Category Archives: Economy

Economy, Organized Labor, Politics

Cash For Clunkers, What A Deal

Democratic Math, OR, how you got screwed without even a kiss.

Look at how hard working Americans got taken to the cleaners.

If you traded in a clunker worth $3500, you get $4500 off for an apparent “savings” of $1000.

However, you have to pay taxes on the $4500 come April 15th (something that no auto dealer will tell you).  If you are in the 30% tax bracket, you will pay $1350 on that $4500.

So, rather than save $1000, you actually pay an extra $350 to the feds. In addition, you traded in a car that was most likely paid for.  Now you have 4 or 5 years of payments on a car that you did not need, that was costing you less to run than the payments that you will now be making.

But wait, it gets even better:  you also got ripped off by the dealer. For example, every dealer here in LA was selling the Ford Focus with all the goodies including A/C, auto transmission, power windows, etc for $12,500 the month before the “cash for clunkers” program started.

When “cash for clunkers” came along, they stopped discounting them  and instead sold them at the list price of $15,500.  So, you paid $3000 more than you would have the month before.  (Honda, Toyota, and Kia played the same list price game that Ford and Chevy did).

So lets do the final tally here:

You traded in a car worth:   $3500
You got a discount of:       $4500
———
Net so far                  +$1000
But you have to pay:         $1350 in taxes on the $4500
——–
Net so far:                 -$350
And you paid:                $3000 more than the car was selling for the
month before
———-
Net                         -$3350

We could also add in the additional taxes (sales tax, state tax, etc.) on the extra $3000 that you paid for the car, along with the 5 years of interest on the car loan but lets just stop here.

So who actually made out on the deal?  The feds collected taxes on the car along with taxes on the $4500 they “gave” you.  The car dealers made an extra $3000 or more on every car they sold along with the kickbacks from the manufacturers and the loan companies.  The manufacturers got to dump lots of cars they could not give away the month before.  The used car market takes a hit when the clunkers are destroyed. And the hard working American consumer gets saddled with even more debt that they cannot afford.

Obama and his band of merry men convinced Joe consumer that he was getting $4500 in “free” money from the “government” when in fact Joe was giving away his $3500 car and paying an additional $3350 for the privilege.

Oh yeah, they’ll most likely do a good job with your health care too.

H/T Provolone Greg

Economy, Energy, Politics

Don’t Be Fooled, It’s A Tax

Memo to President Barack Obama: It’s a tax. Make no mistake about it. His comprehensive health care reform scheme will add a financial burden on 100% of the American people. Ditto with the President’s ‘Cap and Trade’ scheme.

As a percentage of income, both will impact the poor way more than the rich. His pitch that 95 percent of Americans, the middle class and the ‘working people,’ will not get a tax increase is pure spin.

Are you old enough to remember The Who’s 1971 song ‘Won’t Get Fooled Again?‘ ‘Meet the new boss, same as the old boss,’ as attempts are made to repeat history.

From Wikipedia:

“Won’t Get Fooled Again” is a song by the rock band The Who. Written by Pete Townshend, it combines guitar power chords with heavily processed organ and synthesizer sounds to create a textured, atmospheric introduction that explodes into the verse. It tells of a “revolution of revolutions” in an endless cycle, where “the change it had to come, we knew it all along” but each successive new regime turns out to be just like the old one, so that straight away it’s time once again to “pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday, then I’ll get on my knees and pray we don’t get fooled again“.

We'll be fighting in the streets, With our children at our feet.

 

AP link: FACT CHECK: Coverage requirement enforced with tax

Economy, Politics

Five Major Faults With The Health Care Bills

Did you know that the Democrat health care bills in the senate and house share the same five major faults? An analysis of those faults and the recommended fix are presented here by Nina Owcharenko of the Heritage Foundation.

Current efforts by Congress to “reform” the health care system are centered on several flawed policy initiatives that will transfer more power and decisions to Washington and away from patients and families.

Rather than create a massive government-based health care system and dislocate people from their existing private coverage, policymakers should focus on putting the health care system on a path where individuals and families are in control of their health care dollars and decisions.

Shortfalls of the Health Care Bills

The following five provisions are the cornerstone of the House and Senate bills and unavoidably result in legislation taking health care reform in the wrong direction.

