a statute, as well as on how an Executive Order is only a piece of paper. Now that we know how little the President values his word and that he is comfortable violating an Executive Order, we are only left to wonder what other secrets are lurking for us in the dark. (The Hill)

Remember, it was abortion that was the very last hurdle that Obama had to jump over to get his power over life and death.

He promised to Federally ban it.

He said Health Care Reform wasn’t tax.

The Stimulus will create 3 Million Jobs. (not “save or create”)

I said at the time he was lying.

I got called a racist so many times I could have paid off my house with the money if I got paid for it.

Saying this President is lying when his lips are moving is like saying the sun will come up tomorrow.

It’s an absolute certainty.

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”-Orwell

Thank you, Big Brother and Big Mother and Big Sis… 😦

Anyone got a crate of Tea handy… 🙂