While Americans Are Taxed on Death, Political Elites Get a Handout

While Americans Are Taxed on Death, Political Elites Get a Handout

Despite being one of the more unpopular policies in America, the death tax is set to be resurrected on January 1st. How high it will ultimately rise remains to be seen. If the tax deal passes, it will return at a 35% rate and a $5 million exemption. While not good, that’s certainly better than the 55% rate and $1 million exemption we’ll see if the deal fails. Still, both rates would mean disaster for family businesses and farms.

The hard left has inexplicably decided that not pushing hard enough for excessive taxation without respiration is where they draw the line in the sand. Nancy Pelosi referred to any deal that would lesson the fleecing of Americans upon death as “a bridge too far.” Others have referred to its inclusion in the tax deal as “gratuitous.” That’s funny, given how apt the word describes the tax itself.

What are we to make of this inexplicable drive for such an unpopular policy? One explanation is that the left simply holds a profoundly distorted view of social fairness. Rather than seek equality before the law, they look to government to enforce equality of outcomes. But other forces might be at work as well.

Another possible explanation comes courtesy of a new issue brief by the American Family Business Foundation, which highlights the cozy relationship between the life insurance industry and big government. Because life insurance benefits are untaxed, even an overpriced plan can result in more money being passed on to heirs than a simple bequeathal. The life insurance industry benefits heavily from this arrangement, with an estimated $12.5 billion in revenue coming due to estate planning. Without a death tax, much of this revenue would be lost, making the $50 million per year spent on lobbying by the industry seem like a bargain.


When the death tax was phased out temporarily, the industry went to work fighting to ensure it would rise again. This is their customers money they are spending in order to promote higher taxes, which will then force those taxpayers to purchase their product if they want to fulfill the basic human desire of providing their children. Their work is now about to pay off. And this is where the left draws their line in the sand?

To add insult to injury, the very same elites who want to rob the graves of the newly departed will get a gratuity, courtesy of US taxpayers, should they die in office. Known as the death gratuity, this benefit consists of a payout equal to one year’s worth of their bloated salary to the family of a member of Congress that dies in office. So while American farmers are struggling to find a way to pay a gratuitous death tax without selling off their property, the families of the likes of Senators Kennedy and Byrd get gratuity checks of $174,000 or more. Where is Bernie Sanders to ask when enough is enough for these political elites?

They want us broke and desperate. They know disposable income is the oil that keeps the machinery running. Eliminate all the excess income, no matter that taxes have already been paid on its generation once.

Well Informed Is Well Prepared

Kiplinger Spells It Out
(H/T to my buddy Boats down in NC)

(Ed Note:My advice is stockpile cash and ammo.)

Time to spell it out for those who are not paying attention…Vote Republican in November…or just continue to enjoy some of the “benefits” of Obama below. And for those that think taxing businesses is the answer…”caca rolls down hill”…we consumers will all pay for it with inflationary costs…get some people in Congress that know how to run a business, make a payroll, keep costs down, increase productivity and decrease unemployment.

Now, your insurance will be INCOME on your W2's!
(Ed. Note: We just had a quick meeting with HR at my firm, and we have been assured this information is just for record-keeping. IOW, this is how they know if you have insurance or not; and they have your employer info so they can snatch the fine, er I mean tax,, no wait..its a floor wax--its a dessert topping...out of your paycheck)
In just six months, on January 1, 2011, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves.
On January 1, 2011, here’s what happens... (read it to the end, so you see all three waves)...

First Wave:
Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief
In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011.

Personal income tax rates will rise.
The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates.

The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:
The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
The 25% bracket rises to 28%
The 28% bracket rises to 31%
The 33% bracket rises to 36%
The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family.
The "marriage penalty" (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax.
This year only, there is no death tax. (It’s a quirk!) For those dying on or after January 1, 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes, a business, a retirement account, could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones. Think of the farmers who don’t make much money, but their land, which they purchased years ago with after-tax dollars, is now worth a lot of money. Their children will have to sell the farm, which may be their livelihood, just to pay the estate tax if they don’t have the cash sitting around to pay the tax. Think about your own family’s assets. Maybe your family owns real estate, or a business that doesn't make much money, but the building and equipment are worth $1 million. Upon their death, you can inherit the $1 million business tax free, but if they own a home, stock, cash worth $500K on top of the $1 million business, then you will owe the government $275,000 cash! That’s 55% of the value of the assets over $1 million! Do you have that kind of cash sitting around waiting to pay the estate tax?

Higher tax rates on savers and investors.
The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011.
The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011.
These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Second Wave:
Obamacare
There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

The "Medicine Cabinet Tax"
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).

