Stop Me Before I Lie Again!

A Democrat advocacy group that was essential to the passage of ObamaCare has come out with a new Powerpoint presentation on how to sell ObamaCare, aka sell a 5-gallon jug of water to a drowning man.
And the most interesting revelation: They Lied!
Shocking though that may seem, it seems that in this presentation on the last page of “don’t”s they don’t wanna anyone to talk about the cost savings, deficit reduction, and the lower premiums that was there mantra for 15 months as they crammed it down everyone’s throat in the most partisan vote in memory.
It seems, they might have ‘misspoke’

The presentation also concedes that the fiscal and economic arguments that were the White House’s first and most aggressive sales pitch have essentially failed. “Many don’t believe health care reform will help the economy,” says one slide.

When you see this first panel, think Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals, Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

It’s hard to overstate how important the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)—which makes the official judgments on how much bills cost and save—is in Washington. “I consider CBO God around here,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, recently said during the Health Care Debate.(Newsweek– our “islamophobic” fear mongers)

I wonder if he feels the same way after yesterday’s report that showed what the deficit spending has done to the economy?
“We think the numbers are now pretty well set from CBO,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said. “We think it will post the largest deficit reduction of any bill that we’ve adopted in the Congress since 1993.”

CBO told lawmakers that the health package would cost $940 billion over the next decade, reducing the deficit by $130 billion. It will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the second decade of the plan’s implementation, according to those who have seen the score.
“We are absolutely giddy” about the score, Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said during an interview on Fox News on Thursday. About the deficit-reduction figures, he added, “This is great news for the American people.”(The Hill)
So without further adieu…

Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and deficit and instead stressing a promise to “improve it.”
The messaging shift was circulated this afternoon on a conference call and PowerPoint presentation organized by Families USA — one of the central groups in the push for the initial legislation. The call was led by a staffer for the Herndon Alliance, which includes leading labor groups and other health care allies. It was based on polling from three top Democratic pollsters: John Anzalone, Celinda Lake and Stan Greenberg.
The confidential presentation, available in full here and provided to POLITICO by a source on the call, suggests that Democrats are acknowledging the failure of their predictions that the health care legislation would grow more popular after its passage, as its benefits became clear and rhetoric cooled. Instead, the presentation is designed to win over a skeptical public, and to defend the legislation — and in particular the individual mandate — from a push for repeal.
The presentation concedes that groups typically supportive of Democratic causes — people under 40, non-college-educated women and Hispanic voters — have not been won over by the plan. Indeed, it stresses repeatedly that many are unaware that the legislation has passed, an astonishing shortcoming in the White House’s all-out communications effort.
“Straightforward ‘policy’ defenses fail to [move] voters’ opinions about the law,” says one slide.  ”Women in particular are concerned that health care law will mean less provider availability — scarcity [is] an issue.”
The presentation also concedes that the fiscal and economic arguments that were the White House’s first and most aggressive sales pitch have essentially failed.
“Many don’t believe health care reform will help the economy,” says one slide.
The presentation’s final page of “Don’ts” counsels against claiming “the law will reduce costs and deficit.”
The presentation advises, instead, sales pitches that play on personal narratives and promises to change the legislation.
“People can be moved from initial skepticism and support for repeal of the law to favorable feelings and resisting repeal,” it says.  “Use personal stories — coupled with clear, simple descriptions of how the law benefits people at the individual level — to convey critical benefits of reform.”

In other words, get ready for more grandma has to use someone else’s dentures stories!  Get out the hankies, it’s America’s Most Outrageous Sob Stories Season 2!.
Appeals to emotions, not logic.
Hmmm, the exact opposite of the Ground Zero Mosque where the supporters are totally devoid and deaf to emotions. Curiouser and Curiouser..
Could it be manipulative?  Nahh….


The presentation also counsels against the kind of grand claims of change that accompanied the legislation’s passage.
“Keep claims small and credible; don’t overpromise or ‘spin’ what the law delivers,” it says, suggesting supporters say, “The law is not perfect, but it does good things and helps many people. Now we’ll work [to] improve it.”

The “free” Miracle Cure is just snake oil after all. But don’t tell the customer who had it force down their throat that.


The Herndon Alliance, which presented the research, is a low-profile group that coordinated liberal messaging in favor of the public option in health care. Its “partners” include health care legislation’s heavyweight supporters: AARP, AFL-CIO, SEIU, Health Care for America Now, MoveOn and the National Council of La Raza, among many others.
Let’s see, A Seniors advocacy group that has it’s own Health Insurance arm, Government Unions who have been getting most of the bailouts, Liberal advocacy group funded by a Billionaire Socialist, “The Race” (La Raza) a racist hatemongers group of Latinos who believe in (amongst other things) giving parts of Arizona and New Mexico back to Mexico and are as Open Borders as it gets.
Interesting grouping…


The presentation cites three private research projects by top Democratic pollsters: eight focus groups by Lake; Anzalone’s 1,000-person national survey; and an online survey of 2,000 people by Greenberg’s firm.
“If we are to preserve the gains made by the law and build on this foundation, the American public must understand what the law means for them,” says Herndon’s website. “We must overcome fear and mistrust, and we must once again use our collective voice to connect with the public on the values we share as Americans.” (Ben Smith-Politico)


Water anyone?
“We thought the best thing to do now was to remind people why they personally wanted reform in the first place.”–Spokesman for Families USA.
Wanted it? It was running at 66% against when it was passed and that hasn’t improved one  bit since.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% of U.S. Likely Voters favor repeal of the health care bill. That’s down from 59% a week ago, but support for repeal has ranged from 52% to 60%since the law was passed by Congress in March.

I guess follows my new rule that if 60+% of the people are against it, the Democrats are for it and you should be too!   (Health Care, Ground Zero Mosque, Deficit Spending, Continued Bailouts…et al)

A recent Government Accountability Report (GAO), finding that each job ‘created’ by the stimulus bill costs an average of $194,213.
But, fear not! The Government is here to save you…money!
Just over 70 days. I can see November from my house…

Damn The Torpedoes! Full Steam Ahead!

The Obama administration, headed up by a liberal dogma that has been trying to create it’s socialist utopia since Woodrow Wilson is not going to give up it’s sole dream of controlling everyone and everything ‘for their own good’ and “fairness”.

But it is curious that the Europeans who already went down this road in large part are starting to go back in our former direction.
It’s kind of like driving towards a massive accident and seeing people coming back from it bloodied and hurt, but you decide it can’t happen to me so you keep going anyhow.
That’s National Health Care now nearly 5 months after it was crammed down the throats of the American public in the single most partisan vote in memory.
Damn The Torpedoes! Full Steam ahead!

LONDON — Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate.
Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.
Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.
The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government’s goal to effect $30 billion in “efficiency savings” in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished. (London Times)


So like the G20 Summit where “austerity” was the watchword by the Europeans and Obama stood there stamping his foot demanding people spend even more.
Not only are the Democrats and their dream out of date they are out of step even with the people they still want to dance with.
They wanted to be them.
Now it’s too late.
But that won’t stop them, of course.
Zealots who have been waiting 80 years+ for this will not be so easily deterred.
But the effects of this are beginning.

