You Vill Comply!

The Obama Administration’s IRS jackboots have come up with a new Orwellian euphemism for the ObamaCare Mandate Tax, see if you can spot it. 🙂

oh, and then there’s :

President Obama thanked the group that used to be his reelection campaign, Organizing for Action, in event tonight in Washington. 

“The work you are doing is God’s work,” Obama told supporters. (TWS)

Not that his has a Messiah complex or that the Left has very high opinion of their superiority complex… after all God was a National Socialist! 🙂

President Obama’s Internal Revenue Service today quietly released a series of Obamacare “Health Care Tax Tips” warning Americans that they must obtain “qualifying” health insurance – as defined by the federal government – or face a “shared responsibility payment” when filing their tax returns in 2015. The term “shared responsibility payment” refers to the Obamacare individual mandate tax, one of at least seven tax hikes in the healthcare law that directly hit families making less than $250,000 per year.

In “Four Tax Facts about the Health Care Law for Individuals” the agency writes:

Your 2014 tax return will ask if you had insurance coverage or qualified for an exemption.  If not, you may owe a shared responsibility payment when you file in 2015.

In “The Individual Shared Responsibility Payment- An Overview” the agency warns Americans they must prove they were covered each and every month of the year:

For any month in 2014 that you or any of your dependents don’t maintain coverage and don’t qualify for an exemption, you will need to make an individual shared responsibility payment with your 2014 tax return filed in 2015.

In “IRS Reminds Individuals of Health Care Choices for 2014” the agency details the calculations Americans can look forward to if they are liable for the tax:

If you (or any of your dependents) do not maintain coverage and do not qualify for an exemption, you will need to make an individual shared responsibility payment with your return. In general, the payment amount is either a percentage of your household income or a flat dollar amount, whichever is greater. You will owe 1/12th of the annual payment for each month you (or your dependents) do not have coverage and are not exempt. The annual payment amount for 2014 is the greater of:

  • 1 percent of your household income that is above the tax return filing threshold for your filing status, such as Married Filing Jointly or single, or
  • Your family’s flat dollar amount, which is $95 per adult and $47.50 per child, limited to a maximum of $285.

As confirmed by previous  IRS testimony to the tax-writing House Committee on Ways and Means, “taxpayers will file their tax returns reporting their health insurance coverage, and/or making a payment”.

But it’s NOT A TAX, remember, because then the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional. 🙂

Once fully phased in, the Obamacare individual mandate tax will rise steeply, to a maximum of 2.5 percent of Adjusted Gross Income or $2,085 – whichever is higher.

But be happy, it’s not a TAX! 🙂

And you can keep your doctor, your plan, and your hospital if you like them! 🙂

Trust Me! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

It’s Still a TAX!

When the ‘individual mandate is a tax’ concept is presented to some Democrats, they just don’t find it acceptable. So they try to use the Jedi mind trick. They simply repeat ‘it is not a tax’ on various news shows, possibly hoping it will enter the minds of viewers and the host will repeat it back convinced that the tax does not exist.

Because after all, a lie told often enough can become the Truth. A truism that Liberals live by.

Just look at Obama calls 8.2% unemployment ” a step in the right direction.”

So unemployment over 8%for  3 1/2 years straight is a “step” in the right direction!!

More people going on disability than jobs added is a “step”

More people on Food Stamps than ever is a “step”

Unemployment average time going up is a “step”.

But back to Obamacare….

So I will continue to Shout “IT’S A TAX!!!”whether the Left like it or not.

With that in mind, I can understand why Democrats are loath to calling the so-called Affordably Care Act what it really is—a tax!

I had a good time on Cavuto yesterday, at the expense of Nancy Pelosi who seems to have lost it in ways that Charlie Sheen seems to have lost it. She is just plain kooky, a walking train wreck of senseless babble and vitriolic rhetoric. Nonetheless, I took time out to help educate Nancy Pelosi and others on what Chief Justice Roberts meant when he said “it’s a tax.”

Tax (noun)

1. A charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.

-Merriam Webster

The thing is these taxes will only grow and become more onerous, there is no incentive to get off government healthcare much like there are more and more reasons in general to stay snuggled within the nest of entitlements. But, this tax hurts almost everyone directly, through higher taxes, which means fewer jobs and less disposable income. I think another dictionary probably sums up why the party, so proud of tax and spend, is trying so hard to promote the Supreme Court decision without invoking the “T” word.

Tax (verb)

1. to steal

Tax (noun)

1. Giving money you don’t have to people you don’t know for a program you don’t believe in.
2. Legalized theft created by and used by the government, mostly used to pay for a war in Iraq or to give money to lazy people who refuse to work (see welfare).

-Urban Dictionary

Yes, the Urban Dictionary cuts to the chase in a much crasser manner than Webster, but the point is interesting. Fans of this new tax are hypocrites if they think only a few people should be taxed to create yet another entitlement program (not lumping social security and Medicare into this). But that’s the end game, hoping so many Americans have forgotten all taxation without representation to buy into the notion of tax anyone but me to make my life cushier.

Adding up Impact

By the way, since the media and administration love counterfactuals (jobs saved, depression averted) how about this one on the impact of healthcare.

There is a 2.3% excise tax on medical instruments. This will surely cut into the amount of money used for research and development. In a fantastic piece, Dr. Benjamin Zycher laid out how this negatively impacts all Americans.

10% cut on medical device R&D: $2.0 billion
Loss of life from breakthrough averted or delayed: 1,000,000 life-years
Economic impact from loss of 1,000,000 life-years to America’s economy: $100.0 billion a year

This thing costs a lot including the same freedoms that spark the creation of the nation in the first place. (Charles Payne)

Come 2014, you’ll have to pay a tax if you’re uninsured — but how exactly it’s going to work is still getting sorted out. The IRS isn’t sure how many people they’ll have to hire, or how much implementation will end up costing:

The changes will require new regulations, forms and publications, new computer programs and a big new outreach program to explain it all to taxpayers and tax professionals. Businesses that don’t claim an exemption will have to prove they offer health insurance to employees.

The health care law “includes the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years,” according to the Treasury inspector general who oversees the IRS. The agency will have to hire thousands of workers to manage it, requiring significant budget increases that already are being targeted by congressional Republicans determined to dismantle the president’s signature initiative.

“Knowing the complexity of the health law, there’s no question that the IRS is going to struggle with this,” said Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., R-La., chairman of the House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee. “The IRS wants more resources. Well, we need to start digging down into what are they doing with the resources and personnel.”

The penalty will be fully phased in by 2016, when it will be $695 for each uninsured adult or 2.5 percent of family income, whichever is greater, up to $12,500. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 4 million people will pay the penalty that year.

