Socialism


If I were to ask any sensible person what the number one issue facing America is, I’d bet the answer would be spending and debt.

We know what’s wrong. We know what needs to be done. However, half of Americans who bothered voting rewarded America with another 4 years of this idiot we call President.

In his first 4 years, Obama ran the biggest deficits in US history, driving the biggest debt growth in US history. His spending and deficits as a percentage of GDP were staggering, truly Greece-like. He presided over the worst employment record since the Great Depression, and poverty surged to record levels under him.

In spite of all this, the dolts of America decided we need more of it. So then the question pulled from this is “Why?” Simple; voters have discovered that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

Game over.

LiberalVoter

Advertisements

What to do about our growing mountain of debt
We are running a 1 trillion per year deficit and our debt is 15.2 trillion and climbing. If we cut expenses by 1 trillion a year, our debt just continues growing. If we cut 2 trillion per year, and allocate the 1 trillion saved to paying off the debt then it will take is 15 or more years to pay it off. This also means our budget is frozen at current levels but it needs to reversed.

pics on Sodahead

We need to get the spending trajectory onto a descending glide slope and hold it there for the next 5 years until we reach 3% of GDP. Will it hurt? You bet, but not as much as what we’re getting ready to experience if we don’t reverse this spending insanity. In addition, I don’t care what social program gets hurt or obliterated in the process. It’s going to happen either way. Today, we have a position where we can choose. If we do nothing, that position will be lost along with our future.

Once on this glide slope, we must reverse the evisceration of our military budget. I don’t believe in compromising our defensive posture just because we’ve overspent on social programs and giving money to our enemies under the name of Foreign Assistance programs The free world is getting ready to dance with Iran and reducing our defense capability is asinine.

If we don’t start correcting this soon, I believe that what is in store for the American people – our society in general – won’t be a positive and uplifting experience. I believe we will see hardship bordering on post depression experiences, or worse.

We have allowed Socialist values to subvert America’s
Because I have lost faith in the wisdom of our gov’t, I am not preparing for a bright and wonderful future and I have already begun feeling sorry for my son knowing the experience he will have to endure with little likelihood he will experience a life better than the one I have enjoyed.

I blame this on swing voters and those who have no capacity to fear the consequences of liberal i.e. “progressive” ideologies which grant voters access to the treasury, promised to them by those seeking office who stay longer than they should once they get in there. I also blame the RNC, infiltrated by liberals and moderates, who have guided the party away from its conservative principles, ignoring conservatives in this country who outnumber liberals by a 2-1 margin.

Reexamining my distaste for a 3-party system
I have been told by a French-American, France has well over a dozen political parties. It is guaranteed that anyone who gets elected will automatically be an unpopular president. In spite of that, France, often viewed to be liberal and bent toward socialism and communism, has elected Sarkozy of a right wing party positioned in “conservatism, liberal-conservatism, also libertarianism and nationalism”.

It serves to make me wonder about a 3-party system in America composed of

  • the fucking left with Obama and Hillary minions,
  • the old right, Republican Party, comprised of unguided and unprincipled center, moderates, libertarians and swing voters
  • and a new party – call it the Tea Party for now – which holds fast to conservative ideologies which implies the belief in small gov’t and which abhors social engineering and unions, believes in walking softly while carrying a big stick, believes in the old-school values that caused this country to become an immigrant magnet, but has the borders with enough integrity to keep them out, letting only those we want to come in.

So, the question I’ve been kicking around is “If France can vote in a conservative in a mega-multi-party system, and in light of the fact that conservatives in America outnumber liberals by 2 to 1, could conservatives be galvanized under a 3-party system to reverse America’s socialist trend?”

The Left, Center and a New Right
Lately I have arrived at a new point in my never ending analysis of America’s political evolution. I have been driven there by a an unpleasant understanding that there are people in our country who have a deep rooted need to be coddled and driven by the need to feel protected. They are the ones who look to gov’t to fulfill this need. They are the ones who believe more in gov’t than they do themselves. These are the ranks of the fucking confused.

There are others who think along the idea gov’t serves at the convenience of its people and that no one is better at figuring out what they need than themselves. They don’t want gov’t in their faces and crotch all day long from cradle to grave. They want to be left alone and not feel like their freedoms are being stolen from them while feeling powerless to do anything about it. They want a better future for their kids, not the future the loony left wants.

