Showing posts with label TAXES. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TAXES. Show all posts

1/12/2010

Promise, Lies, & Health Care

According to Wikipedia, a "Cadillac" health insurance plan "is defined by the U.S. Senate Finance Committee...with yearly premiums higher than $8,000 for individuals or $21,000 for families, but colloquially refers to any expensive plan."  During the campaign trail, Barack Obama attacked John McCain because he wanted to tax the high end health insurance plans in which Obama "firmly pledged" he would not do himself.

The first part of this YouTube video is an NPR interview with President Barack Obama on December 23, 2009 basically saying he's going to move forward with the "cadillac tax" and the second part is the video on the campagin trail where he attacked John McCain for wanting to do the same thing.


Who or what companies provides the majority of the plans, and what would the effect be if these plans were suddenly taxed? Large corporations, labor unions, and independently owned companies that want to provide the best possible health insurance for their employees and are willing to pay for the majority of it.

One of thing things could happen if these Cadillac plans were taxed that the corporations, labor unions, or independently owned companies were required to pay? (1) Employers would increase premiums to pass on the added cost on to employees to keep the same coverage. (2) Employers would drop Cadillac plans to avoid the tax, which would result in more out-of-pocket costs for employees because they don't have the same coverage as before. Either way, it ends up costing us, the employees more. We would pay the Cadillac tax, not the companies. Eventually, over time, this would lead employers to dropping coverage to their employees all together which would cause a "crisis" where the government would have to step in and provide a government run insurance plan so individuals will still have health care coverage which would lead to a universal health care plan and drive the private insurance industry out of business, just like Obama has always wanted.


I no long believe anything Barack Obama says to be true (not that I did in the first place). Just like on the campaign trail, he will say anything that appeals to the American people to get elected and he will keep saying anything to push through his radical agenda regardless if the people are against it. Whenever Obama starts off something with, "Let me be clear" you know the next words out of his mouth is a lie. It's all about broken promises, lies, and do anything to get health care reform passed.

1/06/2010

Obama's Freshman Year

During the campaign for President of the United States, then Senator Barack Obama said it was going to do a lot of things and made a lot of promises. I came across this Website - http://www.politifact.com/ - tracking Obama's campaign promises to see if the promises are being kept, broken, compromised, stalled, or in the works. There's over 500 promises they are tracking. I want to discuss some of those promises and what Obama has done in 2009, his Freshman Year.
"As president, Barack Obama will close the detention facility at Guantanamo."
"On his second full day in office [January 22, 2009], President Obama issued an executive order to review the disposition of prisoners being held at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and ordered that the detention facility be closed within a year." Technically, President Obama still has 17 days to make good on this comittment, but it probably won't happen. Obama advisors/spokespersons have recently said it could take another year or two. There also continues to be a lot of controversy if closing of Guantanamo Bay is the right thing to do.
"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government."
That quote is taken directly from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/ Website. President Obama and his administration is currently under fire for transparency due to his promise not being kept for allowing health care negotiations from all sides and being broadcasted on C-SPAN so the public can see what is being done. As the Senate and House reconcile their respective bills Obama and the Democrats have opted to shut everybody out and make their back room deals as usual. These negotiations will not be broadcasted on C-SPAN or be made available to the public for review before vote either. In fact, public review shows the majority of Americans are against the current bill for health care reform, which was displayed all over the country in townhall meetings and Tea Parties for most of 2009.
I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income taxes, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.
Let's start with the "Cap and Trade" plan that Obama is proposing. During a videotaped interview he did with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board very early in his presidential campaign, January 2008: "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers." The Cap and Trade bill is currently stalled and not being debated in either branch of congress, but I gaurantee that it will be back soon...health care reform is at the top of the agenda. Speaking of health care reform, passage of this bill will most likely raise taxes. With the bribe, I mean the deal that Senator Ben Nelson got for the state of Nebraska (i.e. fully fund his state's expanded Medicaid population for the first three years like other states, but the only state to continue after the three years forever and ever) will raise payroll Medicare taxes for every working citizen.
I will promise you this...that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am President, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. 10/27/07
It is clear that Obama knows nothing about being in a war or managing one for that matter. A total lack of inexperience and for him to promise something like this is foolish. Well, he became president and ending the war was not the first thing he did, rather it was signing an executive order to close Gitmo, which by the way isn't going to happen either as previously discussed. Not only he hasn't ended the war, it seems like it's at the bottom of his "to do" list. Toward the end of August 2009, General McChrystal, that Obama appointed, sent a report to his Commander and Chief recommending a minimum of 40,000 additional troops or there won't be the man power needed to overcome the enemy. It sat on Obama's desk until early December when he finally decided to send 30,000 troops at the same time planning to bring our troops home. Does that make sense to you? Yah, me neither. He's trying to appeal to both sides. Either do all that we can to win the war and end it or bring them home.