The law, however, severely limits the ability of the IRS to collect the penalties. There are no civil or criminal penalties for refusing to pay it and the IRS cannot seize bank accounts or dock wages to collect it. No interest accumulates for unpaid penalties.

So how can the IRS enforce the mandate? Scary letters and threats to withhold tax refunds.

The law allows the IRS to withhold tax refunds to collect the penalty, and most filers get refunds. This year, 77 percent of the 135 million individual income tax returns processed by the IRS qualified for a refund. The average refund: $2,707.

For those who don’t qualify for a refund, a stern letter from the IRS can be effective, even if it doesn’t come with the threat of civil or criminal penalties, said Elizabeth Maresca, a former IRS trial attorney who supervises the Tax & Consumer Litigation Clinic at the Fordham University law school.

“Most people pay because they’re scared, and I don’t think that’s going to change,” Maresca said.

It’ll be interesting to see how effective the tax is — but of course, the better option would be a full repeal before implementation is necessary.  (Katie Hicks)

But the only way that happens is if the Empire of the Left is sweep out.

BUT NEVER DISCOUNT THE REPUBLICANS ABILITY TO SNATCH DEFEAT FROM JAWS OF VICTORY.

“The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.”“The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.”– Sen. Daniel Moynihan

NOVEMBER IS COMING!

Easy Riders

Oh, look another of Obama’s pets barfed up on the taxpayer’s carpet…

Despite glowing press clippings in which the CEO of Colorado-based Abound Solar claimed seven months ago that his company was the “anti-Solyndra,” the green-energy firm has filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation. It is terminating all 125 workers at its Loveland, Colo. headquarters, and is blaming China for its failure.

The U.S. Department of Energy awarded Abound Solar a $400 million loan guarantee in December 2010, funds that the then-three-year-old startup said it would use to compete with solar panel industry leader First Solar.

The company had tapped into about $70 million of those funds by August 2011 when the DOE unplugged it from the taxpayers’ cash stream, around the same time the more famous Solyndra went bankrupt. That company ate through $535 million in loans guaranteed by the federal government before it failed. (DC)

And, of course, it’s someone else’s fault! Hint: China

What a shocker!

And An “The economy is fine” Update:

A record of 8,733,461 workers took federal disability insurance payments in June 2012, according to the Social Security Administration

It also exceeds the entire population of New York City, which according to the Census Bureau’s latest estimate hit 8,244,910 in July 2011.

There has been a dramatic shrinkage in the United States over the past 20 years in the number of workers actually employed and earning paychecks per worker who is not employed and is taking federal disability insurance payments.

In June 1992, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 118,419,000 people employed in the United States, and, according to the Social Security Administration , there were 3,334,333 workers taking federal disability payments. That equaled about 1 person taking disability payments for each 35.5 people actually working.

The federal disability payments made to the record 8,733,461 workers in June averaged $1,111.42. (KFYI)

So Let’s SPEND EVEN MORE! 🙂

************

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

One of the better paragraph’s about Post Traumatic Roberts Syndrome:

That is the kind of sophistry we expect from liberals. The left sees the law as a tool of social justice — so they start with the desired outcome and then come up with legal reasoning to justify it. That is what Roberts did last week. He decided he wanted to uphold Obamacare and rewrote the statute to fit that outcome. (Hot air)

Then There is:

“Bush v. Gore is an example of a decision the left didn’t respect in part because they thought it was political motivated,” said Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University law professor who worked with the National Federation of Independent Business on its case against the law. “What the left says of Bush v. Gore, I think is true of this decision.”…

“He’s an umpire that seemed worried that people from the stands would be hollering at him,” said Chapman University law professor John Eastman. (hot air)

It’s not a Tax (even if the Supreme Court said so): Nancy Pelosi:” It’s a penalty that comes under the tax code for the 1%, perhaps of the population who may decide that they’re gonna be free riders…” So the 30 Million uninsured that this was allegedly for are now 1%ers??  Now that’s hilarious…Orwell would be proud you.

So, like every time a liberal gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar, “it’s nothing”, “lets just move on, etc…” Dismissive is the liberal attempt to minimize their poo all over you.

Here’s a fun new twist, but I know it won’t go anywhere:

Namely, doesn’t Article I, section 7 of the Constitution say that all bills that raise revenue must originate in the House? And didn’t ObamaCare pass the Senate before it passed the House? And doesn’t that in turn mean that our nifty new health care “tax” was passed according to unconstitutional procedures?  (Hot air)

According to the United States Constitution, all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. This law originated in the Senate, because at the time the Democrats were selling it as a purchase – not a tax. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the law is indeed based on a tax increase, it would have had to be initiated as a bill in the House of Representatives. (Rhonda Deniston)

Reid took a bill that had already passed the House, stripped out the provisions to turn it into a “shell bill,” and then inserted the text of ObamaCare to get around this requirement. The bill that passed the Senate was H.R.3590, which initially had to do with tax breaks for military homeowners. And yes, they’ve used the “shell bill” strategy before. (Hot air)

You mean it was a fake out! No! Say it ain’t so Harry! :0

From the Conservative Descent: For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Actof 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off. The Federalist No. 58 “defend[ed] the decision to give the origination power to the House on the ground that the Chamber that is more accountable to the people should have the primary role in raising revenue.” United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U. S. 385, 395 (1990). We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty. See Affordable Health Care for America Act, H. R. 3962, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §501 (2009); America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, S. 1796, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §1301. Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry.

The Court tolerates the “shell bill” procedure, I think, because the Seventeenth Amendment has somewhat undermined the Framers’ intent of making sure that tax bills begin in the chamber that’s more accountable to the people. The House is still more accountable, but less so now that the Senate is also popularly elected. And in the case of O-Care, which passed a deep blue House at the time and a barely filibuster-proof Senate, there’s no doubt that the tax-mandate would have passed the House easily even if it had originated there. I suppose O-Care opponents could sue anyway and claim that “shell bills” in tax matters should be deemed unconstitutional because they violate the spirit of Article I, section 7, but c’mon: How likely do you think Roberts would be to say, “You’re right, I totally spaced on the origination clause in my earlier landmark ruling. Decision overturned”? (Hot air)

Well, since it was an Image thing and he’s hiding out in Malta for the summer…Nah…
The silver lining here procedurally is that, now that the mandate’s officially a “tax,” it falls squarely within the parameters of budgetary matters than can be dealt with in the Senate via reconciliation. That means the GOP will only need 51 votes to get rid of it, not 60.
So it is vital to the health of America that the House remain with the Republicans and we get rid of at least for Democrats in the Senate.

NOVEMBER IS COMING!

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Victims of a Bullied Justice

The IRS Can NOW Enter Through The Rear

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

What do you know it’s a TAX!

2009: “That may be, but it’s still a tax increase,” said Stephanopoulos.

“No,” said the president. “That’s not true, George.  The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. 