Problem is, special interests have gotten involved and pissed in the cereal. Our elected officials don’t listen to the “little people” anymore. They have whored themselves to special interests, the PACs, big business.

All of a sudden, I’m now singing songs of the “Occupiers”

Saul D. Alinsky

I began to read of Obama’s influences as far back as April of 2008, before Obama’s presidential election. From this I learned about Saul D. Alinksy and Cloward & Piven who are probably among the most important among Obama’s influences – directly or otherwise. When you read about them and the basis of their beliefs it is not difficult to see Obama’s beliefs among them.

So, who are these people?

Saul D. Alinksy

Consider Saul D. Alinksy. Known as the “father of modern American radicalism,” Saul D. Alinsky (1909-1972) developed strategies and tactics that take the enormous, unfocused emotional energy of grassroots groups and transform it into effective anti-government and anti-corporate activism. Activist organizations teach his ideas widely taught today as a set of model behaviors, and they use these principles to create an emotional commitment to victory – no matter what. This describes very well Obama’s community organizing work, which he did long before becoming a member of the U.S. Senate. It is not hard to see Alinksy’s work oozing from the pores of Obama. Obama’s most recent use of one of Alinsky’s rules was this past week when Obama ridiculed businessman Donald Trump’s efforts to get answers to questions surrounding the origin of Obama’s birth. These are questions of which the answer is owed to the American people.

“I know that he’s taken some flack lately,” Obama said of Trump. “But no one is happier, no one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than The Donald.”

But then the president quickly changed gears. “And that’s because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter, like–did we fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?” Obama said, referencing rap icons Biggie Smalls and Tupac Shakur. – Barack Obama during his speach in front of a live televised audience at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in Washington, D.C. in late April of 2011.

At the end of the day Obama is ultimately at fault for his failure to disclose to the American people this most basic of information upon which his eligibility to be president of the United States rests. As Oprah Winfrey on her talk show asked him the day after his disclosure, “What took so long?”. Some analyst say the timing of his disclosure is directly related to his falling poll numbers.

Cloward-Piven

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, then both sociologists and political activists at the Columbia University School of Social Work, in a 1966 article in The Nation entitled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty”.

The two were critical of the public welfare system, and their strategy called for overloading that system to force a different set of policies to address poverty. They stated that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would strain local budgets, precipitating a crisis at the state and local levels that would be a wake-up call for the federal government, particularly the Democratic Party, thus forcing it to implement a national solution to poverty. Cloward and Piven wrote that “the ultimate objective of this strategy [would be] to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income…” There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party then-splintered by pluralist interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national solution to poverty); relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare (through a national solution to poverty).

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

To capture the significance of Barack Obama’s Radical Left connections and his relation to the Cloward-Piven strategy, consider the following flow chart. It is by no means complete. There are simply too many radical individuals and organizations to include them all here. But these are perhaps the most significant.


They represent the organizations at work who believe America’s economic and political systems are worthy of begin destroyed. They represent the ardent support for Obama. The chart puts Barack Obama at the epicenter of American radical leftism. Not only are his connections significant, they practically define who he is. Taken together, they constitute a who’s who of the American radical left, and guiding all is the Cloward-Piven strategy.

Change and the Moral High Ground

Too many Americans today brush off Obama’s influences as another conspiracy theory worthy of being alongside Big Foot and UFO’s. There are two types; those who don’t take the claims seriously or if they do and already understand these claims to be truth, they don’t want that truth to be known. They are happy if the majority of Americans are oblivious to the reasons behind the changes taking place in America today. In either case, they defend Obama’s policies and characterize them as morally correct.

“I think this debate is on a higher ground of our values. It’s not about money. It’s about the morality of what we’re doing.” – Nancy Pelosi

One only needs to look to pre-Nazi Germany to understand how quickly the abnormal replaces the normal and how values and government can change in a matter of months. But try comparing Obama-era changes to Hitler-era changes and you’re instantly vilified. Not because of the comparison to a charismatic leader who tears down its long standing government to replace it with his own idea of what government should be to its people, but because his blind supporters are only capable of one-dimensional thinking and can only associate Hitler to the holocaust. They cannot see the truth.