1. New Public Plan and Federal Exchange. Both the House and Senate bills would create a new government-run health care plan through the establishment of a federally run national health insurance exchange. The result: widespread erosion of private insurance and substantial consolidation of federal control over health care through the exchange.[1] As is evident in the details of the House bill (H.R. 3200), there is no level playing field for competition between the government plans and private health plans. Plus, the incentives in the legislation guarantee that millions of Americans will lose their existing employer-based coverage.

2. Federal Regulation of Health Insurance. Both the House and Senate bills would result in sweeping and complex federal regulation of health insurance. Moreover, it would take oversight away from states and concentrate it in Washington.[2]

3. Massive New Taxpayer-Funded Subsidies. Both the House and Senate would expand eligibility for Medicaid, but they would also extend new taxpayer-funded subsidies to the middle class. Such commitments would result in scores of Americans dependent on the government to finance their health care.[3] This is unfortunate because Congress could have reformed the tax treatment of health insurance to enable people to keep their existing private coverage and buy better private coverage if they wished to do so.

4. Employer Mandate. Both the House and Senate bills would impose an employer mandate for employers who do not offer coverage and for those whose benefits do not meet a new federal standard. An employer mandate would hurt low-income workers the most and would also stifle much-needed economic growth.[4] Employer mandates are passed on to workers in the form of reduced wages and compensation. This is exactly the wrong prescription for businesses, especially during a recession.

5. Individual Mandate. Both the House and Senate bills would require all people to buy health insurance. There is no doubt that such a mandate would result in a tax increase on individuals and families whose health insurance does not meet the new federally determined standards. This means that Congress will, for the first time, force Americans to buy federally designed packages of health benefits, even if they do not want or need those benefits.

It also means that health benefits will tend to become increasingly costly as powerful special interest groups and representatives of the health industry lobby intensively to expand the legally mandated health benefits, medical treatments and procedures, and drugs that all Americans must buy under penalty of law.

A Better Direction for Health Care Reform

Congress should stop and take a step back from these divisive House and Senate measures. Instead of trying to overhaul one-sixth of the American economy and seize an unprecedented amount of political control over health care decisions and dollars, policymakers should consider proceeding with smaller, incremental improvements. Policymakers need to proceed slowly and deliberately, making sure that the initial steps they take are not disruptive of what Americans have and want to keep, actually work, and do not result in costly and damaging and unintended consequences. There are three broad areas where Members can and should find consensus:

1. Promote State Innovation. Congress should preserve the states’ autonomy over their health care systems and give them greater legal freedom to devise solutions that meet the unique characteristics of their citizens. In addition, individuals should also have the freedom to purchase coverage from trusted sources and not be restricted by where they happen to live. This means that Americans should be able to buy better coverage across state lines. Congress should respect and encourage personal freedom and diversity.

2. Establish Fairness in the Tax Treatment of Health Insurance. There is little disagreement that today’s health care tax policy–which favors coverage obtained through the workplace–distorts the market and is inequitable. Instead of expanding government-run programs like Medicaid, policymakers should offer tax relief to those individuals who purchase private health insurance on their own, regardless of where they work.

At the same time, Congress should make sure that tax relief goes only to taxpayers. Congress should also devise a voucher program, giving low-income citizens the opportunity to get private coverage if they wish to do so. There is a broad bipartisan consensus that Congress should help low-income working families with direct assistance to enable them to get health insurance.

3. Get Serious About Entitlement Reform. Medicare and Medicaid, the giant health care entitlement programs, are not only increasingly costly, but they are also not delivering value to the taxpayers. The best way to secure value to patients (not government officials) is to compel health providers to compete directly for consumer dollars by allowing seniors and the poor to choose the coverage that is right for them using the money that is already available to them in these programs. This will “bend the cost curve” while at the same time allowing private-sector innovation to flourish.

Consumer-Driven Reform

Americans want to fix the problems in the health care system–but not at the expense of their own coverage. It is time policymakers recognize the lack of support for a major overhaul. But instead of continuing to protect the status quo, Congress should advance improvements that put the health care system on a path to reform.

Such improvements should be focused on increasing choice and competition not by turning control over to Washington but by empowering individuals and families to control their health care dollars and decisions.

Nina Owcharenko is Deputy Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[1]Robert E. Moffit, “A Federal Health Insurance Exchange Combined with a Public Plan: The House and Senate Bills,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2304, July 30, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare
/bg2304.cfm.

