Trapped

Tell Me, this isn’t the same here and one reason why we have such an increase in “disability” and people just giving up looking.

And the new “dependent” voter.

The Sun (London UK): A SKIVING couple told last night how they claim £17,680 a year in benefits — and don’t even bother looking for work because it would leave them worse off.

FYI: Skiving is British for lay about gold-bricking person, aka Lazy.

Danny Creamer, 21, and Gina Allan, 18, spend each day watching their 47in flatscreen TV and smoking 40 cigarettes between them in their comfy two-bedroom flat.

I looked it up, the average apparently for a 47″ flat screen is about £1900-2000 British pounds.

1.00 British Pound = 1.57 U.S. Dollars currently

Do the Math.

It is all funded by the taxpayer, yet the couple say they deserve sympathy because they are “trapped”.

They even claim they are entitled to their generous handouts because their hard-working parents have been paying tax for years.

 

pahe 10 graphic

The couple, who have a four-month-old daughter Tullulah-Rose, say they can’t go out to work as they could not survive on less than their £1,473-a-month benefits.

1.00 British Pound = 1.57 U.S. Dollars currently

So that’s $2,312,61. Per month or $27,751.32 a year. That”s well above minimum wage in this country. Of course, they have a flat 17.5% VAT tax on everything and Inland Revenue (think IRS) but still I have had many jobs that paid less than that.

The pair left school with no qualifications, and say there is no point looking for jobs because they will never be able to earn as much as they get in handouts.

Gina admits: “We could easily get a job but why would we want to work — we would be worse off.”

Tell Me, Liberals aren’t thinking the same thing!

Danny’s father, 46, even offered him a job with his bowling alley servicing company — but could not pay him enough.

Danny’s mum, 45, works as a carer, while Gina’s mum, 46, is a teacher and her dad, 53, is a manager with a security company.

Yet their parents’ work ethic has not rubbed off on Danny and Gina. Instead, they claim they are entitled to benefits because of their parents’ tax contributions — and even complain they should be given MORE.

Gina, flaunting fake tan and perfectly manicured nails, said: “I don’t see that we’re living off the taxpayers, we’re entitled to the money our parents paid all their lives.

“They’ve worked so hard since they left school and I’m sure they’d rather it went to us than see us struggle. They pay a lot of tax, and although they’d rather we weren’t in this situation and one of us had a job, they understand why we are where we are. We can’t help it, we’re stuck like it.”

Danny, who quit his job as a supermarket shelf-stacker after eight months, admitted: “I could easily go and work for my dad. He’s got a job for me, but could only afford to pay for my travel and accommodation because I’d be going around the country.

“After that he wouldn’t be able to afford to pay me a wage, so I’d be worse off.

“The same would happen if I was to work somewhere like a supermarket. If I was earning less than £26,000 a year, there wouldn’t be any point. I’d be no better off. Who in their right mind would do that?” The pair spoke after we revealed last Sunday that Lithuanian Natalija Belova, 33, branded Britain “a soft touch” for giving her £14,408 annual benefits. Mum-of-one Belova told how she lives a life of luxury in Watford, Herts, thanks to our “strange system”, adding: “I am not going to work like a dog on minimum wage.”

British Minimum wage : £6.08 to £6.19 an hour on October 1 2012

And yesterday Gina agreed. She said: “The only way we’d ever be better off is by both working. But then childcare would probably be one of our wages gone, and put us back in a more difficult position.

“We don’t feel ashamed for being on benefits. Neither of us have the slightest bit of guilt towards the taxpayers as both of our parents have been paying into the tax system for the last 30 years.

“So we are just getting back our parents’ huge contributions. My dad earns £65,000 a year so he’s paid more than his fair share of tax, so I don’t see what the problem is. The fault lies with the system, not us. There’s just no incentive to find work when we’ve got a better lifestyle than if we were to go out and work for 35-40 hours every week. Why would we give this up?”

The couple, who live in Hants (Southern England), receive £340 a week, made up of £150 housing benefit, £60 child tax credit, £20 child benefit and £110 in Job Seeker’s Allowance. They pay just £25 towards their spacious £625-a-month home.

Their lounge is dominated by the huge TV and a leather sofa. A laptop and Tullulah-Rose’s toys are scattered around the room.

The couple’s monthly outgoings are £240 on food, £40 phone bill for their shared Nokia and an £80 payment towards their TV. They spend the same on tobacco as they do on their daughter’s milk and nappies.

The pair, who want another child, say they would need to earn at least £2,200 a month before tax to make working worth their while.

Danny said: “We’ve thought about a lot of things we wouldn’t normally have considered. Gina looked up escorting and saw you can make £110 an hour, but we decided we wouldn’t go down that route.