The naive among Obama’s supporters truly believe he is trying to help its citizens. They cannot see how Obama’s vision of America will actually lead to its destruction and loss of standing on the world’s stage, just as Hitler’s leadership lead to Germany’s destruction.

Wayne Allyn Root

While the influences these people may have had upon the formation of Obama’s beliefs might be new to most, there is someone who has known this since Obama’s college years.

The author of what follows was a college classmate of Obama’s. His name is Wayne Allyn Root.

Wayne Allyn Root

Mr. Root was the 2008 Libertarian Party vice presidential nominee and serves on the Libertarian National Committee. The opinion piece that he wrote for the Las Vegas Review-Journal in June of 2010 helps to justify the belief that Obama really does want to grow government, destroy America’s economic leadership and make its citizens dependent upon its government and in-so-doing making Americans slaves to an overbearing government.

What follows is Mr. Root’s view of Obama, his view of America and its place in the world and how his policies are working to bring about Obama’s brand of “Hope and Change”.

Obama’s agenda: Overwhelm the system

Rahm Emanuel cynically said, “You never want a crisis to go to waste.” It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Barack Obama’s presidency.

Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos — thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of ’83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they’re alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival … and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

— Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn’t care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

— Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama’s biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama “spread the wealth around.”

— Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who’s asking for a 51st state? Who’s asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama’s plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

— Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

— Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions — including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.

— Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.

With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you’ve got the perfect Marxist scheme — all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama.

America needs to wake up. But I fear it may be too late.

The original opinion piece can be found here.

First, Obama says Republicans gotta sit in back (presumably, the bus) when it comes to participating in the county’s affairs.

Obama said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said,

“we can’t have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

Source:

Then he flips his position about the Republicans, casting them as slurpee sippers because in his eyes, Republicans won’t participate in governing.

“We’re down there (trying to get the economic car out of the ditch). It’s hot. We were sweating. Bugs everywhere. We’re down there pushing, pushing, pushing on the car. Every once in a while we’d look up and see the Republicans standing there. They’re just standing there fanning themselves — sipping on a Slurpee.”

Source:

A week before the election Obama calls Republicans “enemies”.

President Barack Obama, speaking on Univision, advised Latino voters to punish their Republican Enemies by voting Democrat. Obama’s advice was sound, Latinos should vote against their political enemies in the GOP.

Source:

At the end of October, perhaps as a result of paying attention to the polls, the Obambastic urges Republicans to ease partisanship “Win, Lose, or Draw”

President Barack Obama challenged Republicans to set aside partisan difference after the election, “win lose or draw,” and pursue “practical steps” to invigorate the economy and create jobs.

“Whatever the outcome on Tuesday, we need to come together to help put people who are still looking for jobs back to work,” Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address.

Source:

On the day after the election, the Obambastic asks Republicans for “common ground”

US President Barack Obama told Republican congressional leaders that he wanted to find common ground after their crushing wins in mid-term elections, the White House said early on Wednesday, telling John Boehner and Mitch McConnell he was he was

“looking forward to working with him and the Republicans to find common ground, move the country forward, and get things done for the American people”

Source

You can’t have it both ways Mr. Obama.

You can’t chide, ridicule and blame your opposition, “enemies” as you call them, then come calling with your hat in hand to ask for a little cooperation.

In the weeks leading up to the mid-term election, you have been fond of telling your minions about how the mean ol’ slurpee-sippin’ Republicans drove the economic car into the ditch and how America can not afford to hand the keys back over to them.

Contrary to your pathetic view, Mr. Obama, the mounting and overwhelming evidence points to the fact many Democrats chose to drive while their eyes were closed, ignoring call after call to fix the problem and in some cases, belligerently and arrogantly denying any problem existed with their policies.

Some segments of the media recognize the Democrats are largely at fault and point to the new oversight laws pushed largely by Republicans.

This televised report aired in September 2004 and can be viewed here. In the space of four minutes, it attempts to time line the events leading to the greatest economic failure since the Great Depression.


A full year and a half after watching the left demonstrate their inherent inability to engage in critical thinking and to look beyond the campaign hyperbole of our now community organizer for president, we are now starting to see their inability to stick to their own principles, flawed as they are.

We watched in amazement as the left, whipped into a froth by a national media which has resembled Pravda or Tass for for some time, rushed like lemmings to the voting booths to elect a shallow orator into the most powerful position on the planet.