MANDEVILLE, La.—Mark Baumann, a 44-year-old uninsured diabetic, sees in the Obama administration’s health-care law a future with stable coverage to pay for his insulin shots and blood tests.
That’s likely to come indirectly at the expense of his mother’s generous health-care plan.
Humana Inc., Mary Baumann’s insurer, intends to pare her “Medicare Advantage” plan to make up for the smaller government payments it will soon receive as a result of the new law, leaving her with higher costs or fewer services. On the table are beefed-up co-payments and premiums, as well as the loss of perks such as her free membership at a health club.
Most Americans know the overhaul is designed to cover the uninsured, a decades-long goal of Democrats. But it also represents a change in how the government spreads its social safety net underneath Americans. Already, it’s creating tensions that are a harbinger of debates to come.
Since the creation of Social Security and Medicare, younger workers have funded programs for the elderly. It’s a compact in which workers paid for retirees with the understanding that they’d be looked after by the generation behind them.
The health overhaul diverges by tapping a program for the elderly to help provide insurance to 32 million Americans of younger generations. Nearly half the funding for the law is supposed to come from paying lower fees to hospitals, insurers and other health-care providers that participate in Medicare, the federal insurance program for Americans age 65 and older, as well as younger disabled people.
The 44 million Americans on Medicare won’t see changes to their guaranteed benefits under the law. But of those, 11.3 million on Medicare Advantage plans, a public-private hybrid of the type used by Ms. Baumann, who is 79, are likely to begin seeing extra benefits go away as soon as next year. Medicare Advantage cuts are slated to pay for 15% of the health-care law’s tab.
The trims mark the leading edge of a spending shift that could broaden as lawmakers grapple with a deficit expected to hit $1.47 trillion this year. Left unchanged, Medicare and Social Security will consume half of all federal spending by 2035, up from about one third today, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

And remember, by recess appointment an NHS-loving administrator is the head of Medicare.
And if, as predicted by many, including me, that private health insurance is driven completely to extinction then you’ll have health cost also in that GDP soup and with already half the people in this country not paying any taxes it does very bleak.
But at least it’s “fair”.
And, of course, the solution that will be published after the election by Obama’s “deficit commission” is a forgone conclusion, The VAT TAX and other taxes.
Then came Financial “reform” where one of the biggest cause of the problem, just like in Health Care (Trial Lawyers anyone?), were ignored because of partisan politics — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
And then with the massive tax increases, even on the poor, slated for Jan 1,2011 you have the perfect storm.
But the Democrats will not change course. You know that. I know now that. They know that.
Damn the Torpedoes! Full Steam ahead!
They don’t care how many European train wrecks occur.
It’s their time and they will do it anyhow!
For “fairness” and “equality” and “social justice”!


Meanwhile, the rationing the Democrats say will not happen here are happening in their beloved NHS, acocrding to the  liberal Sun Telegraph newspaper:

Some of the most common operations — including hip replacements and cataract surgery — will be rationed as part of attempts to save billions of pounds, despite government promises that front-line services would be protected.

Patients’ groups have described the measures as “astonishingly brutal”.

An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered widespread cuts planned across the NHS, many of which have already been agreed by senior health service officials. They include:
* Restrictions on some of the most basic and common operations, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic procedures.
* Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at evenings or weekends.
* The closure of nursing homes for the elderly.
* A reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the mentally ill, with targets to discourage GPs from sending patients to hospitals and reduce the number of people using accident and emergency departments.
* Tighter rationing of NHS funding for IVF treatment, and for surgery for obesity.
* Thousands of job losses at NHS hospitals, including 500 staff to go at a trust where cancer patients recently suffered delays in diagnosis and treatment because of staff shortages.
* Cost-cutting programmes in paediatric and maternity services, care of the elderly and services that provide respite breaks to long-term carers.

And now back to US…

“We badly need to, over time and very gradually, reallocate resources from the elderly to younger families and their children,” said Isabel Sawhill, senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution.
“I’m sure that some of those additional benefits have been nice,” Nancy-Ann DeParle, who runs the White House’s Office of Health Reform, says of Medicare Advantage plans. “But I think what we have to look at here is what’s fair and what’s important for the strength of the Medicare program long term.”

Sun Telegraph: The Government has promised to protect the overall budget of the NHS, which will continue to receive above-inflation increases, but said the service must make “efficiency savings” of up to £20 billion by 2014, which would be diverted back to the front line.
Brother from another socialist mother?
Dr Peter Carter, the head of the Royal College of Nursing, said he was “incredibly worried” about the disclosures.
Dr Carter said: “Andrew Lansley keeps saying that the Government will protect the front line from cuts – but the reality appears to be quite the opposite. We are seeing trusts making job cuts even when they have already admitted to being short staffed.

Trust boards are the ones who make the health care calls now.
Much like the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology  that was in the Stimulus Bill.
And we won’t even go over the Food Police again this time.

Sun Telegraph: On Thursday, the board of Sutton and Merton primary care trust (PCT) in London agreed more than £50 million of savings in two years. The plan included more than £400,000 to be saved by “reducing length of stay” in hospital for the terminally ill.
As well as sending more patients home to die, the paper said the savings would be made by admitting fewer terminally ill cancer patients to hospital because they were struggling to cope with symptoms such as pain. Instead, more patients would be given advice on “self management” of their condition.
Bill Gillespie, the trust’s chief executive, said patients would stay at home, or be discharged from hospital only if that was their choice, and would be given support in their homes.

The president told the {New York Times in 2008}magazine that the chronically ill and elderly represent 80 percent of American healthcare costs, and said, “(T)here is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place.”
“And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance,” he added.
That “independent group” turns out to be the government, now run by him. Funny how that worked out.


But the president questioned whether his now-deceased grandmother should have received her hip replacement while suffering a terminal illness.
Recounting the dilemma, Obama said, “(T)he question was, does she get hip replacement surgery even though she was fragile enough that they weren’t sure how long she would last (or) whether she could get through the surgery.”
“I think families all across America are going through decisions like that all the time,” Obama said.
This was not the first time the president had used his grandmother to illustrate his point on health care. In an April 2008 interview with The New York Times Magazine, Obama suggested much of the cost of health care in America comes from the elderly and those with chronic illness.
“That’s where you get into some very difficult moral issues,” Obama said – specifically considering whether “in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question.”

This was BEFORE he became president mind you. But the Journo-List inspired Media was not going to let you dwell on it.
2009 Newsweek article on the “The Five biggest Lies in the Health Care Debate”:
What we can say is that there is de facto rationing under the current system, by both Medicare and private insurance. No plan covers everything, but coverage decisions “are now made in opaque ways by insurance companies,” says Dr. Donald Berwick of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.
Donald Berwick? Where have I heard that name recently.
Oh yeah, he’s the guy who was appointed by Obama as Head of Medicare and Medicaid without Senate approval by a recess appointment and he’s an admitted lover of the NHS.
Gee, that couldn’t be a coincidence now could it?


The {Health Care} law will spend $938 billion over a decade, mostly to expand coverage to lower-income Americans. To finance that, there will be $455 billion coming from cuts in government payments to health-care providers that serve patients on Medicare and two other federal programs. The hardest hit—to the tune of $136 billion—will be private insurance companies that run Medicare Advantage plans.
The payment cuts to Medicare Advantage begin in 2012.
“With the president being younger, my biggest concern is that we don’t mean anything,” said Sandy Reed, a 61-year-old who has a Medicare Advantage plan because she qualifies as disabled. “We’re disposable.”
‘Death Panels’ indeed…
And it has come out on the Daily Caller in their further investigation of the Journo-List scandal that the Mainstream media were in full bore mode of destruction when Gov. Palin was announced as McCain’s running mate.
All that savagery was plotted out.
So what you do when your opponent speaks the truth to power, destroy her.
So that’s why the ‘death panels’ comment was so widely and uniformly from left mocked, dismissed and discredited.
To this very day she is the most hated woman in America by the Left.

Most of the rest will be funded by new levies, including taxes on health-care companies, a higher Medicare payroll tax for wealthy Americans and a tax on high-value insurance plans. Critics of the law say its total cost is likely higher than advertised.
But it’s not like the Democrats actually care.
Their one and only shot at injecting their socialist cancer, that they’ve been waiting since their grandparents time in many cases, is all that matters.
Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
But at least it’s “fair”.

The Truth of Power

I, like many others who read the health care bills, unlike the mainstream Media, which did it’s best to hide and deny what was going to happen, have now been shown the light of our truth.
But I’m sure the Ministry of Truth will do it’s best to diminish, dismiss and deny it even now.
That is that Mandatory Health Insurance is a TAX.
Shocking revelation, I know…

On poor people no less!!
CBS Sept 2009: President Barack Obama says requiring people to get health insurance and fining them if they don’t would not amount to a backhanded tax increase. “I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said.
“My critics say everything is a tax increase,” Mr. Obama said on “This Week.” “For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.”
ABC: The—for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore . . .” In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy—don’t call it a tax—is for your own good.
Mr. Stephanopoulos: “But you reject that it’s a tax increase?”
Mr. Obama: “I absolutely reject that notion.”
President Obama said in his not quite State of the Union address that Americans earning less than $250,000 would pay “not one dime” in new taxes.
Well, it’s time to reveal Lie #4,362. The Big Whopper.
The one all of us “racist” “teabagger” “idiots” and “terrorist” warned you about.