The "Special Needs Kids Tax"
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 not be used to pay for this type of special needs education.
The HSA (Health Savings Account) Withdrawal Tax Hike.
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 IRAsand other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Third Wave:
The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and Employer Tax Hikes
When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they'll be in for a nasty surprise-the AMT won't be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired.
The major items include:
The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year.
According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center , Congress' failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families-rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.
Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear.
Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or "depreciate") equipment purchases up to $250,000.
This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can currently expense half of their purchases of equipment.
In January of 2011, all of it will have to be "depreciated."
Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses.
There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the "research and experimentation tax credit," but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.
Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced.
The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available.
Tax credits for education will be limited.
Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses.
Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut.
Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed.
The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.
Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed.
Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA.
This contribution also counts toward an annual "required minimum distribution." This ability will no longer be there.

PDF Version Read more: http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171##ixzz0sY8waPq1
And worse yet?
Now, your insurance will be INCOME on your W2's!
One of the surprises we'll find come next year, is what follows - - a little "surprise" that 99% of us had no idea was included in the "new and improved" healthcare legislation . . . the dupes, er, dopes, who backed this administration will be astonished!

Starting in 2011, (next year folks), your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or governmental body of some sort.

If you're retired? So what... your gross will go up by the amount of insurance you get.
You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year.

For many, it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse.

This is how the government is going to buy insurance for the 15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases.
Not believing this??? Here is a research of the summaries.....
On page 25 of 29: TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec. 9001,as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002 "requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross income."

- Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters.- Go to Kiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what is above.

You'll Find Out When Its Law

Obstensibly thinking by then it will be too late to do anything about it.

$1 Billion AT&T Headache is Just Obamacare's First Side Effect
In the closing days of the Congressional health care debate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told the National Association of Counties: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Today marks the end of just the first week of life under Obamacare and Speaker Pelosi has been proven right: we are just now finding out what is in it. This past Friday, AT&T, the biggest U.S. telephone company, announced that it would take a $1 billion charge against earnings thanks to tax changes buried in the 2,300+ page bill. $1 billion. That is a full third of AT&T's $3 billion earnings for the fourth quarter of 2009.

The tax charges stem from changes Obamacare makes to the tax treatment of prescription-drug benefits for retirees. Companies used to be able to deduct part of their costs for providing drug benefits to their retirees, but Obamacare cancels that deduction. Roland McDevitt, director of health care research at Towers Watson, tells the Wall Street Journal, they "have a stream of tax benefits they are losing way out in the future." Since companies had counted on these deductions for current and future retirees as an existing asset under the old law, accounting rules require firms to take the full loss for the change in the same quarter in which the tax law is changed. Hence Friday's announcement to inform shareholders that AT&T's bottom line was about to take a $1 billion hit.

AT&T's billion-dollar Obamacare headache is so large due to the size (281,000 employees) of the company. Piper Jaffray & Co. analyst Chris Larsen tells Bloomberg: "Companies like AT&T, that have large employee bases, are going to have higher health-care costs and, therefore, lower earnings unless they can negotiate something or offer less to their employees." And changes to current and future retirees' health care seem to be exactly what will AT&T will do as a side effect of Obamacare. AT&T wrote in their Friday filing: "As a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health-care benefits offered by the company."

And AT&T is not alone. Towers Watson estimates that just this tax change alone will eliminate $14 billion in U.S. corporate profits. That's $14 billion less American employers have to spend creating new jobs when our unemployment rate is still 9.7%.

And AT&T is not the only company informing employees that Obamacare is going to mean worse care for them. Verizon Communications, the second biggest U.S. phone company, told employees last week that Obamacare "may have significant implications for both retirees and employers."

The Heritage Foundation will be keeping you apprised of all of the consequences of Obamacare as they are learned with our new Foundry feature "Side Effects." Already our health care experts have identified negative intended and unintended consequences from the legislation to children's health insurance and health insurance taxes.

The American people already do not like this law. But to repeal it, we must keep Americans educated about all of Obamacare's failures and offer our “Second Opinion” on what conservative idea would fix it.

What If I Don’t Buy Insurance?

The only exception I take is the comparison to automobile insurance. It’s NOT the same.

What happens if I don’t buy health insurance?

Under the health care overhaul passed Sunday, most individuals would be required to buy a minimum health insurance policy — just as most drivers today are required to have car insurance. This policy won’t kick in until 2014, however.
After then, if you don’t buy insurance, you would have to pay a penalty on your annual income taxes. The reconciliation bill in the Senate would start with a flat penalty of $695 per member of your household each year. The maximum penalty would be 2.5 percent of your household income. (That’s $1,300 for a family making $52,029 a year, the median household income in 2008.) The penalty would rise with the cost of living in future years.