“We simply want the best for our daughter, which means even shoplifting becomes a temptation. We’d never do it, but being in this situation and feeling trapped changes you.

“We would work, but it’s just not worth our while because without qualifications we’ll only earn about £14,000 a year. That’s a lot less than what we get now. We need more money so we can maintain the way we live now but have a few extras, like holidays.

“People don’t understand — we’re actually stuck on benefits. In fact, we feel trapped.” Danny and Gina thought about going to college, but could not decide which course to take.

Gina said: “We have discussed getting more qualifications but just thought there’s no point when we don’t know what we want to do in the future. We wouldn’t know where to start.”

The couple are adamant that whatever they do in future, they want to enjoy the same luxuries as now. Gina said: “We spend £40 a month on clothes for Tullulah-Rose. It’s important she looks nice.

“We like a takeaway (Take out) too, Why shouldn’t we? It isn’t like I’m some scrounging single mum trying to cash in. It’s silly to think I’d actually be better off financially if Danny walked out on me and my daughter than if one of us got a job.

“Anyone else would do exactly the same if they were in our shoes. It’s actually really hard for us. We’re in a lose-lose situation here.”

And with reports out that the Birth rate in the US has been falling just as the largest population is retiring is going to make this kind of “trapped” dependence very, very, very costly to everyone.

But, he it’s better than working hard. 🙂

Every job in the last 25+ years I’ve had prior to my current one has paid me less than this a year. And I’m still not “rich”.

Makes you wonder I even bother…But at least I’m not “trapped”…Yet… 🙂

 

15 Questions

During the practically endless series of Republican debates, we have heard almost every question imaginable asked to Republican candidates – if by every question imaginable, you mean horribly slanted, often irrelevant questions designed to make them look bad and help Obama. We’ve heard questions about contraceptives, religion, Newt’s angry ex-wife, Gardasil, etc., etc., etc. So, what would happen if the mainstream media treated Barack Obama the exact same way that they treat Republicans? The questions might sound a little something like this.

1) Numerous Mexican citizens and an American citizen have been killed with weapons knowingly provided to criminals by our own government during Operation Fast and Furious. If Eric Holder was aware that was going on, do you think he should step down as Attorney General? Were you aware that was going on and if so, shouldn’t you resign?

2) In 2010 you said Solyndra, which gave your campaign a lot of money, was “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” Today, Solyndra is bankrupt and the taxpayers lost $500 million on loans that your administration was well aware might never be paid off when you made them. What do you say to people who say this is evidence of corruption in your administration?

3) Unions invested a lot of time and money in helping to get you elected. In return, they gained majority control of Chrysler, the taxpayers lost 14 billion dollars on General Motors, and General Motors received a special 45 billion dollar tax break. What do you say to people who view this as corruption on a scale never before seen in American history?

4) Through dubious means, you and your allies in Congress managed to push through an incredibly unpopular health care bill that helped lead to the worst election night for the Democratic Party in 50 years. Since the bill has passed, many of your claims about the bill have proven to be untrue. For example, we now know the bill won’t lower costs and despite your assurances to the contrary, big companies like McDonald’s say they may drop health care because of the health care reform. Since the American people have rejected your health care reform and it doesn’t do what you said it would, shouldn’t you work with the Republicans to repeal it?

5) When you took office, gas was $1.79 per gallon. Since then, you’ve demonized the oil industry, dramatically slowed offshore drilling, blocked ANWR, and killed the Keystone Pipeline. Now, gas is $3.34 per gallon. How much higher do you anticipate driving gas prices?

6) Occupy Wall Street has been protesting against Wall Street and the richest 1 percent in America. You are in the top 1 percent of income earners in America and you have collected more cash from Wall Street than any other President in history. So, aren’t you exactly the sort of politician that Occupy Wall Street wants to get rid of?

7) How do you decide which foreign leaders to submissively bow towards and why do you think that’s appropriate for an American President?

8) If they could, don’t you think the Nobel Committee would take back the Nobel Peace Prize that you were awarded?

9) You made bipartisanship one of the central themes of your campaign in 2008. Yet, you’ve worked to push bills through Congress with almost no Republican support, spent much less time negotiating with Congress than George Bush, and you’ve said things like, “But, I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.” Why did you decide to break your campaign promise to pursue bipartisanship?

10) America lost its AAA credit rating for the first time under your watch. What do you think you should have done differently to have prevented that historic failure?

11) You cut more than 500 billion dollars out of Medicare to fund your wildly unpopular health care reform bill. Given that Medicare is running in the red already, don’t you think it’s irresponsible to cut money out of one entitlement program, that millions of seniors depend on — to put it into a risky new entitlement program?