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

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.
Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.
Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.
In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.
Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.
While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.
“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”
When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”
Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nation’s economy. Nowhere does Congress cite its taxing power as a source of authority.
They knew they were lying. They didn’t care. Because the end justified the means.
And the Mainstream Media was either brain-dead stupid or in on the lies. Period.
Under the Constitution, Congress can exercise its taxing power to provide for the “general welfare.” It is for Congress, not courts, to decide which taxes are “conducive to the general welfare,” the Supreme Court said 73 years ago in upholding the Social Security Act.
Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, described the tax power as an alternative source of authority.
“The Commerce Clause supplies sufficient authority for the shared-responsibility requirements in the new health reform law,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “To the extent that there is any question of additional authority — and we don’t believe there is — it would be available through the General Welfare Clause.”
The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a “penalty” rather than a tax. The Justice Department brushes aside the distinction, saying “the statutory label” does not matter. The constitutionality of a tax law depends on “its practical operation,” not the precise form of words used to describe it, the department says, citing a long line of Supreme Court cases.
Orwell is smiling on you, Mr President and AG Holder.
Masters of Doublespeak.
Orwell on “The Party” of Big Brother: The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.  Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.
To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them… – (Orwell, New American Library, 1981, p35)
Moreover, the department says the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
In addition, the department notes, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.”
2009: What’s more, the agency is limited in the actions it can take to enforce compliance. “Congress was very careful to make sure that there was nothing too punitive in this bill,” {IRS Chief} Shulman said. “There’s no criminal sanctions for not paying this, and there’s no ability to levy a bank account or do seizures or [use] some of the other tools” available to the agency for enforcing laws.
If necessary, the IRS will levy fines against individuals who fail to purchase adequate insurance and collect them though tax return offsets. But the agency’s “first line of defense is education,” he said.
Because the penalty is a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.
Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, “The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding” the individual-coverage requirement.
Mr. Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax. Because it’s a tax, it’s completely constitutional.”
Mr. Balkin and other law professors pressed that argument in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in one of the pending cases.
Opponents contend that the “minimum coverage provision” is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power to regulate commerce.
“This is the first time that Congress has ever ordered Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.

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

In reply, the administration and its allies say that a person who goes without insurance is simply choosing to pay for health care out of pocket at a later date. In the aggregate, they say, these decisions have a substantial effect on the interstate market for health care and health insurance.
In its legal briefs, the Obama administration points to a famous New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court upheld a penalty imposed on an Ohio farmer who had grown a small amount of wheat, in excess of his production quota, purely for his own use.
The wheat grown by Roscoe Filburn “may be trivial by itself,” the court said, but when combined with the output of other small farmers, it significantly affected interstate commerce and could therefore be regulated by the government as part of a broad scheme regulating interstate commerce.

But it will bring prices down: Lie #4,264
The Democratic co-chair of President Obama’s fiscal commission said Wednesday that the president’s health care bill will do very little to bring down costs, contradicting claims from the White House that their sweeping legislation will dramatically impact runaway entitlement spending.
“It didn’t do a lot to address cost factors in health care. So we’ve got a lot of work to do,” said Erskine Bowles, former White House chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, speaking about the new health law, which was signed into law by Obama this past spring after a nearly year-long fight in Congress.
Esrkine Bowles is one of the two stooges who will anounce AFTER the mid-term election that all is crap and we have to have massive Tax increases in order to save us all, including likely, the VAT.
And if the republicans are in charge of at least one side or both of Congress it will be even  more there fault!
And Obama is going to, “Well, I have to do what the report says…”
It’s the ultimate Dog & Pony show.
Just keep that in mind.
Bowles, speaking at an event hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that even with the passage of Obama’s legislation, health care costs are still going to “really eat us alive” unless dramatic changes are made. The commission will submit recommendations on how to fix America’s long term fiscal problems to Congress in December.
Bowles’ point will be amplified Thursday when a conservative think tank releases a paper arguing that Obama’s health plan “is not entitlement reform,” at an event intended to highlight an alternative plan for reforming health care spending that is the brainchild of Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican.
James C. Capretta, a former White House budget adviser on health care to President George W. Bush, will present the paper for the Galen Institute at an event on Capitol Hill with Ryan, one of the Republican Party’s rising stars, and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a top conservative economist.
Even as many on Capitol Hill are talking about addressing Social Security spending, Capretta writes in the 19-page paper that Medicare is the real problem.
Most Democrats and Republicans agree, Capretta says, that the 30 to 35 million seniors in Medicare’s fee-for-service (FFS) insurance program are “the engine … pulling the rest of the health system down the tracks at an accelerated and dangerous rate.”
And who just got recess appointee to the job of head of Medicare, a NHS Single-payer Health Care rationing lover.
No coincidence there mind you.
Most FFS participants pay nothing out of their own pockets for health care, and hospitals and doctors are incentivized to provide them with as many services and tests as can be loosely justified.
But Capretta says in the paper that the Obama health bill is not reform because it attempts to stop price inflation and inefficient care through top-down government control rather than bottom-up consumer demand.
“When attempts have been made in the past to steer patients toward preferred physicians or hospitals, they have failed miserably because politicians and regulators find it impossible to make distinctions among hospitals and physician groups based on quality measures that can themselves be disputed,” Capretta says.
Capretta goes on to say that Paul Ryan’s plan would move Medicare recipients from defined benefits to defined contributions, in which “cost-conscious consumers choose between competing insurers and delivery systems based on price and quality.”
“Beneficiaries would get to decide which insurance plan they want to enroll in. If the premium were more than the amount they are entitled to from Medicare, then they would pay the difference. If it were less, they would keep all of the savings,” Capretta says.
“Millions of otherwise passive Medicare participants would become active, cost-conscious consumers of insurance and alternative models for securing needed medical services,” Capretta writes. “Cost cutting innovation would be rewarded, not punished as it is today.”
White House officials pointed to recent blog posts by White House budget director Peter Orszag, who said that “if implemented effectively, [Obama’s health care bill] can play an important role in moving toward a healthier fiscal future.” (Daily Caller)

Welcome Big Brother Obama and Big Mother Michelle’s New and Improved IRS:
If it seems as if the tax code was conceived by graphic artist M.C. Escher, wait until you meet the new and not improved Internal Revenue Service created by ObamaCare. What, you’re not already on a first-name basis with your local IRS agent?
National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, who operates inside the IRS, highlighted the agency’s new mission in her annual report to Congress last week. Look out below. She notes that the IRS is already “greatly taxed”—pun intended?—”by the additional role it is playing in delivering social benefits and programs to the American public,” like tax credits for first-time homebuyers or purchasing electric cars. Yet with ObamaCare, the agency is now responsible for “the most extensive social benefit program the IRS has been asked to implement in recent history.” And without “sufficient funding” it won’t be able to discharge these new duties.
That wouldn’t be tragic, given that those new duties include audits to determine who has the insurance “as required by law” and collecting penalties from Americans who don’t. Companies that don’t sponsor health plans will also be punished. This crackdown will “involve nearly every division and function of the IRS,” Ms. Olson reports.