– Ryan Teague Beckwith, Congress.org

Written By A Former Marine

Attributed to Robert A. Hall, a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts State Senate.

I'm 63. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.

I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.

I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money.

I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood Entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the economy of Zimbabwe , the freedom of the press of China , the crime and violence of Mexico , the tolerance for Christian people of Iran , and the freedom of speech of Venezuela .

I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.

I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract
set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of U.S. Senators from Illinois.

I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less arrogantly of an all-knowing government.

I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful; that thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress; that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his; that slammed Palin, with two years as governor, for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever. Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.

I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America , while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.

I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.

I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person, who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military.... Those are the citizens we need.

I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people than themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims, who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.

I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers; bums are bipartisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois , where the
"Illinois Combine" of Democrats has worked to loot the public for years. Not to mention the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet.

I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.

Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.

Heritage Morning Bell - Healthcare

The Six Key Issues the House Must Cave On Before Obamacare Becomes Law

President Barack Obama attempted to downplay differences between the House and Senate bills telling American Urban Radio Networks yesterday: “The Senate and the House bills are 95 percent identical. There’s five percent differences, and one of those differences is the public option. This is an area that has just become symbolic of a lot of ideological fights. As a practical matter, this is not the most important aspect to this bill.” We’ll let President Obama fight with his base abut how important a strong public option is to health reform, but a government run plan is just one of six key differences between the House and Senate bills:

Soak the Rich or Tax Everybody:
The Senate bill relies heavily on a new excise tax on high cost health plans: a 40 percent tax on plan exceeding $8,500 for an individual and $23,000 for a family. The AFL-CIO and SEIU both call this a tax on working families. The Senate bill also includes a new premium tax on all insurers and the CBO confirms that the cost of this tax will be passed on to all Americans with private insurance. The House bill depends on a heavy new income tax targeted at top-earning taxpayers and small businesses. The 5.4 percent tax on individuals with incomes above $500,000, and on families with incomes above $1 million, is structured in a way that over time more and more Americans will be hit by this tax and small business owners would be particularly affected.

Employer Mandate Penalties:
The Senate bill imposes a $750 penalty per worker on employers of 50 or more who are not covered by the federally approved package of health benefits. The Senate mandate has other strange consequences. If an employer offers coverage, but an employee is eligible by virtue of income to qualify for taxpayer subsidies and entry into the state-based health insurance exchange, the employer is also penalized. In other words, employers are penalized for hiring people at the poverty level, even if they offer health insurance. The House bill imposes a direct requirement on employers to offer federally-qualified health care coverage to their employees or pay a payroll tax on a sliding scale up to 8 percent. Both the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses have come out against the bills.

Individual Mandate Penalties:
The Senate bill requires individuals to purchase a government approved plan or pay a $750 penalty, beginning in 2014. The tax penalty, indexed for inflation, would increase over time. The House bill requires individuals to pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of their income, depending on the size of their income, for not obtaining federally-approved health care coverage.

Weak or Strong Public Plan:
The Senate bill establishes a new set of “multi-state” private health plans sponsored by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) — the agency that administers the federal civil service — that would compete against private health plans in the state based exchanges that are mandated by the provision of the Senate bill. In contrast, the House bill includes an explicit public plan.

Medicaid Expansion:
The left may complain that there is no government-run option in either bill, but both the House and Senate bill accomplish over half their additional health insurance coverage through Medicaid expansion. The Senate bill would require states to expand their Medicaid programs to cover all Americans up to 133 percent Federal Poverty Level. The House bill would require states to expand their Medicaid programs to 150 percent FPL, the same level suggested in earlier versions of the Senate HELP Committee bill. Both Democrat and Republican Governors are against this state budget-busting welfare expansion.

Taxpayer Funded Abortion:
The President promised that there would be no federal funding for abortion. In the House bill, by virtue of the Stupak-Pitts amendment, there is a genuine firewall between federal funding and abortion coverage. In the Senate bill, by virtue of the agreement between Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), there is no such firewall. For the “pro-life” forces on both sides of the aisle, the Nelson language appears to fall short of the House language.

These are all major policy differences that go to the core of the Obama health care plan. For each option, choosing one version over the other will have huge consequences for the American people. But since Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) have threatened to veto the bill if any significant changes are made by the House in conference, it is most likely the Senate will prevail on every issue. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) might even just save herself and the leftist majority in the House the embarrassment and pass the Senate bill as is.