12) Back in July, you said, “Nobody’s looking to raise taxes right now. We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out years.” Since you plan to raise taxes if you’re elected and you’ve had kind words for a value added tax, shouldn’t every American expect a tax increase if you’re reelected?

13) Why should the American people reelect you when your 10 year budget saddles America with more debt than all previous Presidents combined?

14) Your stimulus bill cost more in real dollars than the moon landing and the interstate highway system combined. What do we have to show for all of that money spent?

15) Members of your administration promised that the trillion dollar stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Instead, we’ve had 35+ months of 8% and above unemployment. Doesn’t that mean we wasted a trillion dollars on nothing? (John Hawkins)

It’s fun to think what could have been if we had Journalists instead of Left Wing Propagandists masquerading as “journalists”.

So have a supply of industrial barf bags if yo decide to watch Obama’s “soaring” Campaign Bull shit speech tonight then the fawning and slobbering by the Liberal Media before and after.

I will be watching “Chopped” on the Food network.

 

The Wrong Green

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Economic growth in the United States is expected to remain weak for several years and unemployment will likely stay above 8 percent for another three years, the head of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday. (CBS)

President Obama plans a big jobs announcement—right after he finishes his vacation inMartha’s Vineyard.  Expect him to say that green jobs are the key to recovery — that they will generate millions of jobs and a new era of prosperity.

Oh, you’ve already heard that one?  So has everyone else.  Even The New York Times has begun to debunk Obama’s claim, headlining, “Number of Green Jobs Fails to Live Up to Promises.” Obama’s claim is getting quite old and quite expensive, but remains just as false as ever.

If Congress’ “super committee” wants to cut wasteful spending, the green jobs agenda is a great place to start.

Obama’s 2011 Labor Day announcement is likely to echo his similar jobs announcement just after Labor Day in 2010, asking for another $50 billion in spending.

His stimulus plans always include green jobs and lots of greenbacks for them. As the White House website quotes Obama, “the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs — but only if we accelerate that transition.”

Green jobs are about government subsidies, cronyism, and job cannibalism. They aren’t self-sustaining because they rely on giveaways of taxpayer money and they cannibalize existing jobs.

ABC News found that 80% of the $2 billion set aside in the “stimulus” package for “green jobs” is going overseas — mostly to China.
Most of the stimulus went to government unions anyhow.
Too many green jobs and renewable energy companies can’t make it without taxpayer subsidies. Some can’t make it even with that help, such as Evergreen Solar in Massachusetts, which went bankrupt even with $40 million of help. (It was offered even more.) Evergreen Solar emerged in the last three years as the third-largest maker of solar panels in the United States.
The waste should be obvious even to die-hard liberals like Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), who last week told MSNBC, “Green jobs have been about a lot of talk and not a lot has been happening on that.” (DC)
Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show. Two years after it was awarded $186 million in federal stimulus money to weatherize drafty homes, California has spent only a little over half that sum and has so far created the equivalent of just 538 full-time jobs in the last quarter, according to the State Department of Community Services and Development.
Wow! 😦
The Economic Development Department in California reports that $59 million in state, federal and private money dedicated to green jobs training and apprenticeship has led to only 719 job placements — the equivalent of an $82,000 subsidy for each one.
And only 35 of them are employed in a “green job”! WOW! Now that’s working!
The political left is always complaining about them — those undeserved subsidies for the hated oil companies. But when it comes to government subsidies, the renewable energy companies are king.‘Seniors are struggling. Oil companies are not struggling,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said in May. “Yet Republicans want to keep handing billions of dollars to the oil companies and ending Medicare as we know it.”About that same time, Sen. Claire McCaskill, the Missouri Democrat, whined about taxpayers subsidizing “the five biggest, most profitable corporations in the history of the planet.”Earlier this year, President Obama, speaking words his base wants to hear, swore that Washington would no longer “continue costly tax cuts for oil companies.”

What’s missing from the Democrats’ tireless refrain is the fact that the “subsidies” the oil industry enjoys are the same legitimate, passed-by-Congress tax deductions available to all companies — even those companies the Democratic lawmakers own stock in.

Simply put, Big Oil, which pays more than $86 million in taxes each day and sends 41% of its net income to Washington, is not supported by the U.S. taxpayer.

Renewable energy companies, however, are.

The Energy Information Administration says that $14.7 billion in taxpayers’ money was handed directly to renewable energy companies last year.

Politically connected ethanol raked in $6.6 billion, bird-killing wind power $5 billion, unreliable solar $1.13 billion and energy-deficient biomass $1.1 billion.

Combined, those subsidized sources provide roughly 11% of all U.S. energy output. Not much, in other words.