These are just a few items I decided to review. There's actually a lot of promises that OBama has actually checked. Go to http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ to see the complete list, but the items discussed have been most talked about and at the top of President Obama's agenda. Oh yah, he did get the Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing...that's gotta count for something right? Doesn't it? Guys?

8/24/2009

Questions To Ask Our Government

Is is wrong to ask questions? Especially when it comes to what our government elected officials are doing? Why are Americans all across the country being attacked for boldly questioning during townhall meetings? I believe it is our right and duty to question the government. We should ask questions with boldness. Below are some questions that we should demand our government to answer:
  • Our unfunded liability for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is close to $100 trillion. Is there any way to pay for these programs without bankrupting America?

  • We are in so much debt, why spend more borrowed money on cap-and-trade and healthcare programs before we stop the flow of red-ink?

  • The stimulus package funneled billions of dollars to ACORN. How does giving billions of dollars to ACORN stimulate the economy?

  • If it was so important for congress to pass the stimulus bill before they even had time to read it why has only a fraction of the stimulus money been spent 6 months later?

  • Bush said he had to abandon free market principles in order to save them, how exactly does that work?

  • Why won’t member of Congress read the bills before they vote on them?

  • Why are citizens mocked and laughed at when they ask their congressman to read the bills before they vote on them?

  • Was the cash-for-clunkers program meant to save the earth or the economy? Did it accomplish either?

  • How did Van Jones, a self-proclaimed communist become a special advisor to the president?

  • Did President Obama know of Van Jones’ radical political beliefs when he named him special advisor?

  • The Apollo Alliance claimed credit for writing the stimulus bill—why was this group allowed to write any portion of this bill?

  • If politicians aren’t writing the bills and aren’t reading the bills, do they have any idea what these 1000 page plus bills actually impose on the American people?

  • If the ‘public option’ health care plan is so good why won’t politicians agree to have that as their plan?

  • If town hall meetings are intended for the politicians to learn what’s on our mind—why do they spend so much time talking instead of listening?

  • Politicians are refusing to attend town hall meetings complaining, without evidence, that they are scripted. Does that mean we shouldn’t come out and vote for you since every campaign stop, baby kiss and speech you give is scripted?

  • Why would you want to overwhelm the system?

  • Is using the economic crises to rush legislation through congress what Rahm Emanuel meant when he talked about not letting a crises go to waste?

  • What are the czars paid? What is the budget for their staffs/offices?
These are questions that Glenn Beck asked tonight on his t.v. show on Fox News. He also asks, "Am I hateful for asking these questions?" All week Glenn will try and answer these questions. One thing that I've learned from Glenn Beck since watching/listening to him, he doesn't discuss anything without extensive research and making sure he can back it up with facts. I encourage you to watch the Glenn Beck show this week on Fox News this week (5pm EST/3pm MST and then replays at 12am MST - set your DVR) and get informed on how Obama is fundamentally transforming America...not in a good way.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29631/

8/19/2009

Dave Ramsey's Take On "Cash For Clunkers"

Why is Dave Ramsey passionately opposed to the government's Cash for Clunker program? Watch the video below young grasshopper...



The program, when started had a $1 billion fund and was supposed to last three months. Within the first week the billion dollars was gone! Another $2 billion was passed through the House and Senate praising the success. What a crock! How can we expect the government to run health care if they can't even manage a cash for clunkers program. If they tell us it's going to cost us 1.5 trillion dollars for health care reform over the next decade they're really telling us it's going to cost us 4.5 trillion. That's a whole other story in and of itself.

There are other ripple effects of this clunkers program. Used car sales are now suffering because when someone turns in their clunker the dealership is then required to make that clunker inoperable then then destroyed. Nothing of the car can be used ever again. Smart Washington...real smart.