Stephanopoulos cited Merriam Webster’s Dictionary definition. “Tax — ‘a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.'”

“George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now,” said the president. “Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition….I absolutely reject that notion” that it’s a tax increase. (ABC News)

Yeah, But Chief Justice Roberts just ruled that it was a TAX. That’s why Obamacare is “Constitutional”, because it’s TAX in the view of the “majority” opinion.

Like he did when Obamacare was being debated, Obama will try to hide from Americans the fact that Obamacare is a tax increase when he is on the stump. But in 2012, he won’t be able to take credit for Obamacare without admitting that it is a tax increase because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in upholding his law, called him out on it. (Breitbart)

But at least 1700+ companies, mostly unions are exempt because of the waivers passed out like candy to his apparatchiks. Oh happy Days.

Why Roberts did it

By Charles Krauthammer, Thursday, June 28, 1:11 PM

It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature.

As a conservative, he is as appalled as his conservative colleagues by the administration’s central argument that Obamacare’s individual mandate is a proper exercise of its authority to regulate commerce.

That makes congressional power effectively unlimited. Mr. Jones is not a purchaser of health insurance. Mr. Jones has therefore manifestly not entered into any commerce. Yet Congress tells him he must buy health insurance — on the grounds that it is regulating commerce. If government can do that under the commerce clause, what can it not do?

“The Framers . . . gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it,” writes Roberts. Otherwise you “undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.”

That’s Roberts, philosophical conservative. But he lives in uneasy coexistence with Roberts, custodian of the court, acutely aware that the judiciary’s arrogation of power has eroded the esteem in which it was once held. Most of this arrogation occurred under the liberal Warren and Burger courts, most egregiously with Roe v. Wade, which willfully struck down the duly passed abortion laws of 46 states. The result has been four decades of popular protest and resistance to an act of judicial arrogance that, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, “deferred stable settlement of the issue” by the normal electoral/legislative process.

More recently, however, few decisions have occasioned more bitterness and rancor than Bush v. Gore, a 5 to 4 decision split along ideological lines. It was seen by many (principally, of course, on the left) as a political act disguised as jurisprudence and designed to alter the course of the single most consequential political act of a democracy — the election of a president.

Whatever one thinks of the substance of Bush v. Gore, it did affect the reputation of the court. Roberts seems determined that there be no recurrence with Obamacare. Hence his straining in his Obamacare ruling to avoid a similar result — a 5 to 4 decision split along ideological lines that might be perceived as partisan and political.

National health care has been a liberal dream for a hundred years. It is clearly the most significant piece of social legislation in decades. Roberts’s concern was that the court do everything it could to avoid being seen, rightly or wrongly, as high-handedly overturning sweeping legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.

How to reconcile the two imperatives — one philosophical and the other institutional? Assign yourself the task of writing the majority opinion. Find the ultimate finesse that manages to uphold the law, but only on the most narrow of grounds — interpreting the individual mandate as merely a tax, something generally within the power of Congress.

Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the commerce clause is reined in. By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the commerce clause fig leaf.

Law upheld, Supreme Court’s reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers reaffirmed.

That’s not how I would have ruled. I think the “mandate is merely a tax” argument is a dodge, and a flimsy one at that. (The “tax” is obviously punitive, regulatory and intended to compel.) Perhaps that’s not how Roberts would have ruled had he been just an associate justice and not the chief. But that’s how he did rule.

Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you.

So he gave into pressure to be “liked” and to not appear to be a “right wing judicial activist”. Image Politics at it’s finest and darkest.

So like the Republicans in the Debt Ceiling vote they caved into the pressure from the intolerant and partisan media and we all get to be victims of the Bully Pulpit.

Democrats carry out their strategy of trashing the Court as a “corporate dominated arm of the Republican party.” The truth may, in fact be that the Court is dominated easily–not by corporate interests, but by Obama’s imperial presidency and an intolerant mainstream media. 

If Chief Justice Roberts thought he was preserving public trust in the Supreme Court today, he will quickly learn he has done the opposite–not least because Democrats define bipartisanship as complete capitulation. Liberals–still smarting over Bush v. Gore–and conservatives now both have reason to distrust the court and its motives. If that “bipartisanship” is the legacy of the Chief Justice’s apparent switch, it is a bitter bequest. (Breitbart)

Also worth reading: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/chief-justice-roberts-its-not-tax-it-tax-its-law-its-not-unlawful-break-it

He was for it After he was against it. The tortured logic of a bully’s victim.

He’s got Stockholm Syndrome.

And we all get hit with the shrapnel. I wonder if Post Traumatic Roberts Syndrome will be covered by ObamaCare?

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy)- a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected  by the least capable of producing,and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or  succeed,are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of
a diminishing number of producers.

One last thing:  As soon as the law was ruled Constitutional, some members of the DNC showed their class.  A tweet was sent out that read, “It’s Constitutional, bitches!”  That’s class for ya. It’s must be that new “civility” they were talking about.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

And The Winner Is…

BIG BROTHER!!!!

Its "for the childern"

Chief Justice John Roberts announced the court’s judgment that allows the law to go forward with its aim of covering more than 30 million uninsured Americans. Roberts provided the swing vote to uphold the president’s health care law as the court ruled 5-4. The court’s four liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, joined Roberts in the outcome.

Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Justice Roberts: The chief justice came to the conclusion that the mandate was constitutional as a tax after finding that it was not, in fact, a legal “command” to buy health insurance.

WHAT WAS HE SMOKING?!!!

“Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income,” he wrote.

“As I have explained, the Court’s continued use of that test ‘has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits.'” –Justice Thomas

Justice Roberts still toking the Weed: The Constitution’s commerce clause does not allow the federal government to force people to participate in a particular economic activity, Roberts stated.

“The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because they will engage in particular transactions,” Roberts wrote. “Any police power to regulate people, as such, as opposed to their activities, remains with the states.”

BUT THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS THE JUSTIFICATION YOU MORON!

The justices rejected two of the administration’s three arguments in support of the insurance requirement. But the court said the mandate can be construed as a tax. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” Roberts said.

The court found problems with the law’s expansion of Medicaid, but even there said the expansion could proceed as long as the federal government does not threaten to withhold states’ entire Medicaid allotment if they don’t take part in the law’s extension.

“The act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting states all Medicaid funding,” the dissenters said in a joint statement.

The court’s ruling has a far-reaching impact on the nation’s health care system. With the law being upheld, about 30 million of the 50 million uninsured Americans would get coverage in 2014 when a big expansion begins.

Obama has vigorously defended the health care overhaul as critical to the public’s health and well-being in campaign events this week.

“I think it was the right thing to do. I know it was the right thing to do,” he told supporters in Boston.

Republican campaign strategists said presidential candidate Mitt Romney will use the court’s ruling to continue campaigning against “Obamacare” and attacking the president’s signature health care program as a tax increase.