Total subsidies for renewables in 2010, the first budget the Democrats had full control over since taking Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008, were $9 billion — or 186% — higher than the 2009 subsidies.

A portion of this largess was of course provided at the expense of the oil and gas industries, which paid $1 trillion in income taxes between 1998 and 2008.

Should Washington continue its fixation on propping up renewable energy companies with other people’s money, the U.S. will suffer the same bitter experiences that other countries, particularly Spain, lived through when they tried to establish a green economy.

There’s no reason to rush these sources when conventional fuels remain cheap and abundant. (IBD)

So it’s a scam. It’s liberals trying to make the market create the jobs THEY want and if it won’t SCREW everyone!

If it’s doesn’t “feel” good don’t do it! And we don’t want you to!

The Left’s subsidies are “good”, the the right’s are “bad” (even if the left actually benefits from those very same one it’s all politics after all).

And the ultimate, from Environmentalist Whacko King, Al Gore, you’re a racist if you don’t believe in his scam.

He just happens to have started and is invested heavily in the “carbon credits” scam and his dad’s Oil and Coal $$ doesn’t mean anything…

So it is about “green” jobs. But it’s the wrong Green $$$.

It’s just more of the Left’s need to control everyone and force people to do what THEY want not what actually can or will work.

So when Obama comes out soon with his 16th plan for new jobs (and his Job Competitiveness Czar Jeffrey Imelt send more jobs at GE to China) it will be a mask for more Tax (like a VAT and Class Warfare) and Spend (“Infrastructure” “Tax Reform”) and more political correct subsidies for politically correct jobs that isn’t designed to succeed except politically and “feels” good.

So why do you want 4 more years of this, exactly?

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Thrown Under the Bus

Are feeling like you have tire treads  running up your body??

You’re not alone.

You must have Obama Bus Syndrome.

Where you are naively or purposely thrown under the bus to serve his ego and his mission to destroy all freedom everywhere.

After all, he is a Nobel Peace Prize Winner! 🙂

The latest victim, Israel. The long time ally of the United States.

Oh, and Christians and Jews, but who cares about them, they are just right wing religious nuts anyhow. 🙂

Obama, in a policy speech on Thursday on the “Arab spring” uprisings across the Middle East, laid down his clearest markers yet on the compromises Israel and the Palestinians must make for resolving their decades-old conflict.

His position essentially embraces the Palestinian view that the state they seek in the West Bank and Gaza should largely be drawn along the lines that existed before the 1967 war in which Israel captured those territories and East Jerusalem.

On the eve of Netanyahu’s visit, it was seen as a message that Obama expects Israel to eventually make big concessions.

“The viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel’s existence,” Netanyahu said in a statement before flying to the United States for his talks with Obama.

Mind you some of the holiest sights in all of Christiandom and Judism would be turned over to Palestinians. Nothing too major since religion is hardly a concern of this administration except for that whole Muslim thing that he keeps reaffirming by doing Pro-Muslim things like this.

So what if Hamas, which is the government of the Palestinians, has in their charter, “KILL ALL THE JEWS” they can be reasonable and Israel has to stop being mean to them if they want peace. 😦

So what if a central tenant of these groups is the non-existence of Israel. Let’s be fair! They are the oppressed.

And Hezbollah, which is in Lebanon, and South America (I might add).

No biggie.

Syria, Iran. No biggie. if you’re just nice to them and you’re “fair” everything will come out kumbuya!

You have to do the 60’s hippie peacenik routine and everything will be a Summer of ’69 Lovefest.

Which I don’t know if he’s naive or deliberate. But the headline in the leftist LA Times might give us a Clue:

Obama: U.S. has chance to pursue the ‘world as it should be’

After decades of ‘accepting the world as it is’ in the Middle East, President Obama in his Middle East speech says the U.S. has a chance to ‘speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people.’

<<BARF BAG ON STANDBY>>

This is liberalism at it’s core, the way the world should be, according to them, not the way it is. So deal from a position of unreality and try and force it into reality because it makes you feel “good” and…<<drum roll>>…It’s FAIR! 🙂

God Help Us All!

He wants to expand Oil production because his re-election depends on it, BUT NOT HERE. he wants to expand in Brazil where a Major Democratic $$ Donor has ownership in…<<drum roll>> and OIL company!

He wants businesses to create jobs, but he wants to choke them do death with regulations , Obamacare, and bad mouthing them.

He wants the government to take over health care because it will save money, only it doesn’t. But it doesn’t give them control over life and death and that can’t be all bad. 🙂

He go all pro-“democracy” in Egypt calling for that rulers head. Now the Muslim Brotherhood (read: radical islam) are leading to taking over there.