Well, well. Republicans argued during the health debate that the IRS would have to hire hundreds of new agents and staff to enforce ObamaCare. They were brushed off by Democrats and the press corps as if they believed the President was born on the moon. The IRS says it hasn’t figured out how much extra money and manpower it will need but admits that both numbers are greater than zero.
Ms. Olson also exposed a damaging provision that she estimates will hit some 30 million sole proprietorships and subchapter S corporations, two million farms and one million charities and other tax-exempt organizations. Prior to ObamaCare, businesses only had to tell the IRS the value of services they purchase. But starting in 2013 they will also have to report the value of goods they buy from a single vendor that total more than $600 annually—including office supplies and the like.
Democrats snuck in this obligation to narrow the mythical “tax gap” of unreported business income, but Ms. Olson says that the tracking costs for small businesses will be “disproportionate as compared with any resulting improvement in tax compliance.” Job creation, here we come . . . at least for the accountants who will attempt to comply with a vast new 1099 reporting burden.
Meanwhile, the IRS will be inundated with useless information, because without a huge upgrade its information systems won’t be able to manage and track the nanodetails.
In a Monday letter, even Democratic Senators Mark Begich (Alaska), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire) and Evan Bayh (Indiana) denounce this new “burden” on small businesses and insist that the IRS use its discretion to find “better ways to structure this reporting requirement.” In other words, they want regulators to fix one problem among many that all four Senators created by voting for ObamaCare.
We never thought anyone would be nostalgic for the tax system of a few months ago, but post-ObamaCare, here we are.(WSJ)
On Friday, Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, declared that the sky is about to fall on the Medicare system. His plea to fellow Democrats to pass a $22.9-billion fix for Medicare doctors’ fees reveals the fraudulent nature of our new national health care regime.
Remember the health care issue? Well, the fiscal consequences of the socialized medicine scheme enacted by President Barack Obama and Congress just two months ago are already beginning to snowball.
Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, was one of the key architects and advocates of Obamacare. He was back on the House floor on Friday delivering an urgent plea to fellow Democrats that inadvertently—or, perhaps, unavoidably—revealed the fraudulent nature of our new national health care regime.
It was supposed to save the taxpayers money, remember? “This legislation will lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades,” Obama said when he signed the bill.
On Friday, Waxman declared that the sky is about to fall on the Medicare system. He went to the House floor to “urge” his colleagues to vote for a bill that includes $102 billion in new federal spending and would add $54 billion to the national debt over the next 10 years — $25 billion of it in the few months remaining in this fiscal year.
Why did Waxman believe this new borrowing-and-spending was necessary?
“It’s absolutely critical to do this if we are going to keep doctors in Medicare and keep the promise to Medicare beneficiaries that they will have access to physicians’ services,” said Waxman. “This provision will provide a moderate increase in physicians’ fees, 2.2 percent for the rest of the year. If we don’t act, doctors’ fees will be cut by 21 percent from where they are today. This would be unconscionable.”
It would not merely be unconscionable. If the 21-percent cut in Medicare fees for doctors—that, in fact, legally took effect on June 1 — is allowed to stand, many doctors in this country will simply stop seeing Medicare patients. They will not be able to afford it. The cost to them of serving their patients will exceed what they are paid. Their profit margin will be swept away.
To make precisely this point, 12 national surgeons’ associations—including the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery—sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter last Wednesday warning her what would happen if Medicare doctors’ fees are slashed as they are scheduled to be under current law.
“These continued payment cuts, rising practice costs and a lack of certainty going forward, make it difficult, if not impossible, for already financially challenged surgical practices to continue to treat Medicare patients,” the surgeons’ associations told Pelosi.
The letter pointed the speaker toward the results of a survey of more than 13,000 physicians done in February by the Surgical Coalition, a group of more than 20 medical associations. The survey asked these doctors what they would do if Medicare fees were slashed by the scheduled 21.2 percent.
Twenty-nine percent said they would opt out of the Medicare system entirely. Almost 69 percent said they would limit the number of appointments they would take from Medicare patients, 45.8 percent said they would start referring complex Medicare patients to other physicians, 45.3 percent said they would stop providing certain services, 43.8 percent said they would defer purchasing new medical equipment and 42.7 percent said they would cut their staff. Almost 4 percent of the doctors said they would close or sell their practices.
Why did Congress plan to slash the doctors’ Medicare fees in the first place? It didn’t. In the past, the majority in Congress has routinely enacted budget bills that fraudulently assumed that on some future date the federal government would dramatically slash the Medicare fees paid to doctors, knowing that before that date arrived the majority would pass “emergency” legislation postponing the cuts to some still-future date. The majority in Congress does this so the long-term deficits caused by their spending bills appear to be smaller than they actually are.
As originally proposed, Obamacare would have ended this practice, permanently setting Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors at the true anticipated level. But the Congressional Budget Office determined that doing so would have added $208 billion to the cost of Obamacare over 10 years, forcing the CBO to declare that Obamacare added to the deficit rather than reduced it. That would have cost Obamacare votes on the House floor and quite possibly defeated the legislation.
So the congressional leadership stripped the “doc fix” out of Obamacare and left it to another day.
Waxman went down to the floor last Friday to declare that day had come. Unfortunately, for him, the Senate had already left town for its Memorial Day vacation. So, the current fix will have to wait until it returns.
Even then, the fix only accounts for $22.9 billion of the $102 billion cost of the bill the House did pass on Friday. Most of the rest of the money is for extending unemployment benefits and special targeted tax breaks.
The $22.9 billion fix for the doctors’ fees—if passed by the Senate—would only last through September 2011. Then Congress will presumably do it all again—or let the Medicare system collapse.
And they did.
In the meantime, Obamacare is supposed to cut half a trillion in spending from elsewhere in Medicare, while Obama’s budget—not counting the $54 billion in new debt included in this bill—is expected to add $9.8 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.(IBD)

And then there’s still more on the “Financial Reform” bill related to the IRS:
“Small businesses are America’s job creators and essential to our nation’s economy,” Roberts said in prepared remarks. “Under the new healthcare law, small businesses will be hit with a costly tax reporting provision that will increase the cost of doing business at a time of economic uncertainty.”
Beginning in 2012, the law states that businesses, tax-exempt organizations, and state and local governments must submit a separate 1099 form for every business-to-business transaction totaling more than $600. The impetus behind the requirement is help the IRS better enforce the tax law by forcing companies to disclose whom they do business with.
Several organizations, including the IRS watchdog The National Taxpayer Advocate, have questioned how effective this requirement will be on enforcement.
The new mandate applies to everyday purchases, like shipping costs, supplies, even Internet and phone service. The senators argue this will overburden companies. The Taxpayer Advocate questions the IRS’ ability to handle all the documentation.
“Unless corrected, this time-wasting mandate of 1099 filings on common purchases needed to do business, will stifle economic growth and job creation while the IRS will be handed a paperwork nightmare,” Roberts said.
The senators contend the requirement will affect 40 million businesses nationwide.
“I have heard from many Kansas small businesses and farmers, already burdened with government bureaucracy, that these new reporting requirements will waste time and negatively impact their bottom-line,” Roberts said.

Abortion, anyone?
As reports are coming out that Pennsylvania is receiving $160 million from the Department of Health and Human Services to set up a new high-risk insurance pool program that will fund abortions, we are seeing, yet again, that the Obama Administration will say and do anything to pass their liberal agenda — ignoring public opinion along the way…
LIES: “You’ve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion – not true. These are all fabrications.” — President Obama on August 19, 2009
D*MN LIES: “The executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation’s restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented.” — White House Statement on March 21, 2010
STATISTICS: 67 percent of Americans oppose funding abortions with public funds under the health care bill. — Quinnipiac University Poll, January 14, 2010
As pundits have commented in recent weeks, and many of us have realized, you need to watch what the President really does, not listen to what he says, as the two are often in vast contrast of one another. As you can read above, nowhere is this truer than on the issue of abortion.
Back in March, when the offer to sign an Executive Order was made, many pro-lifers questioned why the order was needed after President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Secretary Sebelius had been saying for months that no federal dollars would be used to fund abortions. On the day of the vote, I personally spoke on the House floor about how an Executive Order has no effect of law and cannot override the clear intent of a statute, as well as on how an Executive Order is only a piece of paper. Now that we know how little the President values his word and that he is comfortable violating an Executive Order, we are only left to wonder what other secrets are lurking for us in the dark. (The Hill)

Remember, it was abortion that was the very last hurdle that Obama had to jump over to get his power over life and death.
He promised to Federally ban it.
He said Health Care Reform wasn’t tax.
The Stimulus will create 3 Million Jobs. (not “save or create”)
I said at the time he was lying.
I got called a racist so many times I could have paid off my house with the money if I got paid for it.
Saying this President is lying when his lips are moving is like saying the sun will come up tomorrow.
It’s an absolute certainty.