8/03/2009

Obama Officials: Taxes May Rise to Pay Health Care

Remember back on the campaign trail that Obama said that if you make less than $250,000 you will not see one penny of your taxes increase in any form? Yah, well, "two of President Barack Obama's economic heavyweights said middle-class taxes might have to go up to pare budget deficits or to pay for the proposed overhaul of the nation's health care system."

The news came from Tax Cheat Treasury Secretary Timoth Geithner and National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers on Sunday. "They both sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to reduce the federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere."

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090803/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_economy_13

Another campaign promise broken. "There is a lot that can happen over time," Summers said, adding that the administration believes "it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."

6/27/2009

President Barack Obama is a LIAR!

Blunt. Brutal. Fact. President Barack Obama is a L-I-A-R! I guess that shouldn't really surprise me, but I had hope. Hope that our president would be a man of his word.

Let me explain...on the campaign trail, in debates, in speeches, and in campaign ads, Barack Obama promised over and over that he would cut taxes for the 95% of Americans making less than $250,000 per year. He pledges that his tax increases would only apply to the top 5% of Americans making over $250,000 per year, your taxes will go down, emphasizing the point with a grand downward sweeping motion of his arm.

In a speech on September 12, 2008 in Dover, New Hampshire, Obama said, "I can make a firm pledge...under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will not see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax, not any of your taxes."

Today the House passed a "global warming" bill, which is actually an energy tax bill in disguise. The tax legislation designed to reduce carbon emissions by raising the prices of oil, gasoline, natural gas, coal, home heating oil, and anything else that produces carbon dioxide emissions, believed to be the main culprit behind supposed global warming. That is estimated to increase costs per family by an estimated $1,600 to $3,200 each year. If the bill reaches the president's desk and he does not veto it, he will be branded as a liar!

We haven't heard much about this "Cap and Trade" legislation that was passed because the media has been wrapped up in Obama's universal health care proposal. It was all a ruse so this energy tax bill could slip by with little debate.

Speaking of health care and how Obama is a liar, in a recent press conference he was asked how he intended to pay for his health care proposal and is leaning towards tax increases and various budget/spending cuts. How else are we going to pay over $1 trillion that's required to fund the plan? It just doesn't make sense!

6/23/2009

Janet Contreras' Letter: My Personal Thoughts (Part 2)

Continuing from my previous post on my personal thoughts from Janet Contreras' letter. Someone, like you and me, who is fed up with what our government is doing. I am also fed up with what is happening in and to our nation and am trying to get the word out so as many people can be informed and decide for themselves. Items 7-12 from the letter continues...

7. ACORN: During the 2008 Presidential elections, ACORN was and continues to be under investigation for voter fraud. But we haven't really heard about it much in the media have we? Most likely because Obama has ties to ACORN and the Obama-Mania-Media is in love with our fearless leader that they threw their journalism skills out the window a long time ago. I want ACORN investigated! Nothing is being done! I definitely don't want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. Funding to ACORN needs to stop, the books open, audits performed, and fully investigated. This just in, ACORN is changing their name to Community Organizations International. Why? Hmmm, maybe it has something to do with the all the voter fraud investigations going on? Convenient, isn't it? Read more about that here.

8. Redistribution of Wealth: Uh, leave my money alone. I've worked hard for it and don't want my future wealth spread around. We found out where Barack Obama really stands when he met Joe the Plumber on the campaign trail. Obama's campaign answer to Joe the Plumber, who was worried that his taxes would rise. "It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." What incentive do I have to make more money if it's just going to be taken away and "redistributed" to some slacker who doesn't know how to work for themselves? Doing this will just entitle them more and depend more on the government for their every need and won't learn the skills to fend for themselves. How about a flat tax rate where everyone pays the same percentage of income tax regardless of how much they make?

9. Charitable Donations:This may come to a surprise to some people, but President Obama is toying with the idea of stopping the charitable donation tax deduction incentive! Are you kidding me?! That's just about a bright idea as him thinking about cutting Veterans off from their health insurance...yes it's true. I help many in need. Stop butting in and trying to decide what's best for us and where we should put our money. We want to do it ourselves.

10. Corporate Bailouts: Like Janet said, "KNOCK IT OFF!" It's a bunch of crap that companies are "too big to fail." That's how America became so great! Companies failed and innovation and reorganizing ensued helping to make their companies stronger. Let them fail and let the strong survive! It's how the free market works. Free...I don't want the government running our banks, automobile industry, or health care for that matter.