Oh, and then there’s the “war” he started in Libya that both he, the media, and the Democrats are trying desperately to ignore. And you’re 60 days (War Powers Act) are up Mr.  Nobel Peace Prize.

Then there’s 9% unemployment for basically the last 2 years. Has anything positive been done on that at all? I say thee neigh.

He is pandering to the hispanic vote to get them to vote for him promising them the sky and the moon and whatever he has to knowing full well it will never pass in Congress.

So border security is just PR, pat down and legal sexually molestations.

He doesn’t care. He’ll just throw legal immigrants and legal Americans under the Bus.

It’s, after all, ALL ABOUT HIM. All about his greatness. His superior vision.

His superiority, period.

And it’s your turn.

“You can’t do $2 trillion just in cuts,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in an interview in his Capitol office. “There has to be a mix of spending cuts, including defense. There has to be a more fair apportionment of tax policy in this country.”

Read more taxes! Targeted to evil rich people mind you, but it never works out that way.

Especially with the proposals for a VAT TAX or a Vehicle Mileage Tax.

Because when a Liberal talks about “fairness” grab your wallet you’re under attack and about to be hit by that bus!

“That certainly would be a big, big number,” Reid said Thursday. “But you know these are numbers that are not impossible — if you do savings with the Pentagon, in addition to domestic discretionary [accounts] and rearrange the tax stuff. That’s all doable.

Aka, slash the military, crush businesses, raise taxes massively on “the rich”.

Throw them all under the bus. They are evil anyhow.

But it will create jobs and grow the economy! 🙂

Oh, and then there’s the new Food Devil on the block, McDonald’s. They are the Devil Incarnate. Evil Corporate devils preying on your innocent children for their evil profits! Bwah hahahahahahahahaha! <<organ sting>> <<Thunder and Lightning!!>> <<maniacal laughter>>

The national debate on corporate responsibility played out in a microcosm at McDonald’s annual meeting Thursday, when votes on shareholder proposals became a referendum on the pursuit of profit versus the question of what constitutes the public good.

Critics hammered McDonald’s executives not only for offering unhealthful menu items but also for marketing fast food to kids with its Ronald McDonald character and Happy Meal toys — all while boasting eight straight years of sales growth despite a deep economic recession.

McDonald’s response was powerful too, tapping into the fundamental notion of American freedom.

“This is all really about choice,” McDonald’s Corp. CEO Jim Skinner said at the meeting, held at company headquarters in Oak Brook, Ill. He said that while shareholders have the right to communicate concerns, the company should also have the right to advertise its menu offerings. “It’s about protecting people’s rights in this democratic society that we live in.”

As for Ronald McDonald?

“Ronald McDonald is an ambassador to McDonald’s, and he is an ambassador for good,” Skinner said. “Ronald McDonald isn’t going anywhere.”

Critics’ main beef with McDonald’s is its marketing to America’s children, thus side-stepping the thorny retort “If you don’t like McDonald’s, don’t eat there.”
Children are susceptible to the advertising that McDonald’s spends hundreds of millions of dollars on each year, said Juliana Shulman, national compaign organizer for Corporate Accountability International.

“For adults that’s one thing, but children aren’t just little adults. Their brains are just forming,” Shulman said. “McDonald’s marketing is really designed to get around parents and get to kids directly. For nearly 50 years, McDonald’s has been working to hook kids on unhealthy foods…. Parents are exercising parental responsibility. That alone won’t stop the problem.” (LA Times)

So if you’re feeling tired it’s probably because you have a bus parked on you by Obama and his Leftist apparatchiks.

And let’s not evil talk about how evil you are if your not in a union and your <<shudder>> a white person!!  EVIL!!!:)

Pure Evil! You must be destroyed.

Or at least repeatedly run over by my bus!

Oh, and do vote for me in 2012 because I have a (D) after my name and I represent all that is sweetness and light and good in the world. 🙂

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil: For thou art with me;
Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies;
Thou annointest my head with oil; My cup runneth over.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the House of the Lord forever. (Psalms 23)

You just have to find a place to park that bus on top of you! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

P.s.A D.C. Circuit decision this week in Oberwetter v. Hilliard <a href="” target=”_blank”><http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/748BE2DE8AF2A2A485257893004E07FC/$file/10-5078-1308285.pdf&gt;, concluding that (1) the Jefferson Memorial is a “nonpublic forum” in which reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions are permissible, and that (2) the government could therefore bar from people from engaging, inside the Memorial, in picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all other like forms of conduct which involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers.

Isn’t freedom just fun under the Obama Bus…

P.P.s.

There is a report that the TSA faked its safety data on its X-ray airport scanners in order to deceive the public about the safety of such devices.