“Obama might have his law, but the GOP has a cause,” said veteran campaign adviser Terry Holt. “This promises to galvanize Republican support around a repeal of what could well be called the largest tax increase in American history.”

So Now the Government can demand you buy they deem, all they have to do is      call it a tax and claim it’s “commerce” and you’re toast!

And if your State objects to Federal Laws, too f*cking bad for you!

Do you think if it was sold as a Tax originally and that if  you didn’t comply an  IRS Agent would be punitively coming to your bank account  would you have embraced it?

The Left would have, it’s their Holy Grail. They now control who lives and who dies and How you Live! What could make them happier!

So coming soon:

The BMI Tax

The Salt Tax

The Soda Tax

The Obese Tax

The Fat Tax

The Vegan Tax

The Recycling/Global Warming Tax

The Chevy Volt Tax

The Gasoline Tax

The Light Bulb Tax

The Home Garden Tax

The Fast Food Penalty Tax

The MSNBC Tax

If they can TAX you for this what can’t they TAX you for??

NOTHING! Certainly not the Supreme Court!

What’s next, a TAX if we don’t work? So they they can get us working and not working.

You are now Serfs of the Big Brother who can now TAX you for anything they want and you have no say! So just suck it up, Serf!

If you do not obtain insurance coverage by 2014 you will be assessed a tax penalty. The penalty becomes progressively greater from 2014 through 2016, when it reaches full strength. Costing you $744 on a  $40,000 a year job to begin with.

But testing a website for poor people: The law expands Medicaid to all individuals and families with incomes at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. But the court found that states cannot be penalized if they decline to comply with the expansion, raising questions as to how effectively the federal government will be able to implement it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/

Under 26, Single, Low income of $20,000: You will have the option of buying a health plan through your state’s exchange with federal assistance. Based on your income, your annual premiums for that plan would be no more than $800 to $1,260. Your maximum out-of-pocket costs for deductibles and co-payments would be capped at 15 percent of the total cost.

If you do not obtain insurance coverage by 2014 you will be assessed a tax penalty. The penalty becomes progressively greater from 2014 through 2016, when it reaches full strength. At that point, assuming your current income remains the same and your household consists of 1 uninsured adult, you would be subject to a penalty of about $695.

And everyone making that kind of money can certainly pay a Tax to nearly $700!!

So let me get this straight. We are taxed on things we do and now we are taxed if we don’t do anything?

And since the Government will now be in control of your Life through your health congratulation citizen you are now the proud servant of your Master not the Master of your our destiny!

R.I.P. USA 2012. It is almost officially over for this country.

We sure as hell ain’t a Constitutional Republic anymore. A blighted, bloated, and not-so-benign Dictatorship more like.

Hope you will remember fondly with nostalgia that now vanquished concept called FREEDOM. It was a quaint nothing while it lasted.

Future generations will look upon it with puzzlement  completely unable to understand the concept. It will be like a Roman trying to understand an airplane.

The Government is ALWAYS Right. There are Three Lights!

ALL HAIL YOUR KING!

Sen Mike Lee: The Court really messed up with that part of their decision — it isn’t a tax, it wasn’t sold as a tax, it doesn’t have the hallmarks of a tax.  I respectfully but forcefully disagree with the opinion.  Politically, we have to take this thing down.  We’re going to win.  People are going to show up in droves in November.”

And the only way to do that is to VOTE AGAINST OBAMA and the Democrat Senate!

THEY MUST BE STOPPED!

Sarah Palin Obamacare
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

The Message Rule

“There are others who are saying: ‘Well, this is just a gimmick. Just taxing millionaires and billionaires, just imposing the Buffett Rule, won’t do enough to close the deficit,’ ” Obama declared Wednesday. “Well, I agree.”

But it works for ME, what the hell, might as well…I will say anything to get re-elected so I can be “flexible”.

“The notion that it doesn’t solve the entire problem doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do it at all,” he explained.

Who cares about the economics. It’s good politics.

So let’s cut spending, it won’t solve the whole problem but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it right? 🙂

Appointing the Simpson-Bowles commission and then disregarding its findings, offering a plan for business tax reform only, and issuing a series of platitudes. The Buffett Rule, rather than overhauling the tax code, would simply add another layer.

And another layer of bureaucratic morass can’t be bad and beside it’s more “fair” and that’s much more important. 🙂

A search of the White House Web site yields 17,400 mentions of the Buffett Rule — a proposal that would bring in $47 billion over 10 years  (That’s 4.7 billion a year– The government current has a debt of over 3 billion a day!- Wow! That’s a great plan!), much of that from 22,000 wealthy households. By contrast, the alternative minimum tax gets fewer than 600 mentions on the site. The AMT, if not changed, will take about $1 trillion over a decade from millions of taxpayers, many of whom earn less than $200,000 a year.

And the DEMOCRATS passed the AMT back in 1968 as a way to stick it to 155 millionaires!

YES, I SAID 155 Millionaires!

In August 1969 as he was preparing the next year’s budget <Treasury Secretary> Barr warned that the country faced a taxpayers’ revolt. He explained, according to the Washington Post, that in 1967 there were a total of 155 individuals with incomes over $200,000 who did not pay any federal income taxes; twenty of them were millionaires. These individuals successfully used all tax loopholes available to legally evade paying taxes. The revelation attracted wide media attention and led to public shock.

Sound familiar? Gee, Liberals don’t stray very far from their “fair” tree do they. 🙂

And funny how that all worked out. You don’t think it could happen again do you? 🙂

The politics of the Buffett Rule — it has no chance of passing when the Senate takes it up next week — are so overt that Obama’s remarks Wednesday were virtually indistinguishable from a section of his campaign speech in Florida on Tuesday.

Wednesday: “If we’re going to keep giving somebody like me or some of the people in this room tax breaks that we don’t need and we can’t afford, then one of two things happens: Either you’ve got to borrow more money to pay down a deeper deficit, or . . . you’ve got to tell seniors to pay a little bit more for their Medicare. You’ve got to tell the college student, ‘We’re going to have to charge you higher interest rates on your student loan.’ . . . That’s not right.”

So does this mean he admits to being an evil “rich” Millionaire. Aren’t they untrustworthy, selfish, self-centered, egotists only looking out for #1?-themselves 🙂

Tuesday: “If somebody like me, who is doing just fine, gets tax breaks I don’t need and that the country can’t afford, then one of two things is going to happen: Either it gets added to our deficit . . . or, alternatively, you’ve got to take it away from somebody else — a student who’s trying to pay for their college, or a senior trying to get by with Social Security and Medicare. . . . That’s not right.”