11. Transparency and Accountability:Does anyone believe in being honest anymore? Actually doing what they tell us they're going to do instead of saying one thing and doing another? That's called hypocrisy by the way. How about being accountable for your own actions and stop placing blame on why your failed policies didn't work...or wont' work. Admit your mistakes, that you were wrong, and promise to the American people that it won't happen again! I don't like being lied to and manipulated! I'm not as dumb as you think I am...I see through the clever words and speeches designed to "sound" good when really it's a bunch of garbage. "Oh be wise, what can I say more?"

12. Unprecedented Quick Spending:"We've got to act now," "If we don't do this bad things will happen." STOP IT ALREADY! Slow the freak down and have a little respect with our money! Listen to yourselves..."to save money we need to spend money." Does that sound like common sense? Uh, no. How can you tell us to be fiscally responsible and to live within our means when you're on track to spend more money that every administration combined?! I think our government needs a totally money makeover...Dave Ramsey can help. Do you get someone to run our Treasury department that's morally sound and honest, nope, you appoint Tax Cheat Timothy Geitner. Smart, really smart.


Enough is enough. "We the people are coming."

4/15/2009

Trying to Stay Objective

I consider myself a Conservative Republican, but try to remain objective to what the other side has to say and report on the current administration. I am mainly a FOX NEWS viewer. Fox News is a right wing news outlet, but give fair and balanced reporting. As I said before, I try to remain objective and view other news programs like CNN or MSNBC and just get very frustrated. Maybe it is just the times that I'm watching, but most of the news being reported, especially on CNN isn't about politics at all...just random stories from around the nation I don't care about. When stories do get reported about the Obama administration it's usually about the First Lady's wardrobe and makeup artist...oh, and the new First Dog.

Let's take today for instance. April 15, 2009...tax day. For months movements have been in progress and organized for TEA Parties happening all around the nation. These TEA Parties are for those who are fed up with the out of control spending and government bailouts that have been happening as of late. FOX News has been reporting from different TEA Parties around the nation all day and give history about the Boston TEA party and why they are happening now. I flipped over the CNN to see what they were reporting about the TEA Parties and after thirty minutes of stupid news finally a one, maybe two minute report about it. The reporter basically shrugged the whole thing off, told her viewers that these parties were happening and why, and then followed up with a clip of Obama's news conference this morning where he explained that most Americans have received a tax cut on their paychecks.

That was it! For the reporter and CNN as a whole didn't even care, took Obama's current tax cut as enough to make America happy. Who cares that he's spending trillions of dollars that this nation doesn't have to "stimulate" the economy. Who cares that the biggest expansion in government is taking place. Who care that our nation is leading down the path to socialism. What bugs me the most is that these other news outlets thinks that whatever the current administration does is good and accepts it as the best possible thing for our country and anyone who opposes it is considered an extremist!

Thanks but no thanks...I'll stick to FOX News. They may be right wing, but at least they have "the other side" on almost all the time to make and debate their case...and sometimes I agree with them.

10/28/2008

Obama & McCains Tax Plan: A Mixed Bag

The Heritage Foundation has conducted several analyses comparing Senator Obama's tax proposals to that of Senator John McCain. The following was publsihed on October 15, 2008 by J.D. Foster, Ph.D - http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2101.cfm

Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL) have released tax plans indicating their priorities when one of them becomes President of the United States. These plans involve significant changes to the federal tax system. While numerous blanks and vagaries remain in both plans, much of their respective plans are now clearly laid out.

As expressions of tax policy design, the two tax plans share the unfortunate attribute of adding to tax complexity. In other respects, the McCain proposal significantly advances good tax policy by emphasizing lower rates while the Obama plan raises tax rates. The Obama plan also suffers in its proliferation and expansion of refundable tax credits, further (and inappropriately) using the income tax system as an income support system.

The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis (CDA) has a detailed overview of the two plans and an assessment of their economic effects.[1] According to CDA, by 2018 the economy would be more than $320 billion larger (after inflation), and average household income would be more than $2,600 greater under the McCain plan than under the Obama plan.