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

Thank you, Big Brother and Big Mother and Big Sis…
Anyone got a crate of Tea handy…

Covering Their Fannie (and Freddie)

Keep in Mind that the Financial Reform Bill, which is now in some trouble, is written largely by Sen. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. The people who brought you the subprime mess to begin with their insistence on subprime mortgages for people who couldn’t even afford those.
But we were discriminating against the poor!
Oh No! We can’t have that!
Everyone must be equal!

Subprime Scandal: Missing from stories about finance reform is what Democrats left out of it: a fix for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which continue to bleed billions.
Nor has it been explained why the two mortgage giants at the heart of the housing crisis were excluded. A little research, however, provides answers. Many of the Senate and House conferees who assembled the final overhaul bill are among the biggest recipients of cash from Fannie and Freddie, which over the years have been plagued by Democrat cronyism and corruption.
Some of the Hill’s biggest protectors of the toxic twins and their market-distorting “affordable housing” mission landed key positions as conferees on the panel that wrote the final draft of the bank reform legislation. For example, conference committee leaders Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., respectively raked in more than $133,000 and $40,000 in donations from Fannie and Freddie, Federal Election Commission records show.
The two lawmakers, in turn, have been the congressional chartered companies’ staunchest defenders. Leading up to the housing meltdown, Dodd insisted time and again — despite growing evidence to the contrary — that Fannie and Freddie were “fundamentally strong” and “in good shape.”
Frank maintained that “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis.” “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies,” Frank griped, “the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
To satisfy such politically mandated lending goals, Washington-based Fannie and Freddie loaded up on subprime and other high-risk home loans. Their exposure was greater than all the major Wall Street players combined. And now they’re insolvent, with taxpayers potentially on the hook for as much as $1 trillion.
Already Fannie and Freddie’s $160 billion government bailout has topped that spent on AIG, Citigroup and other Democrat poster boys of the crisis, making their rescue the mother of all bailouts.
We can’t think of two entities more deserving of overhaul. Yet the Dodd-Frank Act doesn’t even try to reform them. This means nothing will change except the size of government’s hand in the economy. By not addressing Fannie and Freddie, economist Brian Wesbury noted “the government is taking no blame for the subprime crisis and is demanding more power over the U.S. financial system.”
Several other conferees instrumental in keeping Fannie and Freddie exempt from the new financial rules also show up among the top beneficiaries of Fannie and Freddie campaign cash (see table).
President Obama and top aide Rahm Emanuel also ranked among top recipients of Fannie and Freddie gifts when they were in Congress. From the White House, they lobbied Congress for a financial overhaul and got 90% of what they asked — including a pass for Fannie and Freddie, where Emanuel once served as director.
Their private piggy bank for “social justice” — which they used to provide high-risk loans that otherwise were out of reach for constituents — remains safe from promised “sweeping reform.”
In the ultimate insult, the two lawmakers most deserving of blame for the financial crisis carry the name of the legislation that supposedly will deliver us from financial crisis. The villains are, according to the media, the white knights riding in to save us from the havoc they caused. A more sinister script could not have been written. (IBD)

Unless you’re an elitist Democrat who has complete contempt for “the people” and are only out there to push your agenda and nothing else.
But don’t worry, we’re from the government and we are here to help you!!
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE: A PREVIEW
Anyone wanting a preview of Obama-Care need just focus on Massachusetts, the state that provided the blueprint for Obama’s plan. It makes a great case for making haste in repealing ObamaCare.
In Massachusetts, health care prices are out of control, emergency rooms are overcrowded, the government is at war with itself and private insurers are running in the red, refusing to enter critical markets on the government’s unrealistic terms.
The party line now is that the Bay State’s reform was not about cost control but rather expanding access to care. The program’s backers claim that the price spiral they find themselves in was expected, anticipated, even if they didn’t actually have a plan for it.
That’s a revisionist’s tale. In early 2006, the plan’s backers — led by then Republican Gov. Mitt Romney — adamantly asserted that his plan would in fact control costs, provide universal coverage and improve the quality of care. (If this sounds familiar, it’s because Obama’s team borrowed the marketing scripts.)
Disinterested outsiders predicted that both prices and total costs would most likely increase under the government-dominated system, since massive new demand, reimbursed at the lowest prices, would be forced on a fixed supply. They were shouted down by insiders vested in getting the reform passed.
Guess who was right?
Three years prior to reform, insurance premiums for employers were increasing 3.7% more slowly in Massachusetts than in the rest of the country.  Today, the opposite is true.  Prices in Massachusetts are increasing 5.7% more than in other states. In Boston, prices for employer-provided family plans are increasing 8.2% faster than in other large metropolitan areas.
“Because the plan’s main components are the same as those of the new health reform law,” the study’s authors note, “the effects of the plan provide a window onto the country’s future.”
But it’s “fair”.
******
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION & BORDER SECURITY
While President Obama was meeting at the White House with The Congressional Hispanic Caucus and other Hispanic activists, he sent a Power Point presentation that said virtually nothing to Gov. Brewer.
Now he’s going to make a Campaign Speech tonight on it.
I know I’m excited!
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama hopes to rally new momentum behind the push for an immigration overhaul by explaining why he thinks a comprehensive approach is the only way to fix what he and others say is a system badly in need of repair.
(aka Sen. Jon Kyl’s “hostage” comment) Do it my way, that benefits me or not at all.

Obama was laying out his rationale in a {Campaign} speech Thursday, his first as president on the issue.
Obama wasn’t expected to announce any new proposals or policy changes. But feeling pressure from a range of supporters, he was aiming to jump-start the effort he had promised to make a priority in his first year and which advocates had hoped would be completed by now.
aka “Amnesty”.

The speech follows up on back-to-back meetings Obama had with advocates and lawmakers at the White House this week.
Gov. Brewer got 20 minutes crammed into the schedule at the last minute and then a Power Point presentation nearly a month later.

Obama has said a comprehensive solution means “accountability for everybody” — from the U.S. government meeting its obligation to secure the border, to businesses facing the consequences of knowingly employing illegal immigrants, to those who enter the country illegally owning up to their actions before they can begin the process of becoming citizens.
Has anyone told Labor Secretary Hilda Solis who a week ago put out a PSA saying if your Illegal and being treated or paid unfairly to giver her a call and The US Dept. of Labor would help you out??

Recent developments on immigration influenced his decision to give a speech, White House officials say, most notably Arizona’s enactment of a tough anti-immigrant law and protests across the country against it.
“He thought this was a good time to talk plainly with the American people about his views on immigration,” spokesman Bill Burton said.
Talk Plainly, Obama? Now that’s a novel idea.
Is he even capable of that?
NO.
Oh, and there’s that pesky LAWSUIT against SB1070. You know the one where we are “racists” and “misguided”.
So this is a campaign ploy.
As everything else is.
He looks tough.
He panders to his base.
The Ministry of Truth slobber all over him.
Liberal go all mushy.
Then nothing happens.
But it looks good.
And he wants “to do something”. Or at least look and sound like it.
Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing!  (Richard III)

Get Your Exemption Card Here!!

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
So it’s time for a little something this president understands, Quid Pro Quo.

“This card a tangible reminder that Obama has deliberately broken his central campaign promise not to raise any form of taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000. The last President to break his tax pledge – Bush 41 – served only one term.” – Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform


You may have noticed that President Obama has broken his central campaign promise – a “firm pledge” that Americans making less than $250,000 would not see “any form of tax increase.” He first broke this pledge sixteen days into his presidency when he signed a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco. And Obamacare contains 21 tax increases – several of which violate his “firm pledge”.
To protect you from these tax hikes, Americans for Tax Reform presents the “Obama Tax Hike Exemption Card”. The card fits neatly in your wallet and contains a list of the tax hikes signed into law by President Obama that violate his tax pledge, as well as a few other taxes that have been threatened: a European-style Value-Added Tax, Cap and Trade taxes, and even a federal soda tax.
Fill out the form below to get your Obama Tax Hike Exemption Card
How to use the card:
Step 1: Present the card to merchants, employers, and tax authorities.
Step 2: If challenged, pleasantly ask: “Are you calling President Obama a liar?”