Parts of Obama’s “official” speech will no doubt be repeated on the stump, including the points that “we just need some of the Republican politicians here in Washington to get on board with where the country is,” that Obama cut taxes 17 times (the bobbleheads nodded in agreement), and the contention that Republicans today would view Ronald Reagan as a “wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior.”

Nothing is inherently wrong with campaign-style rhetoric from the White House; George W. Bush used it repeatedly to pass his tax cuts and in his attempt at a Social Security overhaul. The pity is that Obama doesn’t use his unrivaled political skill to sell a tax plan of more consequence — and less gimmickry. (Dana Millbank)

The federal tax code with its 44000 pages, 5.5 million words, and 721 different forms so whose going to notice one more gimmick?

According to the National Taxpayers Union, we each waste about 12 hours a year, every year, filling out this crazy stuff. Schedule B. Schedule C. Above the line. Below the line. Deductions, exemptions, non-refundable credits. Medical bills over 7.5% of adjusted gross income. The instruction booklet for the 1040 now runs to 189 pages. No kidding. Seventy-five years ago, says the NTU, it was two pages.

The U.S. tax code is insane and out of control. It’s tripled in a decade. It now runs to 3.8 million words. To put that in context, William Shakespeare only needed 900,000 words to say everything he had to say. Hamlet. Othello. The history plays. The sonnets. The whole shebang.

Your tax bill this year is a lie. You’re only seeing about two-thirds of the full cost of government services. Really. Taxes are $2.3 trillion. Government spending is $3.6 trillion. The rest is being put on the national credit card.

The tax bill is a lie every year. We’ve only paid our bills in full on April 15 five times in the last fifty years. The last president to balance the books every year he was in office? Calvin Coolidge — back in the 1920s.

But ultimately he’s not selling anything but himself. It’s all about HIM. The universe does revolve around him and he just has to get you to see it too.

So it begins…

In 2008, a mostly unknown Barack Obama ran for president on an inclusive agenda of “hope and change.” That upbeat message was supposed to translate into millions of green jobs, fiscal sobriety, universal health care, a resetting of Bush foreign policy, and racial unity.

Four years later, none of those promises will be themes of his 2012 re-election campaign. Gas has more than doubled in price. Billions of dollars have been wasted in insider and subsidized wind and solar projects that have produced little green energy.

Unemployment rates above 8 percent appear the new norm, when 5 percent in the past was dubbed a “jobless recovery.”

From the Middle East to the Korean peninsula, the world seems on the brink. Modern racial relations are at a new low.

If borrowing $4 trillion in eight years was “unpatriotic,” as Obama once labeled George W. Bush, no one quite knows how to term the addition of $5 trillion in new debt in less than four years. ObamaCare is unpopular with the public. Its constitutionality now rests with the Supreme Court.

After four years, the claims of “Bush did it” and “It might have been worse” grow stale. So re-election will rest not on a new agenda, or an explanation of what happened, but on a divide-and-conquer strategy. Translated, that means Obama will find fissures in the voting public over fairness, expand them, and then cobble together various angry partisans in hopes of achieving a bare majority. Such an us/them strategy is not new in American history.

There are suddenly new enemies called the “one percent” — those who make more than $200,000 per year and who “do not pay their fair share.” Apparently in a zero-sum economy, this tiny minority has taken too much from the majority and thereby caused the four-year lethargy that followed the 2008 meltdown. Andrew Jackson, William Jennings Bryan and Franklin D. Roosevelt all ran, with varying success, against the selfish “rich.”

Congress is also now a convenient enemy of the people. Although it was Democratically controlled in Obama’s first two years, and the Senate remains so, the new theme insists that a Republican House stops the Democrats from finishing all the good things they started. When support for 16 years of the New Deal had evaporated by 1948, Harry Truman ran successfully against a “do-nothing” Republican Congress that had blocked his own big-government “Fair Deal” follow-up and thus supposedly stalled the economy.

In 2009, Obama pushed through his health care plan by a narrow partisan margin in the House, despite constitutional questions about the individual mandate. Now, as the Supreme Court seems skeptical of the legality of ObamaCare, the president seems to be running against “unelected” justices. That could work too. In 1968, Richard Nixon squeaked by Hubert Humphrey in a divisive campaign, in part by lambasting the activist Warren Court that had done everything from outlawing school prayer to supporting school busing.

Team Obama has seized on the Democrats’ allegations of a “war on women,” waged by both Republican and Catholic grandees against federal subsidies of birth control. For the first time since the campaign of John F. Kennedy a half-century ago, the role of the Catholic Church in politics is suddenly a landmark issue.

The president faults “Big Oil” and tension in the Middle East — not his own failure to develop vast new gas and oil reserves on public lands — for high gas prices. Jimmy Carter likewise blamed greedy oil companies and the Middle East in 1980, after gasoline prices spiked and lines formed at filling stations.

Suddenly, after the Trayvon Martin tragedy and what may prove to be murderous white vigilantism in Oklahoma, race again looms large. President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have weighed in often on that issue. The former castigated police for acting “stupidly” in one incident, and more recently reminded the nation of the racial affinities between himself and Trayvon Martin. The latter blasted the nation’s reluctance to discuss race as cowardly, and alleged racial bias among his own congressional overseers. Race is always an explosive wedge issue. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson ran successfully in part on the need to expand civil rights, while in 1968 Richard Nixon found traction in the backlash against racial violence.

If Obama can cobble together disaffected young people, greens, women, minorities and the poor — who all believe a nefarious “they” have crushed their dreams — then massive debt and deficits, high unemployment, sluggish growth and spiraling gas prices won’t decide the election.

Lots of presidential candidates have run by identifying such enemies of the people, rather than debating the general state of the nation — sometimes successfully, sometimes not.

But the problem with an us/them strategy is not just winning an election, but trying to put back together what was torn asunder. (Victor David Hanson)

Assuming a Democrat would want to do that to begin with. Divide and Conquer is more satisfying when you get to the Conquer bit.

Conquering is good.

Conquering is “fair”

Conquering gives you the power to do what you want when you want because you want to. And doesn’t every “selfless” and “fair” liberal just want “fairness” and “justice” for all. :0

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

 Political Cartoons by Eric Allie
Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

It’s the Spending, Stupid!

Ezra Klein recently posted a New York Times graphic supporting his view that the deficit is primarily the fault of former President Bush and his predecessors, rather than President Obama. Interestingly, he makes no attempt to claim that Obama’s policies have reduced the deficit, just that Obama’s deficit increases were smaller than Bush’s.

Leave aside for a moment the fact that Bush’s entire eight-year record is being compared to policies enacted during Obama’s first two and a half years. The fundamental flaw in the New York Times graphic is that it assumes that a president’s fiscal policy is confined to “new” policies enacted under his watch. Every year, the president proposes a budget that contains a mix of new policies and old policies. The result is a comprehensive vision of what federal tax and spending policy ought to be. A president who simply continues the fiscal policy he inherits must bear his share of responsibility for its consequences.