Comparing Proposals

Comparing the McCain and Obama tax proposals reveals important similarities and distinctions. For example, among the similarities:

  • Lower Taxes. Both sets of proposals, on balance, reduce federal taxes, demonstrating a clear and encouraging understanding by both candidates that federal income taxes are too high. McCain proposes $300 million more in tax cuts over 10 years. Unfortunately, Obama proposes additional tax increases but delays their implementation until at least two years after the completion of a hypothetical second term.
  • Mostly Validating Bush Tax Policy. Both sets of proposals recognize the fundamental soundness of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. While the Bush tax cuts have been criticized by liberal Democrats in Congress, Obama would make most of the income tax cuts permanent, whereas McCain would make all the income tax cuts permanent.
  • Support for a Reduced Death Tax. Both sets of proposals recognize the harmful effects and unfairness of the death tax. Unfortunately, both plans retain the death tax but do so at much lower rates and with a larger exemption than existed in 2000.
Key Differences: Growth v. Redistributionism

For all their similarities, the two plans have important distinctions. The most important is that McCain's tax proposals emphasize job creation and raising wages. This is most apparent in his proposal to extend all the 2001 and 2003 tax rate reductions and his proposals to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent--the second highest in the industrialized world--to 25 percent. It is also apparent in his proposal to allow immediate expensing of business investment necessary for job growth and international competitiveness.

The McCain plan includes another positive reform in that it replaces the unlimited exemption for employer-sponsored health insurance with a simple tax credit available to anyone purchasing health insurance. This provision corrects a terrible and unfair distortion in the tax code, would be a major step toward fundamental health care reform, and would significantly reduce the number of uninsured in America.[2]

Obama's tax proposals exemplify his view that redistributing income among citizens is more important than increasing their earnings and creating jobs. This view is apparent in his proposal to raise income taxes dramatically on individuals and small businesses earning more than $250,000 and then to raise payroll taxes on these same taxpayers after 2018.

Obama's preference for punitive redistributionism over economic growth is also apparent in his proposal to raise the capital gains and dividend tax rates. Capital formation is essential for increasing worker productivity and workers' wages. Taxes on capital gains and dividends are direct and certain impediments to business investment.

While raising taxes on higher-earners, Obama also cuts taxes for those who already pay little or no federal income tax. He achieves this by increasing the child and dependent care tax credit and making it refundable. He further engages in redistributionism through a new, refundable make-work-pay tax credit for low-wage workers and by expanding the earned-income tax credit.

These distinctions in the economic effects of the two plans explain why the McCain tax plan would be expected to be more beneficial for economic growth, jobs, and wages as the CDA analysis suggests. Policy is about choices, and choices often reflect trade-offs. A common and fundamental trade-off in economic policy is between economic growth and redistributing the income from growth, between job creation and wage growth on the one hand and economic security on the other. Especially with its focus on lower tax rates, the McCain tax plan is more conducive to economic growth and increasing wages; the Obama plan's higher tax rates and proliferation of refundable credits means the United States would forego a significant amount of possible wage growth in favor of redistributing wages and earnings.

Two Different Directions

Through the lens of sound tax policy, both McCain's and Obama's tax plans would leave the tax code more complicated than it is today. Even so, McCain's plan has important advantages through its focus on keeping tax rates low--and lowering them further in some instances--while improving incentives for investment and correcting an extremely harmful tax distortion at the heart of much of the trouble in America's health care financing system.

In contrast, the Obama plan raises income tax rates, raises payroll taxes on a delayed basis, and actively increases the use of the tax system to redistribute income to those who pay little or no income tax. Each of these aspects move the tax code in a decidedly inappropriate direction.

On balance, the McCain plan would be decidedly better for economic growth, largely because it would lower tax rates while the Obama plan would raise tax rates. Under the McCain tax plan, the economy would be expected to be about $320 billion greater, and average household income about $2,600 higher than would be the case under the Obama tax plan.

J. D. Foster, Ph.D., is Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.


[1] William W. Beach et al., "The Obama and McCain Tax Plans: How Do They Compare?" Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA08-09, October 15, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/cda08-09.cfm.

[2] Robert Moffit, Nina Owcharenko, "The McCain Health Care Plan: More Power to Families," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2198, October 15, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg2198.cfm.

10/27/2008

"Spread the Wealth" - Obama's Tax Plan

If you have watched any news on television in the past couple of weeks you have probably heard of "Joe the Plumber." During a neighborhood visit, Obama was asked by Joe the plumber about his tax plan and his taxes would increase if he chose to buy his boss' business which would make over $250,000. Obama basically said, "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Watch the whole encounter here:



Income distribution is what Obama plans to do if elected president. He's going to tax the rich (businesses and individuals) and redistribute it to everyone else including people who don't even pay federal income taxes! Despite the good intentions of Robin Hood, when the day is over he's still a thief.