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
–Candidate Barack Obama, Sept. 12, 2008
“If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.”

Read more: https://www.atr.org/obama-tax-hike-exemption-card-a5140##ixzz0sLFjN4tF
TheTax on Indoor Tanning Services takes effect July 1, 2010: This provision of Obamacare imposes a new 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons.  The tax was tucked into the bill behind closed doors at the last minute, replacing the previous “Bo-Tax” – a proposed tax on plastic surgery.  The 30 million Americans who visit tanning facilities are getting a lesson in the petty, nanny-state nature of Obamacare – every time they walk through the door.  Not to mention the business owners and employees who are threatened by the tax.  (Page 373 of Manager’s amendment/$2.7 billion)
The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” takes effect Jan. 1, 2011: Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).  (Page 1997/Sec. 9003/$5 billion)
The “Special Needs Kids Tax” takes effect Jan. 1, 2011: This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit).  There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.  Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year.  Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.  (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$14 billion)
The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike takes effect Jan. 1, 2011: This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.  (Page 1998/Sec. 9004/$1.3 billion)
TheMedical Itemized Deductions Cap takes effect Jan. 1, 2013: Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction if the total cost if the expenses reduces the filer’s income by 7.5%.  This provision of Obamacare imposes a threshold of 10%.  This new tax will most adversely affect early retirees and the catastrophically ill.  (Page 2034/Sec. 9013/$15.2 billion)
The Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax takes effect Jan. 1, 2014: Anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following (page 71 of manager’s amendment updates Reid bill): (Page 324/Sec. 1501)

	Single	2 People	3+ People
2014	$95/1.0% AGI	$190/1.0% AGI	$285/1.0% AGI
2015	$325/2.0% AGI	$650/2.0% AGI	$975/2.0% AGI
2016+	$695/2.5% AGI	$1390/2.0% AGI	$2085/2.5%/AGI

The Obamacare Medical Prosthetics and Devices Tax took effect in January of 2010:
This Obamacare tax raises the price of all medical prosthetic devices, such as pacemakers and artificial limbs. Consumers of these devices will end up paying more for these life-saving items.  ($20 billion)
The Obama Tobacco Tax Hike took effect April 1, 2009
Obama first broke his tax pledge sixteen days into his presidency when he signed into law a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco.  At that time, Obama was rightly called out by Calvin Woodward of the Associated Press in a piece titled “Promises, Promises: Obama Tax Pledge Up in Smoke” Use your Obama Tax Hike Exemption Card – or else be prepared to pony up an extra 62 cents per pack of cigarettes.
Potential Obama Tax Hike to Watch Out For:  A Federal Soda Tax
In an interview with Men’s Health published in September of 2009, President Obama said that a tax on soda and sugar-laden beverages was “an idea that we should be exploring.”  So, keep your Obama Tax Hike Exemption Card handy at all times!  With this President, you never know when the other shoe will drop!

And we haven’t included the Bank Tax (that you’ll end up paying)  in the now troubled, but ultimately will pass-I believe-Financial Reform Bill.
Then we Have the Cap & Trade Bill with it’s 19th Century outrage for the Industrial Revolution which will now be the “We Hate BP” bill.
The 2011 Tax increase (previously outlined) in my blog “2011“
The whole salt thing and what about taxing foods that are bad for you?
The moratorium on drilling that the President is fighting, so gas prices can skyrocket and INCREASE our dependency on foreign Oil because all the 60′s pie-in-sky bovine fecal matter will not change reality.
So you have to use the card as a discount for that $7.00 gas you may get saddled with.
So you may need multiple copies!

Getting in Touch with Your Inner Banana

I will explain the title in due course.  So bear with me. there’s a bit of a set up needed.

Timothy “Tax Cheat” Geithner:  US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has told the BBC that the world “cannot depend as much on the US as it did in the past”.
He said that other major economies would have to grow more for the global economy to prosper.
We are now declare The United States Not to be a Super Power and a World Leader, so piss off!
Yes, that’s the demoralizing sound of the White House spreading more malaise.
Welcome to Carter Malaise II: The Intentional Sequel.
In other words, don’t expect the engine that has been the driver for the world economy for over a century to keep up the pace.
This fits with President Obama’s conviction that the U.S. is no more extraordinary than any other country.
We’re nothing special. We are just another country of many. Nothing to see here, move along…
Everyone is equal and no one is better than anyone else.

“I believe we must each start by setting out plans for getting our national finances under control,” New UK Prime Minister David Cameron.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was tossed out this week BY HIS OWN LABOR PARTY.
He was replaced by his deputy Julia Gillard, who became the story of the day by becoming Australia’s first woman prime minister.
It was a bad fall for the man dubbed Australia’s Barack Obama.
Like the latter, the youthful Rudd initiated costly health care, home weatherization, entitlement, and global warming pork barrel projects. In the process, he blew out the Australian budget.
When the time came to pay the bill, he effectively committed political suicide by calling for a 40% tax on Aussie mining companies.
Those firms form the backbone of Australia’s dynamic economy, accounting for half of its exports. As Rudd imagined that it was he who kept Australia out of financial crisis, the reality was it was private firms like these that created the value and jobs for Australians.
When news of Rudd’s tax hikes suggested a bid to expropriate companies’ profits, the stock market took a beating.
To pay for his own bloated government programs, Rudd claimed — as his union supporters did — that he only wanted companies to pay their “fair share.” Unions themselves added to the fantasy by claiming these taxes would create jobs. Rudd echoed that, absurdly claiming the tax would be good for the economy.
“It is important to pay emphasis on the independent modeling of Treasury who’s put all the factors together and projects this industry will grow by 6.5% over five to 10 years,” Rudd told incredulous mining executives from BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Fortescue last May as stocks fell. “As a result of (this 40% tax) we will see a better and more dynamic mining industry in the future.” (IBD)


Beginning to sound familiar??
The Full on Socialist German State:
German leader Angela Merkel believes that the massive spending President Obama is advocating is not right for her country to undertake. Merkel, sounding and parroting the familiar refrain of Conservative Republicans, is a proponent, at this juncture, of curtailing spending and sees merit in the German engaging in more savings. President Obama on the hand wants the major economies like that of Germany (ranked number 4) to emulate the profligate spending him and the U.S. lawmakers – at least the Democrats – have contributed to the world money supply. President Obama also wants Germany to curtail its forays into exports and focus it fiscal policies on consumer spending so as to spur economic growth.
Chancellor Merkel may not be operating on her own accord concerning the fiscal policies that she is currently championing like any astute politician, Merkel may be listening to her people’s voice on this matter. Much of the German people did not support the bailout (110 billion Euros) provided for Greece and (750 billion for the European safety net).
This posture by the German people of disagreeing on their version of bailouts mirrors the angst felt by the Tea Partiers in America.
So the Socialists have had enough of full-on socialism, and what does Obama want?
Full on Socialism.
You have to wonder why European Socialists are worried about debt and spending and Obama is not.
Add in Timothy “We are no longer a Super Power” Geithner’s comments and you start to see where I’m going with this.
I hope.
German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble has added his voice to the growing discussion about the United States’ recession spending spree.  In a response to President Obama’s call for further international recession spending, Schäuble stated “governments should not become addicted to borrowing as a quick fix to stimulate demand. Deficit spending cannot become a permanent state of affairs.”

As if there were any doubt about the United States’ spending addiction, Heritage budget expert Brian Riedl explains, “the annual federal budget deficit is projected to reach 8.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2020—more than three times the historical average.”
This means that if the US wanted to balance the budget by 2020, one-third of all spending would need to be eliminated or taxes would need to increase by 50 percent.
The Congressional Budget Office has just released its assessment of the administration’s budget outlook. The numbers are shocking. Under the president’s policies the federal deficit will exceed $700bn (€520bn, £467bn) in every year over the next decade. The sea of red ink will more than double the national debt to more than $20,000bn. The upshot is that in 2020, the deficit is projected to be $1,200bn, of which more than $900bn is borrowing to pay interest on previous debt. It is a sorry state of affairs.