Now we watch in disgust as the Obama supporters come out of their drunken-like stupor and sober up to the truth the rest of us already know; socialism is repressive and it doesn’t work to provide the conditions needed for a successful society. It never has. It never will.

But the left demonstrate another inability. They can’t recognize truth when it stares them in the face. As young college students, their minds have been corrupted by the liberal and socialist ideologies which has been pumped into their soft, mushy heads by professors and other corrupted elements coming from the left-wing.

These legions of liberal minded graduates which some call “progressives” are now captains of industry. They are media moguls, teachers and politicians and for several decades they have been very busy subverting our institutions and core values of our country. It’s no wonder our country is in shambles today, a product of their “sick-think” which turns traditional values and thinking on its ear by their belief that our country is broken and only they can fix it. The A.C.L.U. and activist judges are their tools.

Think about this one; California’s fiscal crisis is the product of a generation of leadership produced by the ’60s. I there was any era which represented a wholesale rejection of traditional values, it would be the ’60s. Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi come from that generation. Collectively, they’ve made a shambles of California and now they’re in Washington, D.C. and they’re well on their way to applying their sick-think to make a wreck out of our nation.

The liberal loves to label the Republican Party as “the party of no” which suggests they are “the party of yes.” Based upon their lack of convictions when it comes to traditional values, patriotism and national sovereignty, one might agree. They have established a clear record of saying –

  • “yes” to same-sex marriages,
  • “yes” to open borders,
  • “yes” to granting constitutional rights to non-citizens, especially to our enemies,
  • “yes” to tax policies creating economic uncertainty for businesses and denying economic freedom of consumers all of which lead to stagnant economic conditions and double digit unemployment rates,
  • “yes” to spending policies creating debt levels which threatens our national security,
  • “yes” to granting illegal immigrants the right to vote, especially when it benefits the Democrat party,
  • “yes” to a national media which advances their agenda
  • “yes” to emaciating our military
  • “yes” to large government
  • “yes” to policies reflecting those of socialism i.e. nationalizing large corporations and majority ownership
  • “yes” to allowing heads of foreign states the opportunity to address congress and then giving them standing ovations when they speak about how wrong we are to want to preserve our sovereignty by incarcerating and deporting immigrants who have come into our country illegally,
  • “yes” to blaming Republicans and conservatives alike for the affects of their failed policies administered by their own, such as Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and who clearly don’t give a rat’s ass about the will of the people or democratic process,

Clearly, this list could go on for a long time, but the above items serve to illustrate the destructive characteristics of their belief systems which they embed into their policies and laws, all of which conservatives and those in the Republican party disagree with, leaving them labeled as belonging to “the party of no”.

However, it’s easy to see those of the left haven’t got a clue about what it means to do the right thing for our country, which is to say those on the right actually belong to “the party of know”.

With the Capital building as a backdrop, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Thursday unveiled HR-3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

vacine

Like it or not, here it is.


If placed upon the floor, the 19 pound bill, all 1,990 pages of it, would stand nearly 9 inches tall. According to the CBO, the cost of the plan will be $1.055 trillion over the next ten years.


However, a November 2, 2009, AP news report says Democrats added billions more on higher spending for public health, a reinsurance program to hold down retiree health costs, payments for preventive services and more. The report says according to numerous Democratic officials and figures contained in an analysis by congressional budget experts the health care bill headed for a vote in the House in the first week of November will cost $1.2 trillion or more over a decade.


The bill is a combination of H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act (approved by the Committees on Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means) and includes other provisions negotiated last week behind closed doors by the Democrat leadership.


Replacing HR-3200, it is certainly no shorter and no less complex. HR-3962 is a government-sponsored plan to take over the health insurance industry. The bill is designed to force Americans to pay for cradle-to-grave health care services as defined by the United States government and penalizes both employer and the individual for non-participation in the form of “surtaxes.”


HR-3962 is expected to come to the floor of the House the week of November 2.

The House and Senate Versions

The House bill is very similar to a measure under development by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, who is seeking to combine bills passed by two committees. The bill would impose a new income surtax on individuals earning more than $500,000 and couples earning more than $1 million which is being labeled as a millionaire’s tax.

NancyPelosi

Nancy Pelosi at the unveiling of HR-3962 on October 29, 2009


The Senate bill would impose a tax on high-cost insurance policies, a move that experts say could help lower long-term health care costs by giving employers, employees and private insurers incentive to reduce expenditures.