A prime example of this is the “Bush tax cuts,” which the New York Times graphic charges solely to President Bush, conveniently ignoring the fact that President Obama supports making most of the cuts permanent and signed into law a two-year extension of all of them. President Bush also signed a new Medicare drug benefit into law. But President Obama didn’t repeal this new spending, he expanded it.

Below is a graphic that focuses on the results of fiscal policy, not simply on adjustments made on the margins of fiscal policy. If anything, the analysis is overly generous to President Obama because: (1) it assigns full responsibility for Fiscal Year 2009 to President Bush, despite the enactment by Obama of the stimulus, higher domestic appropriations and an expansion of TARP spending during that year; and (2) it gives Obama credit for the policies he intends to enact for the rest of his presidency, since we cannot judge his actual future record. The graphic compares the records of these two presidents based on the deficits, revenues and spending incurred by the federal government on their watch, expressed as a percentage of GDP.

The results show one surprise — thanks in part to the recession and tax stimulus measures which have temporarily lowered federal revenues, Bush and Obama tax policies yield virtually the same amount of revenues on average. But the real story is the comparison of spending. Obama’s policies result in historically high spending as a share of the economy, which in turn results in historically high deficits.

To President Obama’s credit, he has begun to embrace the need for a change in direction, though he was dragged there kicking and screaming by Republicans and continues to insist that significant spending cuts be linked to higher taxes. In contrast, Bush’s initiatives were opposed at every turn by congressional Democrats, who insisted on even higher spending.(DC)

Bush was wrong. Obama IS wrong. Period.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising  America ‘s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.  It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills.  It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.  Increasing  America ‘s debt weakens us domestically and internationally.  Leadership means that, “the buck stops here.’  Instead,  Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.   America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

Mind you, he only said it to bash Bush, not because he had any convictions on the matter. But it is instructive in how Liberals will say anything to gain power and will say anything not to cede any power thy get.

Highly Recommend:

http://schweikert.house.gov/ByTheNumbers/

  • Slide3.JPG

It’s the Spending, Stupid!

We took in 2.165 Trillion in 2010. Look at the Mandatory Spending. Very close aren’t they… 😦

Ideological Blindness

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Small Business Committee on Wednesday that the Obama administration believes taxes on small business must increase so the administration does not have to “shrink the overall size of government programs.”

The administration’s plan to raise the tax rate on small businesses is part of its plan to raise taxes on all Americans who make more than $250,000 per year—including businesses that file taxes the same way individuals and families do.

Wasn’t it Obama and Company that said they weren’t raising taxes on small businesses? 🙂

And shrinking the size of government programs is the whole F*cking point these days, at the people believe.

But not in Washington. They are still trying to get around it. They don’t want to do it. They just want to look like they are.

Which is why I say, the nuclear hot potato they are playing with will go off in our faces before anyone does anything. Guaranteed though, that the liberal will blame it on anyone but themselves.

Geithner’s explanation of the administration’s small-business tax plan came in an exchange with first-term Rep. Renee Ellmers (R.-N.C.). Ellmers, a nurse, decided to run for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010 after she became active in the grass-roots opposition to President Barack Obama’s proposed health-care reform plan in 2009.

“Overwhelmingly, the businesses back home and across the country continue to tell us that regulation, lack of access to capital, taxation, fear of taxation, and just the overwhelming uncertainties that our businesses face is keeping them from hiring,” Ellmers told Geithner. “They just simply cannot.”

She then challenged Geithner on the administration’s tax plan.

“Looking into the future, you are supporting the idea of taxation, increasing taxes on those who make $250,000 or more. Those are our business owners,” said Ellmers.

Geithner initially responded by saying that the administration’s planned tax increase would hit “three percent of your small businesses.”

Ellmers then said: “Sixty-four percent of jobs that are created in this country are for small business.”

Geithner conceded the point, but then suggested the administration’s planned tax increase on small businesses would be “good for growth.”

Just like the liberal who sight “15 months of private sector job growth” as their way of saying the economy is growing when it’s not. But they want to ignore the burning forest to focus on the one tree that isn’t burning yet and say, “see, I told you it wasn’t on fire!

Raising Taxes during a near-depression is always a good idea. Liberals just don’t get it, and more importantly, don’t WANT to get it. They just want to do what they want to do because they want to do. And they fantasize that it will all work out because in their heads it make so much sense to them. Reality is not their strong suit.

“No, that’s right. I agree with that,” said Geithner. “But just to put it in perspective, it’s important to recognize why are we doing this. You know, our deficits are 10 percent of GDP, higher than they’ve been since any time in the postwar period really. We have a big hole to dig out of, and we have to figure out how to do that in a way that’s balanced, good for growth, fair to people as a whole.”

Geithner, continuing, argued that if the administration did not extract a trillion dollars in new revenue from its plan to increase taxes on people earning more than $250,000, including small businesses, the government would in effect “finance” what he called a “tax benefit” for those people.

What they hell do you call ObamaCare for godsake?

“We’re not doing it because we want to do it, we’re doing it because if we don’t do it, then, again, I have to go out and borrow a trillion dollars over the next 10 years to finance those tax benefits for the top 2 percent, and I don’t think I can justify doing that,” said Geithner.

Ah, there’s the Class WarFare mantra. it always rears it’s ugly head because it’s at the heart of Liberalism.

By the way, the top 1% pay 40% of ALL TAXES. 47% of the American people pay NO TAXES AT ALL!

The top 5% pay 60% of all taxes! (which by the way is well below the $250,000 threshold).

So half the people who pay taxes would be taxed more and the half that doesn’t pay now anyhow wouldn’t. Gee, that sounds like a great idea! 😦

So let’s make them pay more because Liberals want to be “fair” and appease their burning desire for Class Warfare and ‘peasant’ resentment!

Hey, Mr Geithner GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM IT HAS A SPENDING PROBLEM!!!!

And you’re it, buddy!

Not only that, he argued, but cutting spending by as much as the “modest change in revenue” (i.e. $1 trillion) the administration expects from raising taxes on small business would likely have more of a “negative economic impact” than the tax increases themselves would.

“And if we were to cut spending by that magnitude to do it, you’d be putting a huge additional burden on the economy, probably greater negative economic impact than that modest change in revenue,” said Geithner.

Yeah, Over $14,000,000,000,000 in debt is not a worry at all.

Tax and Spend!

Spend and Tax!

When Ellmers finally told Geithner that “the point is we need jobs,” he responded that the administration felt it had “no alternative” but to raise taxes on small businesses because otherwise “you have to shrink the overall size of government programs”—including federal education spending.