As evidenced by recent events in Washington, we now live in an age where the federal government simply fakes whatever documents, news or evidence it wants people to believe, then releases that information as if it were fact. This is the modus operandi of the Department of Homeland Security, which must fabricate false terror alerts to keep itself in business — and now the TSA <http://www.naturalnews.com/the_TSA.html> division has taken the fabrication of false evidence <http://www.naturalnews.com/evidence.html> to a whole new level with its naked body scanners.

The evidence of the TSA’s fakery is now obvious thanks to the revelations of a letter signed by five professors from the University of California, San Francisco and Arizona <http://www.naturalnews.com/Arizona.html> State University. You can view the full text of the letter at: http://www.propublica.org/documents… <http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/april-2011-letter-to-john-holdren>

The letter reveals:

• To this day, there has been no credible scientific testing of the TSA’s naked body <http://www.naturalnews.com/body.html> scanners. The claimed “safety” of the technology <http://www.naturalnews.com/technology.html> by the TSA is based on rigged tests <http://www.naturalnews.com/tests.html>.

• The testing that did take place was done on a custom combination of spare parts rigged by the manufacturer of the machines (Rapidscan) and didn’t even use the actual machines installed in airports. In other words, the testing was rigged.

• The names of the researchers who conducted the radiation <http://www.naturalnews.com/radiation.html> tests at Rapidscan have been kept secret! This means the researchers are not available for scientific questioning of any kind, and there has been no opportunity to even ask whether they are qualified to conduct such tests. (Are they even scientists <http://www.naturalnews.com/scientists.html>?) (KFYI)

So are you feeling securing under that bus?… 🙂

Circular Firing Squads

SUPERMAN LOVES AMERICA AGAIN

In Action Comics #900, a back up strip by David Goyer, showed Superman announcing he was to go to the UN and give up his citizenship of the USA, so to ensure his actions were not mistaken for US government policy.

There was a Firestorm! (and I don’t mean a DC comics character).

Well, today, from DC Comics, on the last page of Superman #711, we see a very different situation. Superman loving America after all! That (thankfully) doesn’t spoil the story having on its own right here.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The challenge of a U.S. corporate tax overhaul only seems to grow.

At a House Ways and Means hearing on Thursday, some business executives were even nodding to the possibility of a value-added tax to offset the budget impact of significantly lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate.

“As you take a holistic view… the value-added tax is one of those things that needs to be on the table,” Greg Hayes, CFO of United Technologies Corp., said in response to a lawmaker’s question.

In fact, there’s a surprising amount of interest in that idea on all sides. Many Democrats see a VAT as a way to pay for new infrastructure and shore up spending programs. Some Republicans – and corporate executives – see it as a way to pay for tax cuts that would spur investment, and make U.S. businesses more competitive. Much of the corporate-rate cutting that has gone on around the rest of the developed world in recent years has been paid for by increasing value-added taxes. Other countries view it as a necessary tradeoff to boost domestic manufacturing and exports.

Mind you, corporations don’t actually pay these taxes, they just pass them on in the cost of goods. So you get the old double whammy.

It all goes to show how knotty the long-neglected problems of the U.S. corporate tax system have become. The painful reality, as several lawmakers suggested, is that the U.S. would have to get rid of many if not most of its current corporate tax breaks just in order to lower the U.S. corporate rate to the high 20s. It’s currently 35%, the second highest in the developed world. And to be truly competitive, the U.S. rate probably needs to get down to around 20%. That would leave room for state corporate rates. (WSJ)

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

Students in New London will not only have to pass English to graduate, but they will have to prove that they know the American English language and be able to demonstrate it as of 2015.

The board of education on Thursday approved the major change to city education policy, according to the Day of New London.

Only 16 percent of New London High School 10th graders scored at the highest levels for English on standardized tests in 2010, the Day reports.

The student body includes immigrants from 28 countries, the Day reports. And the school district Web site includes translations in 52 languages.

“We know from colleges and employers, that our students are going to have to know how to read and write in English if they are going be successful,” Supt. Nicholas Fischer, told the Day.

The state department of education does not have a policy of this kind. (NBConnecticut)

Wonder how long before it’s ruled as “racist” and “insensitive”??…

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

Washington is full of self-interested political characters, and it’s always amusing to watch ambitious schemers with common enemies harm each other instead. Inside the beltway, this is called a “circular firing squad.”

There’s no shortage of this in-fighting in flailing political campaigns. One recent example was the public scrum over President Obama’s birth certificate.

It’s natural to think that the whole “birther” phenomenon was cooked up by right-wing conspiracy theorists, but it was actually the brainchild of Hillary Clinton partisans during the 2008 Democratic primaries.