So Obama and The Democrats want Financial “reform”.
They want to punish Wall Street!  Those evil, corrupt Capitalist Bastards!
But just like the Health Care “reform” that was more about stealth tactics to eventually kill off the private industry and have you dependent on the government, this too is not about Finances and Wall Street and just another polarized Alinsky tactic.
The upshot: no downgrade in our status as a AAA  Credit nation until interest equals 14 per cent of revenues. (and when it is downgraded the cost of the 13+ Trillion dollar debt goes up!)

Let’s party ‘til 2014 because in the Obama administration budget, D-Day (Downgrade Day) is 2015 when the magic number reaches 14.8 per cent. Moreover, the plan is not merely to flirt with modest deterioration in creditworthiness. In 2020, the ratio reaches 20.1 per cent. The US is on track for a junk-bond bonanza.
Just after 2014 when all the Health Care taxes come into full force and by then private health plans will likely be near extinction.
Coincidence?
I think not.
It’s just another takeover, but in the 2000+ plus throw the frog in cold water and then boil him slowly to death kind of way these Democrats seem to prefer.
Hell, they don’t even READ their own damn bills!
And it’s brought to you by Barney Frank and the retiring Chris Dodd, the guys who created the Mortgage mess!!
So the fox is going to save the chickens in the chicken coop!
Some Highlights
The Power to Unwind:
The FDIC would have the authority to liquidate failing firms while the Treasury Department fronts the money to do so. There would also be a repayment plan so that taxpayers are guaranteed to get the money back (and where does the government get the money??? You’re looking at his computer!).
So if the government “deems” you failing, you get taken over and sold off.
Gee, that can’t be abused at all can it!
Financial Stability Oversight Council:
The council would monitor systemic risk across the entire financial system and make recommendations to the Federal Reserve to alleviate that risk. The ten-member council would include the heads of the federal financial agencies.
Corporate America’s Sith Overload. What do you bet they will be political appointees?
Just like the Oil Spill Investigation commission that has a bunch of left wing environmentalists and not one Engineer or Oil Businessperson!
They would never use any of those Chicago tactics on them, now would they…
The government also gets to decide what is a “financial” firm. Does GM, which makes loans, fall into that category? How about Wal-Mart, which issues its own credit cards?
In effect, this lets the government seize and dismantle the assets of almost any company — and then force others to pay for it.
Fannie/Freddie:
Republicans biggest beef with the whole bill is that it does nothing to address the problems, and sustainability, of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
For instance: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were in arguably at the heart of the financial crisis, and which have already cost U.S. taxpayers $146 billion (with hundreds of billions more on the way), aren’t addressed in this bill at all.
The major reason for the collapse in the first place gets ignored!
Wonder Why?
Oh, that’s right, it’s government owned, heavily in debt, and guaranteed to be bailed out! (by you of course!)
Just Like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security!
No problems there!
No Resolution Fund:
The House wanted to create a $150 billion fund to pay for any future bailouts. The fund would be paid for by the banks. This provision was gutted. Conferees agreed that this could only be created after a massive collapse. This is the fund that Republicans successfully painted as a permanent bailout fund when Democrats in the Senate tried to include a similar, but only $50 billion, fund.
And the Republicans were right. Can you say, slush fund!
Any bank that runs into trouble can still walk up to Uncle Sam’s borrowing window and, hand outstretched, ask for money. And if the bank is politically connected or very large, it will get it.
The bill also creates a new agency inside the Federal Reserve that will have extensive power over consumer lenders. Hold the applause, because likely new limits on checking account fees and interest on credit cards will mean less access to credit, not more.

So you have less credit available, you have new regulations and new taxes, an Oversight committe that can swoop in and shut you down, and Health care cost are going to skyrocket under ObamaCare.
Sounds like a great business climate to me. Sign me up.
US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has told the BBC that the world “cannot depend as much on the US as it did in the past”.
Because the Government is going to intentionally, “for your protection” get in the way of business even more now than before.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The economic recovery won’t be catching fire any time soon.
Businesses and governments are likely to reduce spending in the second half of the year. Consumers, who drive most economic growth, aren’t expected to take up the slack.
The Commerce Department said Friday that the economy grew at an annual rate of 2.7 percent in the first quarter, offering its third and final estimate for the period. It was slower than initially thought because consumers spent less and imports rose faster that previously calculated.
Economists anticipate even slower growth ahead as companies bring their stockpiles more in line with sales. Factory output has climbed this year. But it was driven more by businesses replenishing their warehouses after the recession and less by consumer demand.
“The economy is growing, but still at a disappointingly slow pace,” said Zach Pandl, an economist at Nomura Securities. Take away businesses restocking their inventories and “you still have a lukewarm recovery,” he said.
Other factors could hold back growth. Federal government stimulus spending is expected to fade. The European debt crisis could slow U.S. exports and world trade. And state and local governments are likely to rein in spending and raise taxes as they struggle to close budget gaps.
“This is still the weakest and longest economic recovery in U.S. postwar history,” said Paul Dales, U.S. economist with Capital Economics.
High unemployment and tight credit have kept consumers from ramping up their spending as in past recoveries. The housing industry has played a big role after previous recessions. But this time it is slumping and subtracting from economic growth.
Most economists expect the unemployment rate, currently at 9.7 percent, to remain above 9 percent through the end of the year.
The economy has grown for three consecutive quarters after shrinking for four straight during the recession — the longest contraction since World War II.
And Stimulus III is on the way. After all, the previous ones were a roaring success!! So let’s do it again! and again! and again!!
Another part of the bill, and one that’s gotten little attention, makes changes to the amount of capital banks must keep to back up their loans. Banks eventually will be forced to raise more capital, or to reduce their lending. It also gives the government oversight over the $600 trillion derivatives market, without telling us what the rules will be. That, no doubt, will be left to bureaucrats. (IBD)

And they do a bang up job of it, always.

Add in that the Government has taken over Banks, Car Companies,Insurance Companies, and now wants to micromanage the financial sector.
So they want to decide who lives and who dies (Health Care)
Who is employed, by who whom and how that company operates. And if they don’t like it, they will swoop in “for your own protection” and save you from the evil capitalist exploiters.
Unions, especially Government Unions get special perks, deals and exemptions.
They are actively trying to destroy the Oil Industry (the moratorium) so they can take that over because “it’s too big and too important fail”. But if we help it fail, that’s ok.
Medicare and Medicaid  and Social Security are bankrupt. Fannie and Freddie are a bottomless pit.
The Congress wants an Internet “kill switch” for cyber-terrorists (terrorists being Right-wingers according to Homeland Security Secretary Napalitano last year)
Taxes are going up in 2011 by large amounts.
New taxes from ObamaCare start in 2011.
Unemployment may permanently be around 10% some economist are saying if everything remains as is.
50% of the people don’t even pay taxes.
The only sector of jobs that’s growing is the Public, government sector.
They want “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” aka Amnesty. And will not settle for less.
They are going to sue Arizona for wanting to protect itself.
That’s the Government’s job!
And if you don’t like the fact that they aren’t and don’t care to, tough bovine fecal matter!
We are the Power. Not You!
So they want to control your Energy, you Job, your Boss, your security, your Medical Care, Your Health, your retirement, and your how you make money.
So what does this all mean?
It means we have a President who willfully and with ideological malice wants to downgrade America to not only  ‘just another country’ but a banana 2nd or third tier one to boot. Nothing special.
What our country needs today is an inspirational leader, one who gets what makes the U.S. unique and who’ll boldly lead the nation out of its slide toward despair as he invites the world to climb with us.
What we have is a Banana Republic Dictator Wannabe.
He wants to throw the American People (the frog) in the cold water and boil them to death slowly.
To take over your life completely.
He want’s to “know whose ass to kick”.
Yours.
So he’s in touch with his Inner Banana (Dictator that is!).

Familiarity Breeds

“It’s a great moment. I’m proud to have been here,” said a teary-eyed Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee led the effort in the Senate. “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we’ve done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done.”
Financial Reform is done.
Sound familiar?