Ah, poor baby… 🙂 (This would be the education spending where 12% of students could pass a basic history test after 12 years of it, right?)

https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/are-you-smarter-than-a-12th-grader/

“We’re not doing it because we want to do it, we’re doing it because we see no alternative to a balanced approach to reduce our fiscal deficits,” said Geithner.

Yeah, like cutting spending. The myopic Liberal view only sees Keynesian economics and nothing else.

Tax and Spend. Spend and Tax. Class Warfare. That’s it.

“If you don’t touch revenues and you leave in place the tax cuts for the top 2 percent that were put in place by President Bush, if you leave those in place and you’re trying to bring our deficits down over time, then you have to do exceptionally deep cuts in benefits for middle-class Americans and you have to shrink the overall size of government programs, things like education, to levels that we could not accept as a country,” said Geithner.

So you have to grow the size and scope of government and taxes to shrink a deficit?

Elections have consequences people!

“So to do a balanced approach to reduce our deficits you have to make modest changes in revenues,” he said. “There’s no realistic opportunity to do alternatives to doing that.”(CNS)

What we need is a drastic CUT in SPENDING. The revenues will follow.

But since Liberals can’t even fathom that concept this is what you get.

Now that’s you’re Hope & Change! 🙂

More recently we’ve witnessed the creation of new historical narrative about the financial crisis of 2008. The perceived history, eagerly peddled by liberals and Democrats, is that the crash of 2008 was the result of Wall Street greed. It was unregulated capitalism that brought us to the brink of financial meltdown, the Democrats insisted. And they codified their manufactured history in a law, the Dodd-Frank Act, that completely avoided the true problem.

It’s both surprising and gratifying, therefore, to report that a great revisionist history has just been published by none other than a New York Times reporter, Gretchen Morgenson, and a financial analyst, Joshua Rosner.

In “Reckless Endangerment,” Morgenson and Rosner offer considerable censure for reckless bankers, lax rating agencies, captured regulators and unscrupulous businessmen. But the greatest responsibility for the collapse of the housing market and the near “Armageddon” of the American economy belongs to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to the politicians who created and protected them. With a couple of prominent exceptions, the politicians were Democrats claiming to do good for the poor. Along the way, they enriched themselves and their friends, stuffed their campaign coffers, and resisted all attempts to enforce market discipline. When the inevitable collapse arrived, the entire economy suffered, but no one more than the poor.

Jim Johnson, adviser to Walter Mondale and John Kerry, amassed a personal fortune estimated at $100 million during his nine years as CEO of Fannie Mae. “Under Johnson,” Morgenson and Rosner write, “Fannie Mae led the way in encouraging loose lending practices among the banks whose loans the company bought. A Pied Piper of the financial sector, Johnson led both the private and public sectors down a path that led directly to the credit crisis of 2008.”

Fannie Mae lied about its profits, intimidated adversaries, bought off members of Congress with lavish contributions, hired (and thereby co-opted) academics, purchased political ads (through its foundation) and stacked congressional hearings with friendly bankers, community activists and advocacy groups (including ACORN). Fannie Mae also hired the friends and relations of key members of Congress (including Rep. Barney Frank’s partner).

“Reckless Endangerment” includes the Clinton administration’s contribution to the home-ownership catastrophe. Clinton had claimed that dramatically increasing homeownership would boost the economy, instead “in just a few short years, all of the venerable rules governing the relationship between borrower and lender went out the window, starting with … the requirement that a borrower put down a substantial amount of cash in a property, verify his income, and demonstrate an ability to service his debts.”

“Reckless Endangerment” utterly deflates the perceived history of the 2008 crash. Yes, there was greed — when is there not? But it was government distortions of markets — not “unregulated capitalism” — that led the economy to disaster. (Mona Charen)

But I’m sure the liberals will CUT that out of the education they are so desperate to preserve. 🙂

Just Spend More Money!

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

The New Class

The Obama Justice Department has created a secret group within the bloated civil rights division to monitor laws passed by states and local municipalities to control illegal immigration.

Because the measures are viewed as discriminatory and anti-immigrant by the administration, the Justice Department is spending valuable taxpayer dollars to track them and legally challenge them as it did in Arizona. The mission is being carried out by an undercover “National Origin Working Group” set up by Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, a renowned illegal immigrant advocate who once ran a taxpayer-funded day laborer center in Maryland.

This week the “National Origin Working Group” will hold a special training session at the agency’s Washington D.C. headquarters.

Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination will also be addressed at the powwow and so will discrimination against Muslims in the ever-so-hostile, post 9/11 era.

The most “transparent” administration in history doesn’t want the public to know about this special taskforce.

And if you mention this, you will have to be investigated, ruined and labelled as a RACIST! 🙂

Wanna know how that could be?

“I said over a year ago that this was going to be, this presidential race, Lawrence, was going to be the ugliest, the nastiest, the most divisive, and the most racist in the history of this Republic,” PBS host Tavis Smiley said on MSNBC.

So get ready for it. It’s going to be all out!

Many aspects of President Obama’s policies and approach give me indigestion. His reckless spending, economically destructive and unconstitutional Obamacare, deceit with respect to Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity,” perpetual arrogance, and love affair with an EPA that repeatedly jeopardizes our ability to become energy independent, are just a few examples.

However, there’s one facet of the Obama ideology that turns my stomach with particular force — that of class warfare. Not only is it profoundly un-American, but it pins one citizen against another in order to promote the idea that the federal government should step in and equalize for the common good. The candidate who once advocated spreading the wealth around is determined to do just that.

President Obama has repeatedly taken jabs at those who meet his definition of wealthy. That includes hard-working individuals, families, and small and large business owners who hire employees, pay salaries, and invest in our economy. Obama ignores the fact that when you increase taxes on a business owner, you stymie the ability of that individual to help grow our economy, create jobs, and generate opportunity for others based on his/her own success and expansion. He also ignores the fact that despite what he and his liberal comrades might think, the success of individuals, families, and/or businesses is not an invitation for the federal government to seize more of their hard-earned cash.

In order to promote his class warfare-driven policies, Obama repeatedly extols a notion of “shared sacrifice.” (Translation: The “rich” aren’t funneling enough of their cash to the federal government.) As noted by The Heritage Foundation, “The top 1 percent of income earners paid 38 percent of all federal income taxes in 2008, while the bottom 50 percent paid only 3 percent. Forty-nine percent of U.S. households paid no federal income tax at all.”

In April of 2010, the AP reported, “Less noticed were tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, which were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year. The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.”

Does that sound like a system in which the top earners haven’t been sharing the sacrifice?

2012 conservative contenders, watch closely as President Obama advocates taking from one person to give to another. Provide a stark contrast to his divisive rhetoric. Be his opposite by upholding an America in which free-market principles, limited government, and a decrease in tax rates for all would incentivize business, unleash entrepreneurial spirits, and yield greater opportunities for people of all shapes, sizes, colors, and incomes.