10/22/2008

A Liberal Supermajority

The following is taken from: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB122420205889842989-lMyQjAxMDI4MjI0MTIyMDEyWj.html

Get ready for "change" we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933. If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.

The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.

10/21/2008

Barack Obama's Tax Plan

What would a world look like where two-thirds of all small-business income would be taxed at a 50 percent rate? The economic law that "taxing something more and getting less of it" would apply.
  • Fewer Americans would be interested in opening or expanding small businesses.
  • Tax evasion and legal tax avoidance would spike, as tax shelters would once again become a booming industry.
  • Since small businesses create a majority of jobs in America, Main Street closing up shop will have a direct impact on the family budget, as well.
  • Plants and equipment will go unused.
Despite the misguided opinions of static scorers in Washington, federal tax revenues will likely decline as the economy staggers into a full-on recession.

What does this have to do with Barack Obama's tax plan? Read on young grasshopper.

The following is taken from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html on July 11, 2008 by Grover G. Norquist:

"The Tax Policy Center and the Barack Obama campaign used some sleight of hand this week in Politico. To quote Eric Tolder of the TPC, “Most small-business people, like most everyone else, are not really high-income.” While this is true, it completely and totally misses the point.

"Let’s start with the definition of a “small business.” Most will tell you that small-business income constitutes income derived from sole proprietorships, partnerships and Subchapter S corporations.

"The conservative argument (and that of the John McCain campaign) is that Obama’s stated plan to raise taxes on households making $250,000 or more in income is a tax increase on small business. The simple answer to this dilemma can be found in the IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin (Table 1.4, for those who are interested).

"So what do the data say?

"In 2006 (the latest year available), $706 billion of such income was reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Of this, about half was reported by households in the top marginal income tax rate. Interestingly, two-thirds of this income was reported by households making $250,000 per year or more — the very same households that Obama wants to increase taxes on.

"The Obama campaign maintains that the number of small-business owners is what’s important. Economists know what matters is the tax rate that’s applied to the bulk of small-business income. Make no mistake about it: Obama’s plan to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000 will raise taxes on most small-business profits in America.

"What type of tax rate are we talking about? Currently, S corporations face a top tax rate of 35 percent, while sole proprietors and general partners face a tax rate of 37.9 percent (since they’re responsible for paying both income tax and the Medicare component of the payroll tax).

"Under Obama’s plan to let the scheduled 2011 tax rate hikes occur, and his plan to raise the self-employment tax on those making more than $250,000, the S corporation rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. The sole proprietor and partner rate would rise from 37.9 percent all the way up to a staggering 50.3 percent. Many Democrats in Congress have proposed making all small businesses (including S corporations) pay this 50-plus percent rate. A small business tax rate that high would be the highest marginal rate faced by them in nearly a quarter-century.

"What’s the alternative? One place to look is the optional alternate tax system originally proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and now endorsed by McCain. It would give households (including those with small business income) a choice between the current tax code and one with a top rate of 25 percent on all income over $100,000. This would have the beneficial effect of lowering the tax rate on most small-business income by 10 percentage points. Small businesses haven’t faced a tax rate that low in quite some time and would be likely to respond with the creation of new businesses and more investment in existing businesses.

"The McCain small business tax plan doesn’t end there. For those businesses that are organized as conventional corporations, the top tax rate would fall from 35 percent to 25 percent, the European average. For all businesses, technology and equipment — which now must be slowly “depreciated” over many years — would be immediately expensed in year one.

"Stepping back, voters and policymakers should ask themselves whether they want two-thirds of small business income taxed at a 50 percent tax rate or if they want nearly all small-business income taxed at a 25 percent tax rate. They should ask themselves whether it’s healthier for small businesses to write off a computer over six calendar years or to simply write it off in year one. To America’s small business sector, the answer is obvious."

Simply, Obama doesn't get it. You can't raise taxes in a staggering slowing down of the economy! Besides, big oil companies and big corporations don't pay taxes! If their taxes increase they pass it along to us, the consumer. This means we'll have to pay more for goods and services. So who will pay the higher taxes? WE WILL!
LIVE THE DREAM! How would you like to make more money, be your own boss, work your own hours, improve your standard of living, and choose the lifestyle you deserve? Click here to learn more.