[2]Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Micromanaging Americans’ Health Insurance: The Impact of House and Senate Bills,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2558, July 23, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2558.cfm; Dennis G. Smith, “Undercutting State Authority: The Impact of the House and Senate Health Bills,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2559, July 23, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2559.cfm.

[3]Dennis G. Smith, “New Taxpayer Subsidies: The Impact of the House and Senate Health Bills,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2564, July 23, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2564.cfm.

[4]James Sherk and Robert A. Book, “Employer Health Care Mandates: Taxing Low-Income Workers to Pay for Health Care,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2552, July 21, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research
/HealthCare/wm2552.cfm.

link: Five Major Faults with the Health Care Bills

Economy, Fair Tax, Politics

The Truth About The FairTax

For someone who writes an article like this ‘The Flat Tax Is Not Flat and the FairTax Is Not Fair,’ it would help if its author, Laurence M. Vance, had his facts straight.

Coming from his premise that the FairTax ‘has the most vocal and intolerant proponents,’ I’m detecting a certain aire of superiority from him. Intolerant? Really?

The FairTax turns the current taxing system and taxing power on its head. It represents the largest shift in power from the federal government back to the people since the Declaration of Independence separated us from Mother England.

The FairTax is the result of $22 million worth of research by credible economists from around the country whose task was to come up with another way to fund the operations of the government. The task was qualified to the extent that the result would be ‘revenue neutral.’ That is to say the system must be able to generate as much money as the government is currently generating with the current system through federal withholding and payroll taxes, self-employment taxes, alternative minimum tax, estate and gift tax, and capital gains tax, all of which would be replaced by the Fair Tax. And from that point as the economy grows, so grows the treasury. It is a pro-growth, as opposed to punitive growth, taxing system.

The prebate is NOT an income redistribution scheme

First, the current system is not progressive by any stretch of the imagination. All the payroll-related taxes are taxed on a poor person’s first dollar. When that person gets another job to help make ends meet, he is taxed again. It is the prebate of the FairTax that eliminates this phenomenon. It totally un-taxes not only the poor but EVERYONE up to the poverty level (fair), actually helping them to rise up the socioeconomic ladder and realize the American dream. And when their spending exceeds that of the poverty level, they pay the same taxes as everyone else. What makes the FairTax a truly progressive tax is that the more one spends, like on yachts and private jets, the more ‘taxes’ will be paid.

The tax base expands to everybody in the United States

Also, and this consequence is often overlooked, EVERYONE who is in this country enjoying what there is to enjoy about it, WILL CONTRIBUTE to funding the government when they buy anything new or purchase a service.  This includes foreign tourists, the foreign diplomats in the UN and elsewhere, and all who are in the country illegally. Including those in the underground economy. The tax base is greatly expanded and is not limited to just legal citizens that legitimately work. (fair) Conversely, if you don’t want to pay any tax, simply don’t buy anything new. Under the FairTax, the people have control over what, how, and when they will pay their taxes, not the social engineers in Washington. Transparency in taxation will return. The amount you pay will be on your receipt instead of being stuffed into ‘deductions’ on your paycheck as it is now.

A taxing system that rewards, not punishes, achievement

The question of the ethics of making people pay taxes is a philosophical one, but in reality, and as corrupt as it is, it does take money to fund the government to do what is necessary to keep us safe and sound.  It is up to us to keep Washington in check on how they spend that money. The FairTax does not have any bearing on how the tax revenue is spent. It is strictly a plan to fund the federal government. And instead of punishing success, it actually rewards it. The FairTax is fundamentally, economically, stimulative. The term ‘take-home pay,’ coined by the creation of the current taxing system, becomes history. Under the FairTax, your gross pay is your take-home pay. YOU get what YOU make, and YOU spend it as YOU see fit. (fair)

Promotes economic development, investments, savings, and jobs

Other consequences of the FairTax which are also overlooked, is the effect it would have on the estimated $13 trillion in business, each year, that has fled this country to escape the tax code. That business would come back. That would not happen under a flat tax.  By the elimination of all the taxes on business and employment that you accurately list above, the US would become a tax haven to the world. And foreign business that don’t have a business unit in this country would have a powerful incentive to come. And 90% of those surveyed on that proposition say they would setup a business unit in the US if the FairTax was in place. The job creation and economic development that would result would go a long way toward bringing the country back towards economic solvency, all without any borrowing from China or anyone else.