President Obama, keep your class warfare and the policies through which you’ve added more to our national debt than any president from Washington through Reagan combined. When it comes to 2012, getting this country back on track, and reawakening everything that makes America exceptional, conservatives have it covered. (Jedidiah Bila)

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Win One for The Constitution

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

ObamaCare was slapped down hard yesterday when Federal Judge Henry Hudson (the newest Satan to the Left) struck down ObamaCare’s Health Care Mandate ON IT’S MERITS.

Meaning it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL in this ruling.

Hudson’s 42-page opinion said, “extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.”

Well, of course it is. The penalty that is a tax that is tax that is a penalty is by real definition unconstitutional. But don’t tell that to the Lunatic Left.

They went ape nuts last night. I particularly enjoyed what I saw of Keith “I only use one side of my brain because there’s nothing right about me” Olbermann rail against it saying the Judge was corrupt and the decision was made because of a bribe, etc ad nauseum.

My only response to that was, wasn’t that how we got ObamaCare to begin with?

The backroom deals, the bribes, the corruption, the manipulation of the system.

But since that was for the cause of Progressive Liberalism it was a holy fight that was moral on it face just because they said so.

And they will fight to very last drop of YOUR blood to defend their right to run your life for you! 🙂

The fight is far from over. But estimates place this likely at the Supreme Court’s door just about the time Obama is running for re-election.

The same time as the tax deal will be expiring.

So Obama, who will not risk pissing off his base in 2012 will have to run on a platform of Class warfare, higher taxes, and ObamaCare.

No chance of a “centrist” campaign then. Though, I’m sure the spin will be extravagant.

Now that will be fun to watch! 🙂

A federal judge in Virginia has determined that the part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson deemed that part of the law unconstitutional in the first part of what is sure to be a case that will end up in the Supreme Court. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli led the fight in his state.

I wonder if the SEIU thugs will be picketing their houses this Christmas time. Or maybe the ACLU sue them. Or Media Matters will be digging in their trash and their kindergarten school records for dirt… 🙂

“I am gratified we prevailed. This won’t be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution,” Cuccinelli said in a statement.

Hudson said the part of the law that requires individuals to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional because it “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.”

A district court in Florida is expected to hear oral arguments on Thursday for a 21-state lawsuit that also challenges the law’s requirements for individuals. The Florida case is expected to end up in the Supreme Court as well.

Monday afternoon, Cuccinelli said he’s pleased with Judge Hudson’s decision, adding that he has always said the case was about “liberty, not health care.”

“It is not about health insurance, it is not about health care,” Cuccinelli said. “It is about liberty and the judge said as much in his order.

Cuccinelli said the Obama administration tried to argue with “leaps of logic and language.” (Daily Caller)

The biggest leap being the penalty that wasn’t a tax until it was challenged in court then it became a tax but then because it was tax and not a penalty it had to be penalty again because Obama and the Democrats promised it as not a tax to your face on camera! 🙂

Written as a “penalty” in the law. defended as a “tax” as a law. Because the Commerce Clause doesn’t apply to penalties, but it does apply to taxes. So it’s the penalty as written and a tax as the law. Orwell would be proud of you my son. No finer Doublethink has been created to date.

“Opponents of reform have tried everything to protect insurance companies and block common-sense protections for middle-class families in Nevada and across the nation,” <Senator Harry> Reid said. “That fight is over. It’s time to move on, and work together to implement reform in a way that puts families in control of their health care, and lowers costs for both families and small businesses.”
Yeah, repealing ObamaCare would do that, Senator. 🙂

This Spuds Not For You!

I love Mythbusters, but…. As the mid-term election approaches, as the unemployment rate reaches 10%, and as our nation is mired in federal overspending and poor economic management, our President Barack Obama holds court on television in the MythBusters series. The episode airs in December though.  So I found this editorial.

*********************************************************************

printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list

Cartoon

Now on to the starch of this morning rant. The humble potato is under attack by the Food Police.
Yes, you heard me, the Potato.
Why?
Because of the evils of frying it mostly or slathering it with cheese, etc.
The Nanny State Food Police want to tell you want you can and cannot eat.
Just like they want to control your electricity (Cap & Trade), your Car (EPA), your children (NEA), your job  (Socialism, Regulation and Taxes), your voice (Net Neutrality) and whether you live or die (Health Care).
So the Food Police have found a new target.
The humble, and actually good for you if you don’t bury it or fry it (and even then if you use peanut oil it’s better than other oils), this spud isn’t for you so says Nanny Government and her liberal minions.

Healthy food advocates said they’re not anti-potato, but they think children need a greater variety of fruits, vegetables and whole grains to fight a tripling of child obesity rates in the past 30 years.

“The potato is the most common vegetable,” said Diane Pratt-Heavner, spokeswoman for the School Nutrition Association. “My impression is that the goal is to increase the amounts of fruits, vegetables and whole grains. I don’t believe anyone is specifically attacking the potato.”

With that in mind, the Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences, recommended that the U.S. Department of Agriculture stop participants of the federal Women, Infants and Children program, known as WIC, from buying potatoes with federal dollars. The institute also called for the USDA-backed school lunch program to limit use of potatoes.

Under an interim rule, the USDA agreed to bar WIC participants from buying potatoes with their federal dollars. Potatoes are the only vegetable not allowed. Next year, the agency will roll out a final rule on the WIC program, which last year served 9.3 million children and pregnant and breast-feeding women considered at risk for malnutrition.

The WIC program is a supplemental food program, and the determination was made that consumption of white potatoes was already adequate, said Christine Stencel, spokeswoman for the Institute of Medicine.

“The recommendation was made to encourage consumption of other fruits and vegetables,” she said.

Jean Daniel, spokeswoman for USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, said the WIC program was updated for the first time in 30 years after a study showed more consumption of leafy greens and other veggies was needed.

The USDA is expected to release changes to the federal school lunch program by the end of the year. The program subsidizes lunch and breakfast for nearly 32 million needy kids in most public schools and many private ones, and those schools must follow guidelines on what they serve.

So Nanny Michelle and Big Brother Barack demand you eat more Veggies OR ELSE! Ve Vill BE VATCHING YOU! (bad german accent optional).

At least if you’re a Child or Poor. I guess if you’re “rich” they haven’t gotten to you yet. 🙂

Leslie Samuelrich, chief of staff for the killjoy think tank Corporate Accountability International (CAI), wonders why more people aren’t crusading against fast food restaurants. To drive the point home, she makes this outlandish comparison:

If the product were a gun, or drugs, or even a poorly designed toy that could injure a child, the corporation responsible for making it and then marketing it to the most vulnerable among us would be on the hook.

So, just remember, The Government knows Best. 🙂
Cartoon

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… 🙂