Even the White House’s late April disclosure of Obama’s long-form birth certificate didn’t quell the noise level completely, with some continuing to allege fraud. The smart money says this issue — created by supporters of Obama’s current secretary of state — will remain on the national radar for some people through the 2012 elections.

America’s food fringe has its share of circular firing squads too.

VegNews magazine — which, as you probably guessed, advocates against eating meat, cheese, or using any animal products — recently found itself embroiled in a major scandal (“major” within its tiny cultural niche, anyway).

Bloggers discovered that VegNews was airbrushing meat and dairy foods out of “stock” photography, sanitizing them just enough to credibly accompany vegan recipes. (Apparently, some animal activists were shocked to learn that a juicy burger looks more tempting than faux-meat soy loaf.)

Among the 1 percent of Americans who eat a PETA-approved diet, mass outrage ensued. And VegNews, sensing the loss of its subscription base, issued a groveling retraction.

You’d think vegans would have a great enough sense of common purpose to avoid targeting their own kind.

But to a certain degree, it’s predictable. This is what happens when you look at dinner as a political statement instead of as — well, food.

Some food revolutionaries, to be fair, are well intentioned and genuinely look for ways to improve agriculture, even if their solutions aren’t terribly practical. But there’s definitely a current of holier-than-thou snobbery running through today’s “foodie” movement. And the food-politics stage is seldom big enough for two giant egos.

A celebrity chef announces an all-organic menu. Then a school lunch program (usually somewhere like Berkeley) limits itself to organic and “local.” Eventually the one-upmanship results in someone marketing organic, local, and “heirloom” produce. Grass-fed, organic, locally raised, artisanal beef, anyone? You get the picture.

The results for organic-food crusaders are mutually destructive squabbling, fractured messages, and a confused consumer base. The same thing happens when one organic interest directly attacks another, as we’ve seen with the Cornucopia Institute’s broadsides against large, “corporate” organic marketers.

We see some flavor of this with egg marketers. Some of them may find it appetizing, for competitive advantage if no other reason, to embrace “cage free” and organic niches and promote their supposed benefits in a way that undercuts larger, “conventional” egg interests.

This may — underline “may” — be a winning strategy in the short-term. But in the long run, profit margins on cage-free eggs will creep down closer to those of regular eggs. And the whole industry will be left more vulnerable to vegan-promotion organizations like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), whose foot in the door will eventually become two feet, and then a leg.

For the uninitiated, an HSUS vice president admitted a few years ago that her organization’s goal was to “get rid of the entire [animal agriculture] industry” by “promoting veganism.”

She now runs the “Global Animal Partnership,” which Whole Foods created to legitimize its feel-good animal welfare niche marketing and help it cling to its elite status.

Whole Foods, of course, is the paragon of “progressive” food. But it still has circular firing squad problems.

Anti-biotechnology activists now claim that many products in Whole Foods stores are “contaminated” with genetically modified organisms. This might be technically true, but GMOs are harmless. Americans have been eating them for 15 years without credible evidence of any health risks.

Ultimately, Whole Foods’ purer-than-thou positioning hasn’t insulated it from pitchfork-wielding ideologues. The self-proclaimed “Millions Against Monsanto” movement even hints that an organized boycott of Whole Foods could come as soon as October.

Conventional wisdom in Washington holds that if an opponent wants to hang himself, you should give him some rope. When annoying “foodie” factions publicly bicker over who’s the most gastronomically chaste, sometimes the best thing to do is grab some non-organic popcorn and watch the fireworks. (DC)

So anyone else want to stand in front of the Firing Squad? Because there are plenty of people out there that will volunteer YOU for one!! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

A Dead Plan Walking

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Remember the “Debt Commission” that early on was rumored to be just an excuse for the VAT tax to be proposed? And still might…

Then November 2, 2010 rolled around and the Democrats were handed their heads on a platter.

So now the Debt Commission is proposing a whole bunch of ACTUAL Cuts.

Which means it’s a dead plan walking.

I will admit to having no faith in Washington elites. They can talk a good game, but in the end they will vote to save their own ass before the country, the future, or your kids.

[Deficit]
But many of these, like the Social Security is in 2050. THAT’S 40 years from now. The first people effected by it would 25 now.
If you can’t plan for 4 extra years 40 years out, you must be a Liberal!
Speaking of the Left:

“The chairmen of the Deficit Commission just told working Americans to ‘Drop Dead,’” said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, referring to proposed changes in how Social Security is administered. “Some people are saying this is plan is just a ‘starting point.’ Let me be clear, it is not.”