In addition to expanding coverage for the uninsured, both the House and Senate versions of the legislation would severely tighten restrictions on the health insurance industry, for instance, by barring the denial of coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions.



Democrats have insisted that the health care legislation is crucially needed while Congressional Republicans warn that it will raise taxes, unwisely cut Medicare services and increase health care costs overall.

“That’s hardly the reform the American people need or deserve,” House Republicans said in a news release.

In summary, the bill contains the following points.

* Creation of a government-run health insurance program – potential to cause 114 million Americans to lose their current coverage.

* Forcing of individuals to purchase government-run Exchange – private health insurance industry will be forced out of business.

* Employers would be encouraged to drop existing coverage, due to regulations that would raise premiums.

* New federal spending (Trillions of dollars) and increased deficit will affect long-term fiscal solvency of America.

* Taxes will be levied on Americans who purchase insurance, Americans who do not purchase insurance and millions of small businesses – leading to job losses and increased healthcare premiums.

* Cuts to Medicare Advantage plans will result in increased premiums and more than 10 million seniors having their coverage dropped.

Penalties for non-participation

Section 59B on page 297 of HR-3962 spells out the rules for individual participation and explains how the individual will be taxed as a penalty if the individual fails to enroll in a health care plan. This idea is based upon making the plan more affordable for all, however, the bill makes no provision for that.

‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

(a) TAX IMPOSED.In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of
(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

Individuals will be taxed 2.5% of their adjusted gross income if they do not purchase “acceptable health care coverage.” For many who cannot afford coverage, the fine is also out of reach.

Taxes will increase for both individuals and small businesses. The claim is that the taxes are being charged to offset the cost of the federal government financing the takeover of the health care industry, however, the bill states any amount collected as penalty “shall be deposited as miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury of the United States.’’ There is no mention of deposits to be made outside of the Treasury.

Small businesses will see a 5.4 percent “surtax” that will begin in 2011 and existing tax-exempt health savings programs will be eliminated. Beginning in 2013 a 2.5% excise tax will be added to all medical devices.

More New Taxes

Grace Period For Current Employment Based Health Plans (Page 92):

In General the Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 201, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 221.

This is interpreted to mean that after a 5-year period of time, people will be transferred into a health care plan defined by the government and not get to purchase private health insurance different from what the government provides.

With all plans being equal and with the government being the largest provider, the implication is that private insurers will not be able to compete effectively and consequently the private sector health care providers will be forced out of business. This leaves the federal government as the sole provider.

Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).

Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.

Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.

Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped).

Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)

Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services.

Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.

Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price. It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344): Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments. Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons. Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.

Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345): Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act

Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346): Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.

Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.

Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357): Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties. If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.

The Wall Street Journal calls HR-3962 “The Worst Bill Ever”

A Recent WSJ opinion piece characterizes the bill as irrational and points to higher insurance premiums with the spectre of higher taxes and a rising federal deficit. By all accounts, this bill should have never seen the light of day.

With a nation already facing a burgeoning national debt brought on by Obama’s out-of-control spending policies, Nancy Pelosi’s health care bill will expand over time and result in subsequent higher taxes and requiring an expanding government to support it.

In control of both the House and the Senate, the Democrats are hell-bent upon passing this wildly unpopular bill in spite of the real possibility they may lose seats. This suits Nancy Pelosi who leads the party intend upon shoving their unique version of health care coverage down the throats of the rest of the nation. What the Democrats don’t seem to be able to understand is that while they blindly chase their ideas of health care entitlement they actually pull the plug on the fiscal health of the nation, placing the future of America’s freedom and prosperity in peril.

To afford rising taxes to pay for a bulging deficit in addition to paying for Nancy’s health care program, the economy will no doubt shrink in response to Americans pulling in the reigns of their household budgets. The bill not only affects the private worker, it also places new tax burdens upon business. The domino-like effects should be obvious. The irony here is that many more Americans may no longer be in a position to afford health care.

The Republican Plan

On November 5, 2009, House Republicans presented their health care plan.

The bill that would reward states for reducing the number of uninsured, limit damages in medical malpractice lawsuits and allow small businesses to band together and buy insurance exempt from most state regulation.