No double taxation, no FairTax & income tax

Also, the ‘two-headed hydra’ that you mention will not happen under the FairTax. That’s because it calls for the repeal of the 16th Amendment so the political class will not be allowed to double dip. Were that to be the case, the FairTax would expire and we would return to the same abortion of a tax code that we have now.

There are no exemptions for government under the FairTax. They operate the same as everyone else and the same as every other business. There are no taxes on business-to-business transactions. That applies to government business the same as it applies to normal capitalistic businesses. (fair)

The FairTax is not on TOP of, it is INSTEAD of

Lastly, and this is no small point, the research that went into the FairTax came up with a 23% tax that would be revenue neutral, not 30%, and it is inclusive, not exclusive like in your example. Here’s where it gets confusing and, easily demagogued. To be factually accurate, you have to know the difference. Otherwise you’ll be comparing apples to oranges.

The inclusive vs exclusive debate becomes easier to understand when you realize that companies do not pay taxes. The final consumer is the one that pays the taxes. We currently pay all the taxes that producers must pay in terms of all the taxes that would be eliminated under the FairTax that you correctly listed above. The over $20 million of research that went into developing an alternative federal revenue generating system determined that, on average, all of those above-mentioned taxes amount to 22% of the price of the goods and services we buy. Those are  embedded taxes, inclusive. Under the FairTax, those taxes go away. If nothing else happens, the prices would drop by (on average) 22%. Under the FairTax, those are replaced by a 23% tax, which would be inclusive to the price of the item. Not added to it as though the 22% embedded tax was still there, ie. exclusive. Competition in a free market would make sure that this would be the end result.

Economy, Pensacola, Politics

Liberal Lies About National Health Care

If  that headline evokes a reflex to hit the delete button, then you’re the one that needs to read this piece. It represents a fair analysis with a dash of humor, as opposed to White House talking points with no analysis whatsoever, into the current health care turned health insurance crisis as manufactured by the Obama administration and its anti-capitalist advisers.

Put in an easily understandable way, Ann Coulter (Mike Papantonio’s favorite punching bag, next to Rush Limbaugh of course) dissects five lies, or misconceptions if you prefer, that President Obama and proponents of government-run health care/health insurance use to get you to accept their prescription for this country.

(1) National health care will punish the insurance companies.

You want to punish insurance companies? Make them compete.

As Adam Smith observed, whenever two businessmen meet, “the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” That’s why we need a third, fourth and 45th competing insurance company that will undercut them by offering better service at a lower price.

Tiny little France and Germany have more competition among health insurers than the U.S. does right now. Amazingly, both of these socialist countries have less state regulation of health insurance than we do, and you can buy health insurance across regional lines — unlike in the U.S., where a federal law allows states to ban interstate commerce in health insurance.

U.S. health insurance companies are often imperious, unresponsive consumer hellholes because they’re a partial monopoly, protected from competition by government regulation. In some states, one big insurer will control 80 percent of the market. (Guess which party these big insurance companies favor? Big companies love big government.)

Liberals think they can improve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a total monopoly. That’s what single-payer health care is: “Single payer” means “single provider.”

It’s the famous liberal two-step: First screw something up, then claim that it’s screwed up because there’s not enough government oversight (it’s the free market run wild!), and then step in and really screw it up in the name of “reform.”

You could fix 90 percent of the problems with health insurance by ending the federal law allowing states to ban health insurance sales across state lines. But when John McCain called for ending the ban during the 2008 presidential campaign, he was attacked by Joe Biden — another illustration of the ironclad Ann Coulter rule that the worst Republicans are still better than allegedly “conservative” Democrats.

(2) National health care will “increase competition and keep insurance companies honest” — as President Barack Obama has said.

Government-provided health care isn’t a competitor; it’s a monopoly product paid for by the taxpayer. Consumers may be able to “choose” whether they take the service — at least at first — but every single one of us will be forced to buy it, under penalty of prison for tax evasion. It’s like a new cable plan with a “yes” box, but no “no” box.