“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.
“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking at the 2010 Legislative Conference for National Association of Counties, 3/9/10

A brother of the Same Mother(f*kers!)
And having one of the architect of this the mess ‘fix’ it feels me with confidence, especially when he is not running for re-election.
********
Now for comedy you can’t make up:
Community activist Elena Herrada speaking on a panel discussion at the US Social Forum in Detroit, MI yesterday – compares the border patrol to the KKK. Herrada encouraged her audience to not sit next to border patrol officers in restaurants, asking, “Would you sit next to the Ku Klux Klan if they were sitting in a restaurant with a hood on over their head?” She continued, “There is no place for border patrol in our community, they have no good intentions. So when you see them refuse to sit with them, refuse to eat with them, pretend like they are the menace that they are.”
Mind you, there is a foreign country just across the not-that-wide Detroit River, it’s Called CANADA!! so the only real Border Patrol she’s likely to see is at the Bridge going over to Windsor!
******
More Comedy:
From 620-WTMJ
MILWAUKEE – The Milwaukee County Board spent part of the day debating a measure that would call for the county to boycott doing business with companies in Arizona.
Communities around the nation have passed similar measures in response to a law in Arizona that makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.
There was an odd moment during the debate when Supervisor Peggy West stood up and seemed to be confused about her geography.  “If this was Texas, which is a state that is directly on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this saying that they had a major issue with undocumented people flooding their borders, I would have to look twice at this.  But this is a state that is a ways removed from the border,” West said during debate.

Her colleague, Joe Rice, quickly corrected her, “I just want to assure my colleague that Arizona does in fact share a border with the country of Mexico.”
WELCOME TO LIBERAL EDUCATION.
And, you have a foreign border just north of you too, it’s called CANADA!!
“I did get a passing grade in Geography in high school and in college and I do obviously know that Arizona is on the border,” West said in an interview after today’s meeting.
Oh Really? Are you sure about that?
Maybe they just “deemed” it.

The board tabled the measure, taking no action on it today.
The Video:

http://www.kfyi.com/pages/broomhead.html
*******
NOW IT’S THE STATE’S TURN:
Dozens of California lawmakers are pushing to make their state the first in the nation to impose an across-the-board boycott on Arizona over its immigration law — though the state’s largest city just voted to selectively scale back its boycott after local lawmakers realized it could backfire.
The Democratic state lawmakers on Wednesday unveiled a resolution that would impose several restrictions against Arizona. The measure calls for California to issue a travel advisory on visits to its eastern neighbor, halt state investment there and urge Major League Baseball to reconsider letting the state host the 2011 All-Star Game.
Though dozens of cities and organizations have voiced their opposition to Arizona’s law by instituting bans on employee travel, canceling conventions in the state and threatening to pull contracts, California would be the first state to do so.
Sen. Gil Cedillo, a Democrat from Los Angeles who introduced the proposal, said the Arizona law “undermines fundamental civil rights and civil liberties.”
He said it poses a “special threat to people of color” who live and travel through Arizona.
Though Arizona officials argue that the boycotts do little to change policy and only hurt businesses and workers in the state, proponents of the policies say they passed them out of concern over racial profiling.
However, the Los Angeles City Council — one of the cities leading the charge against Arizona — just backed off part of its boycott because it didn’t want to cut ties with an Arizona-based company that operates enforcement cameras at Los Angeles intersections and generated $6 million for the city last year.
The metropolis had previously banned most city travel to Arizona, as well as future contracts with Arizona companies. That kind of policy has since been replicated by other city governments.
But council members decided to make an exception on Wednesday, voting to extend a lucrative contract with red-light camera operator American Traffic Solutions, based in Scottsdale.
“The boycott never intended to impede public safety,” Los Angeles Councilman Richard Alarcon said during a meeting Wednesday.
Just mature, rational, logical thinking!
*******
NOW IT’S THE FEDS TURN
Two federal agencies have denied U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ charge they are boycotting Arizona because of SB 1070. The congresswoman earlier this week chastised the Border Patrol and the Department of Education for canceling scheduled events.
Border Patrol officials say they did not cancel any Arizona events, according to a statement issued by the agency’s public-affairs office in Washington, D.C.
The Border Patrol’s parent agency “has not canceled any conferences in Arizona. We conducted a thorough review across our organization to ensure this is, in fact, the case,” the statement says.
The Education Department says it moved a joint event with Mexican and Canadian attendees at the request of the Mexicans, The Associated Press reported. However, the Education Department said it still plans to hold other upcoming conferences in Arizona.
Giffords’ office stands by its news release, said C.J. Karamargin, Giffords’ spokesman. “Meetings were scheduled, meetings were canceled and the reason was SB 1070,” he said.
Giffords is an Arizona Democrat opposed to SB-1070!!
Ever since U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed – apparently prematurely – that the Justice Department would be bringing suit against the state of Arizona over its controversial new immigration law, we’ve all been watching anxiously for the DOJ’s official filing.
That was almost a week ago, and Justice is still saying they are “reviewing” the possibility.
Well, this may be the reason for the delay:

Arizona Democrats, with tough re-election battles looming, have urged the Obama administration not to sue the state over its controversial immigration job.

The Hill reported yesterday that Democratic congressman Harry Mitchell has sent President Obama a “sharply worded letter” urging him to call off plans for Justice to sue his state. Two other House Dems, Gabrielle Giffords and Ann Kirkpatrick, are also calling for Obama to back off of SB 1070.
The problem, it seems, is that widespread support for the law among Arizonians has caused trouble for AZ Dems in tough reelection battles. Republican opponents have been turning up the heat, painting the Democrats as unsupportive of the law and soft on illegal immigration. In an effort to respond to this tactic, Dems have tried to avoid mentioning SB 1070 while talking up the need for immigration reform and increased border security. If Justice brings suit, the election rhetoric will necessarily be once again focused on the law itself.
Mitchell’s letter seems to strike a distinctly Republican tone:

“I believe your administration’s time, efforts and resources would be much better spent securing the border and fixing our broken immigration system,” the two-term congressman wrote in the letter. “Arizonans are tired of the grandstanding, and tired of waiting for help from Washington. … [A] lawsuit won’t solve the problem. It won’t secure the border, and it won’t fix our broken immigration system.” (Blue Wave news)

Strange bedfellows indeed!
***********
Notice in this next one, Border Security is  not only not mentioned it’s not even referenced:

WASHINGTON – House Democrats on Thursday marked what they called a “milestone” of 100 co-sponsors for a comprehensive immigration overhaul bill that includes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Flanked by a group of immigrants from across the country, Democratic lawmakers said at a news conference that achieving 100 co-sponsors shows the immigration bill has the momentum necessary to become law.
The bill faces an uphill battle in Congress. House members are wary of facing voters in November who are split on what to do about immigration. Arizona’s controversial immigration law is adding considerable fuel to the fire.
The Arizona law requires law-enforcement officers, while stopping someone for another reason, to check immigration status when there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the U.S. illegally. It also makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime.
At a news conference on Capitol Hill, Rep. Solomon Ortiz, D-Texas – who along with Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., introduced the federal immigration bill last December – said the legislation is not an “amnesty bill” for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and that it would not grant citizenship without punishment.
Rather, he said the bill would create a system that “is tough on enforcement, fair to taxpayers, and enforceable.”
The House bill would increase the number of green cards available and would create a program for illegal immigrants and their families giving them semi-legal status for six years if they learned English and U.S. civics.
The program also would require applicants to pay a fine of $500 and undergo a background check. The bill also would increase border security.
“Never have I seen the division that I see today and the hate that I see today,” Ortiz said in reference to the Arizona law, which barring any legal action will go into effect next month. “But people are beginning to understand the necessity of passing this important comprehensive immigration reform bill.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said in the past, however, that she would not bring a comprehensive immigration bill to the floor until the Senate has passed its own version.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, called the climate surrounding the immigration issue “hostile” and added that not passing a comprehensive immigration measure would be the “BP oil spill of not doing the right thing.”
The Democrats’ immigration proposal, Jackson Lee said, “is going to save this nation.” (AZ Daily Star)

Still believe any time a Democrat is talking about “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” that it’s not AMNESTY and has nothing at all to do with Border Security?
And still don’t believe Jon Kyl when he said that Obama was going to hold Border Security hostage to the Agenda?
I would hope not.