In its opening section, the Republican bill, which has no chance of passing, promises to lower health care costs and expand insurance coverage “without raising taxes, cutting Medicare benefits for seniors, adding to the national deficit, intervening in the doctor-patient relationship or instituting a government takeover of health care.”

The bill defines the differences between Republicans and Democrats, who intend to take up their bill on the House floor this week, after resolving intramural disputes over abortion and immigration.

Unlike the Democrats’ strategy of trying to provide near-universal coverage and force other major changes to the insurance system, the Republican approach is an incremental one with a different goal — controlling health care costs.

GOP lawmakers propose to do so through market-oriented measures that would limit medical malpractice lawsuits, expand the use of tax-sheltered medical savings accounts, let people shop for insurance outside of their own states and make it easier for small businesses and hard-to-insure people to get coverage. The ideas reflect conservatives’ suspicion of sweeping new programs, federal spending and additional regulation.

The Republican bill differs from the Democratic measure in that it would not require people to obtain insurance or require employers to offer it. It is almost surely cheaper than the House Democrats’ bill because, unlike that proposal, it would not expand Medicaid or offer federal subsidies to low- and middle-income people to help them buy insurance. Nor would the Republican bill impose new taxes.

The House Republican bill would not explicitly prohibit insurers from denying coverage to people because of pre-existing medical conditions, even though many Republicans have said they agree with Democrats that the federal government should outlaw such denials

The House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, said his bill would “lower costs and expand access at a price our nation can afford.”

In a few ways, the House Republican bill resembles the one headed for the House floor. It would allow young adults to stay on their parents’ health plans at least through age 24, compared with 26 under the Democrats’ bill.

House Republicans, like the Democrats, would prohibit insurers from imposing annual or lifetime limits on spending for covered benefits. And they would prohibit insurers from canceling or rescinding coverage after a person became sick unless the person had intentionally concealed “material facts” about a medical condition.

The bill would offer $50 billion in federal “incentive payments” over the next 10 years to states that reduce the cost of health insurance or the proportion of their residents who are uninsured.

The bill would also make it easier for insurers to sell insurance across state lines. Policies would be subject to laws in a company’s home state, but would be exempt from many of the consumer protection laws, rating rules and benefit mandates in other states where the company sold coverage.

Republicans would also allow small businesses to pool their insurance buying power through “association health plans,” sponsored by trade and professional associations and chambers of commerce. These plans would have “sole discretion” over what services to cover.

The GOP plan is, by design, a less costly bill with more modest ambitions. Its price tag, which is still to be determined, surely will be far less than the House Democratic bill. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the cost of that plan would exceed $1 trillion over 10 years.

Unlike the Democratic plan, it does not include subsidies or other provisions that would make coverage more affordable to people of modest means.

“What we’ve learned over many, many years is that the reason people don’t have insurance is that they can’t afford it,” said Drew Altman, president of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, an nonpartisan health policy research group. “You can’t make much progress toward helping the uninsured unless you help them buy it.”

The Republicans’ proposals long have been on their wish list, yet they were not enacted even when the party controlled Congress and the White House. And they are being resurrected at a time when some Republicans warn that the party is in danger of being seen as guardians of an unpopular status quo in health care.

“Come campaign time, voters need to know what healthcare reforms Republicans have supported,” said Whit Ayres, a GOP pollster.

Republicans, who harbor no hopes of passing their alternative plan during Saturday’s scheduled debate, have spent months criticizing the Democrats’ plan as an intrusive, expensive government program — an argument with strong appeal for the party’s conservative base.

The Republican bill lacks many major elements of the Democratic proposal: There is no expansion of Medicaid, no requirement that individuals buy insurance, no penalties for employers that do not offer coverage, and no subsidies to help the needy pay premiums.

In addition, the GOP proposal does not include one of the most popular elements of the Democrats’ plan — a ban on denying coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions.

But the Republican plan has adopted some of the more modest Democratic provisions. It too would make it easier for young adults to remain on their parents’ health policies. It also would end the controversial insurance practices of imposing annual or lifetime limits on benefits and of canceling coverage after a policyholder becomes sick.

And rather than give more power to the federal government to address the nation’s healthcare problems, the Republican plan looks to states, market forces and individuals.