Obama himself compared national health care to the post office — immediately conjuring images of a highly efficient and consumer-friendly work force — which, like so many consumer-friendly shops, is closed by 2 p.m. on Saturdays, all Sundays and every conceivable holiday.

But what most people don’t know — including the president, apparently — with certain narrow exceptions, competing with the post office is prohibited by law.

Expect the same with national health care. Liberals won’t stop until they have total control. How else will they get you to pay for their sex-change operations?

(3) Insurance companies are denying legitimate claims because they are “villains.”

Obama denounced the insurance companies in last Sunday’s New York Times, saying: “A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn’t known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died.”

Well, yeah. That and the cancer.

Assuming this is true — which would distinguish it from every other story told by Democrats pushing national health care — in a free market, such an insurance company couldn’t stay in business. Other insurance companies would scream from the rooftops about their competitor’s shoddy business practices, and customers would leave in droves.

If only customers had a choice! But we don’t because of government regulation of health insurance.

Speaking of which, maybe if Mr. Gallstone’s insurance company weren’t required by law to cover early childhood development programs and sex-change operations, it wouldn’t be forced to cut corners in the few areas not regulated by the government, such as cancer treatments for patients with gallstones.

(4) National health care will give Americans “basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable” — as Barack Obama claimed in his op/ed in the Times.

You want to protect consumers? Do it the same way we protect consumers of dry cleaning, hamburgers and electricians: Give them the power to tell their insurance companies, “I’m taking my business elsewhere.”

(5) Government intervention is the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The only reason most “pre-existing” conditions aren’t already covered is because of government regulations that shrink the insurance market to a microscopic size, which leads to fewer options in health insurance and a lot more uninsured people than would exist in a free market.

The free market has produced a dizzying array of insurance products in areas other than health. (Ironically, array-associated dizziness is not covered by most health plans.) Even insurance companies have “reinsurance” policies to cover catastrophic events occurring on the properties they insure, such as nuclear accidents, earthquakes and Michael Moore dropping in for a visit and breaking the couch.

If we had a free market in health insurance, it would be inexpensive and easy to buy insurance for “pre-existing” conditions before they exist, for example, insurance on unborn — unconceived — children and health insurance even when you don’t have a job. The vast majority of “pre-existing” conditions that currently exist in a cramped, limited, heavily regulated insurance market would be “covered” conditions under a free market in health insurance.

I’ve hit my word limit on liberal lies about national health care without breaking a sweat. See this space next week for more lies in our continuing series.

link: Liberal Lies About National Health Care: First in a Series

Economy, Politics

Socialism Or Capitalism, Let's Decide

Socialized medicine is not a new concept of the 21st century, as this audio clip from 1961 will show.  There are no problems that exist in our health care or the health care delivery system that can not be solved in the private sector.

From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign seeking to counter a proposed Democratic plan for socialized medicine, then private citizen and actor Ronald Reagan speaks out against socialized medicine.

Everywhere socialized medicine has been tried, it has accomplished government control over a population, under the presumption that the government making life choices for you, rather than yourself, is a freedom to be surrendered. That, and it has failed to live up to the promises of better and more affordable care.

As Americans, our Constitution and Bill of Rights define limits on the federal government in controlling the people. This is what President Obama refers to as ‘negative rights.’ These documents are what separates the United States from every other country on earth. That freedom, personal liberty, and a free-enterprise capitalistic system are the reasons we have become the greatest country in the world by any measure in less than 200 years.

In 1961, Ronald Reagan said this . . .

Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program. One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Ronald Reagan’s quoting of Socialist Norman Thomas (grandfather of Newsweek reporter Evan Thomas) was as right on point nearly 50 years ago as it is today.

Sure, there are poor people in America. But compared to poor people in socialized countries, America’s poor are wealthy. America’s poor drive cars, have TV’s, indoor plumbing, electricity, and cell phones. They have free health care when needed most, not to be confused with a health insurance policy, free education, a free breakfast and a free lunch. They have free day care, after-school care, and food and housing assistance. And it is capitalism and hard working, caring Americans that pay for it all. Not socialism.

But, more importantly, and only in America, the poor have what the others do not. They have the opportunity to advance themselves based on their own application of their own God-given talents where there is no limit except those that they place upon themselves, or that the government places upon them. President Obama is a living testament to that fact.