Mind you, Mr Trumpka heads a union were many, many of his members can retire in their 50s with outrageously extravagant pensions that are bankrupting states all over the nation. But don’t mention that to him, you’ll just make him mad. 🙂

House Speaker (soon-to-be Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, called the proposal “simply unacceptable.”

Self-Admitted Socialist  Bernie Sanders (I-VT) blasted, “It is reprehensible to ask working people, including many who do physically-demanding labor, to work until they are 69 years of age. It also is totally impractical. As they compete for jobs with 25-year-olds, many older workers will go unemployed and have virtually no income. Frankly, there will not be too much demand within the construction industry for 69-year-old bricklayers.”

A non-starter. A gift to the rich.

The giant flushing sound you heard Wednesday on Capitol Hill was the reaction of Congressional Democrats to the initial recommendations of President Obama’s bipartisan deficit reduction commission.

And so the Left is going to fight any spending cuts, and any repeals of their Utopian vision of a European America.

They will be the “obstructionists” that they have railed agasinst for the last number of years. And proudly so.

Isn’t politics grand. 🙂

Which is why it will never happen.

It has to happen.

But it won’t.

The Political elite don’t have the guts.

I’m hoping I’m wrong about the Republicans.

But the American people are the co-dependent drug addicts in this equation.

Because, who is more like to vote, the 25 year old who will actually be hit by the plan or the over 50 person who’s going to get it very soon or already addicted to it?

Forgetaboutit.

Sure they turned out to toss the Democrats (at least most of them, Jerry Brown and Harry Reid aside) on their asses. But when it’s their ass on the line and their ox is being goured, forgetaboutit.

The new NIBY principle. From Not in My Backyard to Not in my Backpocket.

It will be cut “Them” not “Me”. With the Democrats getting holier-than-thou about “the poor” and “the rich” even more so than the last few years. And all for political calculations.

The evil republicans who want to cut off grandma and force her eat dog food, etc.

Just for political advantage. Nothing else.

I hope I’m wrong. But I’m a cynic, after all.

Meanwhile…

The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

The fast-growing pay of federal employees has captured the attention of fiscally conservative Republicans who won control of the U.S. House of Representatives in last week’s elections. Already, some lawmakers are planning to use the lame-duck session that starts Monday to challenge the president’s plan to give a 1.4% across-the-board pay raise to 2.1 million federal workers.

Government-wide raises. Top-paid staff have increased in every department and agency. The Defense Department had nine civilians earning $170,000 or more in 2005, 214 when Obama took office and 994 in June.

•Long-time workers thrive. The biggest pay hikes have gone to employees who have been with the government for 15 to 24 years. Since 2005, average salaries for this group climbed 25% compared with a 9% inflation rate.

•Physicians rewarded. Medical doctors at veterans hospitals, prisons and elsewhere earn an average of $179,500, up from $111,000 in 2005.

Federal workers earning $150,000 or more make up 3.9% of the workforce, up from 0.4% in 2005.

Since 2000, federal pay and benefits have increased 3% annually above inflation compared with 0.8% for private workers, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Members of Congress earn $174,000, up from $141,300 in 2000, an increase below the rate of inflation.

That’s insulting to ordinary Americans, who are struggling mightily every week to pay the mortgage and health care and college costs, only to see their increasingly scarce tax dollars go straight into the pockets of public workers. That shouldn’t be happening in hard times – not whether those public sector employees work on health care, education, agriculture, homeland security or defense. Shared sacrifice must be more than an empty slogan. (The  Very Liberal NY Daily News)
I learned a hard lesson earlier in this decade: The Truth is truth and you don’t have to like it. As a matter of fact, it doesn’t matter if  you like it, it’s still the truth.
And the truth is that the way thinks have been done for the last several generations is now unsustainable.Period.
Deal with it.
The truth doesn’t care if you like it or not.
The often-comedic co-chairman Alan Simpson sheepishly exited the meeting, telling reporters, “We’re entering the witness protection program,” referring to his fellow co-chairman and proposal author Erskine Bowles.
But some members cautioned against snap judgments. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a member of the panel, said, “The greatest national security threat facing America today is our national debt and a Congress that has avoided tough choices for decades. The discussion draft describes some of the tough choices facing Congress and the nation,” and warned, “I would encourage taxpayers to view with great suspicion the beltway, interest group culture that often prefers demagoguery over honest debate. In the real world, no family facing tough economic times has the luxury of treating portions of their budget as sacrosanct. Neither should Congress.”(FOX)
But Washington D.C. is not in touch with reality. And the American people want to stop the spending, just not their spending.
Sigh…
Political Cartoon by Chip Bok
Political Cartoon by Jerry Holbert
Political Cartoon by Robert Ariail

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… 🙂