Their bill would offer $15 billion in aid to the states to form “high-risk” insurance pools that would cover people — including those with preexisting conditions — who cannot get coverage through their jobs or in the individual market. The GOP bill also would provide incentive grants for states that reduce premiums and the ranks of the uninsured. Under a reinsurance program, a state pays a large share of the cost if claims — for an individual or a group — exceed some threshold.

The House Republican whip, Eric Cantor of Virginia, said high-risk pools and reinsurance programs would “guarantee that all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable care.” Health policy experts say insurers can lower premiums if state reinsurance programs protect them against the risk of catastrophic costs.

Small businesses would be encouraged, but not required, to cover their employees under provisions that would make it easier to band together to get group rates.

To curb costs through increased competition, the GOP plan would make it easier for insurance companies to sell policies across state lines. The bill would impose new curbs on medical malpractice lawsuits — on the theory that health care inflation is fueled by defensive medicine and the rising cost of malpractice insurance. The provision sets a $250,000 limit on non-economic damages, for physical and emotional pain and suffering. It would establish new hurdles for consumers to obtain punitive damages and would limit contingency fees for plaintiffs’ lawyers.

To increase incentives for individuals to control their own health spending, the bill would expand the use of tax-favored health savings accounts. And it would allow employers to provide steeper discounts in insurance premiums to employees who adopt healthy lifestyles.

House GOP Health Bill Would Reduce Uninsured by 3 Million

Congressional budget umpires say the House Republican health plan would only make a small dent in the number of uninsured Americans.

In an analysis released late Wednesday, the Congressional Budget Office said the GOP plan would reduce the number of uninsured by 3 million.

The Democratic bill, by comparison, would reduce the number of uninsured by 36 million. Both estimates are for the year 2019.

While the Democrats’ bill would cover 96 percent of eligible Americans, the Republican alternative would cover 83 percent — roughly comparable to current levels.

The budget office says the Republican plan would reduce federal deficits by $68 billion over the 10 year period, and push down premiums for privately insured people.

CBO: Republican health plan would reduce premiums, cut deficit

The Congressional Budget Office Wednesday night released its cost analysis of the Republican health care plan and found that it would reduce health care premiums and cut the deficit by $68 billion over ten years.

The Republican plan does not call for a government insurance plan but rather attempts to reform the system by creating high-risk insurance pools, allowing people to purchase health insurance policies across state lines and instituting medical malpractice reforms.

“Not only does the GOP plan lower health care costs, but it also increases access to quality care, including for those with pre-existing conditions, at a price our country can afford,” House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said.

According to CBO, the GOP bill would indeed lower costs, particularly for small businesses that have trouble finding affordable health care policies for their employees. The report found rates would drop by seven to 10 percent for this group, and by five to eight percent for the individual market, where it can also be difficult to find affordable policies.

The GOP plan would have the smallest economic impact on the large group market that serves people working for large businesses that have access to the cheapest coverage. Those premiums would decline by zero to 3 percent, the CBO said.

The analysis shows the Republican plan would do little to expand coverage, which Democrats were quick to point out in a late night missive to reporters.

“Here’s the Bottom line – Americans lose and Insurance companies win under the Republican plan,” Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said.

The CBO found that under the Republican plan, insurance coverage would increase by about 3 million and that the percentage of insured non-elderly adults would remain at about 83 percent after ten years. The House bill would increase coverage to an additional 36 million people, raising the number of insured to 96 percent.

The CBO put the price tag for the GOP plan at $61 billion, a fraction of the $1.05 trillion cost estimate it gave to the House bill that lawmakers are set to vote on this weekend. And the CBO found that the Republican provision to reform medical malpractice liability would result in $41 billion in savings and increase revenues by $13 billion by reducing the cost of private health insurance plans.

What Happens Now?

In the first week on November, House leaders plan to take up the bill introduced Thursday while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid aims to unveil a bill to bring to Senate floor by early November. The bill must get 60 votes to open debate, which will without doubt prove to be lengthy. It may well consume much of November and perhaps may go into December.

Beyond that time, if a full Senate and House both pass bills, they hold a conference committee to work out differences which leads to next year as the soonest when President Barack Obama can sign the resulting bill into law.

The bill represents the latest attempt to overhaul America’s health care system.

1. Think Progress notes with glee that Sec. 107 outlaws treating domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. Do you even know what to think of that?