The lessons to learn from history is that wealth and prosperity are not derived from government, but are derived from personal freedom and liberty of the people, two concepts that are antithetical to today’s batch of politicians in Washington. Democrats have learned long ago that keeping people dependent on government, rather than championing the individual and by getting out of their way, insures political power. And political power, rather than individual achievement, is their goal. Using people in this way may make political sense if political power is all you’re after. But it is also immoral. The other lesson to learn is that Democrats have not given up on the big government concept. Which reminds me of another Reagan quote. Government isn’t the answer to our problem. Government (too much of it) is the problem.

Economy

How Well Is Obama Doing On The Economy?

There is a poll that is sponsored by AT&T and Yahoo. You can participate in it if you wish. There is only one question and it concerns Obama’s performance on the economy. Remember ‘it’s the economy stupid?’ That slogan rings true today like never before.

Click this LINK to cast your opinion.

http://js.polls.yahoo.com/quiz/quiziframe.php?poll_id=46067

I just cast vote number 2501038, and here is the question and the results up to that point.

Q. The president’s progress with the battered economy has been both praised and criticized. How well are his efforts measuring up with you?

Extremely well. We are undoubtedly moving in the right direction. 9%

Fairly well. There’s still a long way to go. 9%

Not well at all. His plans are hurting more than helping. 80%

Not sure/No opinion. 2%

2501038 votes

Economy, Politics

Obama's Vaporous Health Care Plan

President Obama has a health care plan that he wants us to accept. It’s called single-payer. Single payer as in the government does all the paying, to doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc.

If the government controls the money, they control the health care industry. If they control the health care industry, they control you.

But try to find out what his plan for your health care is and you will hit a dead end. No pun intended. Apparently, it isn’t written. President Obama was interviewed on national TV last month and questions of cost came up.

MORAN: One of the concerns is cost. People are looking at the cost of this plan, the Congressional Budget Office. By the way, you invited the director of the Congressional Budget Office to the White House.

OBAMA: Right.

MORAN: He had given this report, which was very damaging to your plan. A lot of people thought that was improper, that you were trying to muscle an independent arbiter of this debate
OBAMA: Terry, first of all, he was remarking on the House bill, not my plan, right? So, I think it’s important to get that clear. Number two, I invited him to come alongside a whole range of other health care experts to tell me exactly what they thought the most effective ways to bend the cost curve would be. And in fact, there was a pretty broad consensus that the plans that we had put forward around the MedPAC proposal, for example, which is essentially a commission to deal with doctors and health experts finding the best ways to improve quality while lowering costs. That that, in fact, was one of the most important levers to drive health costs savings in the system.

So his ‘plan’ is to use a committee of bureaucrats to suggest how to cut costs. That way you don’t need anything in writing. Exactly where socialized medicine enters the picture is unclear. Just vote for a pig in a poke, and if you don’t like it, just shut up and let him ‘fix’ it. Coincidentally, after his meeting with the director of the CBO, the director made a statement that was opposite of his first statement. Saying that it would not add to the deficit. Remarkable.

MORAN: So you weren’t leaning on him?

OBAMA: Terry, we don’t lean.

He doesn’t lean. He threatens. It’s the Chicago way. Like when he told auto industry creditors that he was the only thing between them and people with machetes. During that meeting, they agreed to give up a significant portion of their ownership shares (30 cents on the dollar), and Obama then gave majority ownership to the UAW.

MORAN: Do you think one of them problems is that Americans use too much health care?

He does, and explains it by saying too many people abuse emergency rooms for visits that should be in doctor’s offices or clinics. And . . .

OBAMA: We’ll have a situation in which we take five tests when we know one test would be sufficient, as long as that one test would have been forwarded to the other doctors, and specialists, and nurses who needed it to help treat the patient. That doesn’t happen right now. But, we’re paying for five tests. So if we could get a system where that one test is properly distributed, we all save money.

I get it. Aside from cutting payments to doctors and hospitals even more, where he expects to save, er I mean steal, a half billion dollars from Medicare and Medicaid, he will also save by telling doctors to do less tests. He didn’t call it defensive medicine, but that’s what he meant. You can not mention defensive medicine without also mentioning tort reform. And he is not going there. Sharing tests would be a good idea of course, but you have to believe it is defensive medicine, a practice necessitated because of trial lawyers, that Obama was really talking about.