2. The Weekly Standared weighs in saying that HR 3962 pays for abortions, cuts medicare, raises taxes + fees + the deficit. What’s not to love?

3. The Washington Times reports that the House unveiling ceremony for HR 3962 was closed to the public. I repeat, it was closed to the public. Vistitors had to be listed on a pre-approved list.

4. American Spectator points out that HR 3962 includes a mandate that forces individuals to purchase insurance or pay a tax + the employer mandate. It also includes government-run insurance exchanges. American Spectator also shows that the bill will add a huge new section to the federal tax code: PART VIII: HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES. Can you imagine this ambiguous section of the code not changing every year? Your liberty is at stake.

While Venezuela’s President Chavez has made moves to tighten government control over her national media, America’s President Obama has embarked upon a similar campaign, but one focused upon a single outlet – Fox News.

Recently, MoveOn.org has launched a campaign to encourage Democrats to stay off Fox News. The MoveOn’s Noah T. Winer launched it with this posting on their site:

Dear MoveOn member,

All year, FOX has worked 24/7 to block President Obama’s agenda—repeating lies about “death panels,” promoting Tea Party protests, and whipping up fake political scandals.1

Now, President Obama is fighting back. The White House communications director said FOX is a “wing of the Republican Party…let’s not pretend they’re a news network.”2 To draw attention to its biased coverage, President Obama will not appear on FOX for the rest of this year.3

It’s about time Democrats stood up to FOX! Can you sign this petition asking Democrats to support President Obama’s stance by staying off FOX as long as he does? We’ll deliver it to Sen. Lautenberg and Sen. Menendez.

Democrats will only find the courage to join Obama if they hear from enough concerned voters. Sign this petition to ask Sen. Lautenberg and Sen. Menendez to stay off FOX.

Thanks for all you do.
–Noah, Nita, Michael, Kat, and the rest of the team

The petition says: “Democrats should support President Obama’s effort to call out FOX. Please stay off FOX for as long as he does.”

FOX insists there’s a difference between its news shows and its right-wing opinion shows with Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and others.

But in August, FOX’s so-called news shows “aired 22 clips of town hall meeting attendees opposed” to Obama’s health care plans and zero in support. CNN and MSNBC were more fair and balanced.

FOX executives now describe the channel as “the voice of opposition” to Obama’s agenda. FOX president Roger Ailes—a former adviser to Nixon, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush—said, “I see this as the Alamo.”

MoveOn.org

MoveOn is an American non-profit progressive, liberal public policy advocacy group and political action committee which has raised millions of dollars for candidates of the Democratic Party in the United States. Formed in response to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, it has been cited in some accounts as a factor which helped propel the Democratic Party to power in the 2006 midterm elections.

According to an article in the Washington Post dated March 10, 2004

“The Democratic 527 organizations have drawn support from some wealthy liberals determined to defeat Bush. They include financier George Soros who gave $1.46 million to MoveOn.org Voter Fund (in the form of matching funds to recruit additional small donors); Peter B. Lewis, chief executive of the Progressive Corp., who gave $500,000 to MoveOn.org Voter Fund; and Linda Pritzker, of the Hyatt hotel family, and her Sustainable World Corp., who gave $4 million to the joint fundraising committee.”

George Soros has donated at least $1,460,000 to MoveOn which actively supports liberal politicians like Howard Dean and John Edwards. It also organizes demonstrations promoting left-wing causes.

moveonpetition1

moveonpetition2

A Capitol Hill newspaper reports, “In the House and Senate, Democrats who pledged to follow the administration’s near-boycott of Fox were hard to find, although many expressed support for Obama’s stance.”

George Soros

George Soros, a man who wants to impose a radical left agenda on America, has set up a complicated political operation designed to do two things – buy influence among some liberal politicians and smear people with whom he disagrees. Most of Soros’ political money flows through his ‘Open Society Institute,’ which has given nearly $20 million to the ‘Tides Foundation.’ Tides, in turn, has donated millions to the vile propaganda outfit ‘Media Matters,’ which specializes in distorting comments made by politicians, pundits and media people.

SorosMediaOrganization

‘Media Matters’ directly feeds its propaganda to some mainstream media people, including elements at NBC News, columnists Frank Rich and Paul Krugman at the New York Times, columnist Jonathan Alter at Newsweek, and Bill Moyers at PBS.

Next Page »