And by doing all the above, Obama will have a socialized medical system that not only provides better care, to more people, but is cheaper and, will not add to the deficit. Must be the pixie dust.

I get the picture now. Lets tie doctors to the whipping post and give trial lawyers the whip. There is no mention about tort reform in his plan (whatever it is) or the House plan. Yet, Obama’s stated goal is to reduce the cost of health care. And while you’re going to pay them less,  and pay them by the ‘quality’ of service, as determined by bureaucrats, instead of by services rendered, then you can expect a shortage of doctors and people going into the medical profession. It all sounds like a recipe for disaster with a history for it in Canada and Great Britain.

Bottom line is this. Obama says that his plan will not cause private sector health care to go away. When the truth is it will cause private sector health care to rot on the vine.

Obama also says that his plan will not increase the deficit. Can’t say that with the House plan.

Here’s my question for President Obama when he comes to Pensacola (more pixie dust).

Mr. President, the American people have seen politicians enact legislation that ended up exacerbating the problems they were supposed to fix. For most Americans, results matter more than good intentions. If it turns out that your health care plan does not fulfill what you promise, will you provide in the plan an exit strategy to terminate the plan and pursue a private sector solution before the end of your first term?

related link: Nightline’s Interview with President Obama

Economy, Fair Tax, Politics

aSide Order

A FairTax Teaching Moment

The recession is starving the government of tax revenue, just as the president and Congress are piling a major expansion of health care and other programs on the nation’s plate and struggling to find money to pay the tab.

The numbers could hardly be more stark: Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year, the biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit balloons to a record $1.8 trillion.

Other figures in an Associated Press analysis underscore the recession’s impact: Individual income tax receipts are down 22 percent from a year ago. Corporate income taxes are down 57 percent. Social Security tax receipts could drop for only the second time since 1940, and Medicare taxes are on pace to drop for only the third time ever.

The last time the government’s revenues were this bleak, the year was 1932 in the midst of the Depression. Is raising taxes the answer to the problem? Of course not.

Which brings me to this FairTax teaching moment.  The tax base shrinks every time a job is lost. 6.7 million jobs have been lost since December 2007. Over 5 million of those have been lost since January 2009. And everyone is saying that its going to get worse before it gets better.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how taxing income and investment leads to federal revenue losses in a big way during a recession. Revenue flow under the FairTax plan is not near as volatile during a recession. Under the FairTax, the tax base remains the same, which is about 30% larger (and growing) than under the current income tax plan. More importantly, a consumption based taxing system is more stable, more predictable, and less reactive to political actions.

In fact, if Washington could get their spending under control, and barring another ‘man made disaster,’ under the FairTax recessions would become a thing of the past.

endofstory

Rush on Obamacare

Mobfather Rush Limbaugh comments on Obamacare and the organizations behind and in front of it.

endofstory

Smallest microwave oven?

Did you know you’re carrying a microwave oven in your pocket.

Economy, Media, Politics

Is It Really About Health Care?

Polls show most Americans want lower health care costs. Polls also show most Americans are satisfied with the health care plan they currently have. That’s why the Obama administration has shifted the focus to health insurance instead.

This administration is hopping from one bogus justification for socializing nearly 20% or our private sector to the next, hoping that something will stick.

He started by saying that the economy can not recover unless his health care plan, H.R. 3200, is passed first. That the health care industry is the cause for our economic woes. A ridiculous assumption that the media never questioned. How serious could Obama be about reducing the cost of health care when tort reform remains conspicuously missing?

Then, the economy is in such dire straits that this bill has to be passed right away. Right away, as in before anyone finds out what’s in it.

And to a different audience he says Americas factories are ‘coming back to life.’  “We have stopped the freefall . . . [t]he market is up and the financial system is no longer on the verge of collapse. . . We’re losing jobs at half the rate we were when I took office six months ago. . . We may be seeing the beginning of the end of the recession.”

Playing both sides of the issue has been perfected in the Democratic party. While the Obama media sits by and marvels at it.

From what the President is saying, it sounds to me that the best thing he could do for the economy now is to stop the deficit spending.  Aside from seeking private sector solutions to reducing health care costs and increasing availability, saving 90% of  the ‘stimulus’ spending (only 10% of it has been spent so far) would be the best thing he could do to help the economy.