After all, the Obama administration wants a bill, any bill, and doesn’t really care what is actually in it.

They're Gonna Shove It Down Our Throats

and the only way we are going to be able to fix it is to elect enough true conservatives to overturn it in the next session, IF we last that long. This monstrosity isn't even written yet, and they're passing it. I hope all you useful idiots that put these socialist morons in power are happy.

Cap and Tax will be next. Then God knows what they'll try.

Health Care by Committee

It's been described as "misleading," "anti-family," "anti-job," "pro-abortion," and, my personal favorite, "a proverbial mackerel rotting on the beach in the moonlight"--but no matter what you call it, Sen. Max Baucus's (D-Mont.) health care plan may be the
President's best shot at reform. Today, Baucus's Finance Committee approved his "concept" by a 13-9 vote, even as more news breaks on what the proposal would actually mean to American families.

In the last few days, plenty has been written about the plan's hidden taxes and higher premiums, but the most glaring revelation is the fact that lower- and middle-class citizens will be the ones hurting under Baucus's "compromise." Despite President Obama's promise that he wouldn't raise taxes "one penny" on the average family, Bloomberg News broke down the report from the Joint Committee on Taxation and found that individuals who make less than $200,000 a year will be footing a whopping 87% of Baucus's bill. And these are folks who already have health insurance!

Experts at PricewaterhouseCoopers have also studied the fallout for families under the Finance Committee's plan. By their calculations, the average family pays about $12,300 for their current coverage, but under Baucus's concept, it would increase to $21,300 by 2016." The Heritage Foundation fleshes it out this way: instead of reducing a family's health insurance premiums by $2,500 per year, as President Obama promised, this plan would actually raise them $4,000 more than they would have been without reform. On top of that, the plan still includes abortion as a necessary part of health care.

As bad as it is now, the final plan will be worse. Despite what does or doesn't pass today, the leaders in the House and Senate intend to stuff the conference bill fuller than a turkey at Thanksgiving. Sen. Harry Reid has promised to reinsert the public option along with a host of other bad amendments concocted behind closed doors that no one will see--until it's too late.

New Taxes and Forced Compliance

Congress:
You CANNOT force me to buy something I don't need or want, depsite what you think. If you continue to ignore the will of the people, the people will replace you. That's not a threat, it's a promise.

Examiner colleague Susan Ferrechio explains in concise fashion the costs and consequences of the most conservative of the health plans in Congress as described by the Congressional Budget Office: it’s less than $900 billion and doesn’t increase
the deficit but it also forces people out of their policies and levies large new taxes.

Writers Kristin Jensen and Brian Faler look ahead to see how moderate Democrats (and Olympia Snowe) are feeling now that the high water mark has been set for fiscal restraint. They welcomed the CBO report, but it was also clear that they didn’t greet it as a major breakthrough – Snowe even wants to wait until next week for a committee vote, a move that would screw up Majority Leader Harry Reid’s schedule. But the score did make it certain that the measure would pass the Finance Committee.

“[The] analysis shows the measure ‘is certainly moving in the right direction,’ said Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat and potential swing vote. He said he’d examine the findings and see what the legislation looks like at the end of the full Senate debate before deciding how to vote.

‘Anytime the numbers improve on something, you feel real good about it,’ Nelson said in an interview. North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, a Democrat on the finance panel who’s worked closely with Baucus, told reporters the legislative process has a long way to go. ‘It will be months before this is concluded,’ he said.”

Automobile Insurance Is Not Health Insurance

Revised and extended:

Memo to President Barack Obama: It's a tax.
Obama insisted on national television during the weekend that requiring people to carry health insurance and fining them if they don't isn't the same thing as a tax increase. But the language of Democratic bills to revamp the nation's healthcare system doesn't quibble. Both the House bill and the Senate Finance Committee proposal clearly state that the fines would be a tax.

And the reason the fines are in the legislation is to enforce the coverage requirement.
"If you put something in the Internal Revenue Code, and you tell the IRS to collect it, I think that's a tax," said Clint Stretch, head of the tax policy group for Deloitte, a major accounting firm. "If you don't pay, the person who's going to come and get it is going to be from the IRS."

Democrats aren't the first to propose that individuals be required to carry health insurance and fined if they refuse. The conservative Heritage Foundation called for such a mandate in the healthcare debate during the 1990s, although its proposal differed from the ones pending in Congress. Heritage has since dropped the idea and now favors using tax credits to encourage people to buy coverage carrots and not sticks.

During the 2008 political campaign, Obama opposed making coverage mandatory because of the costs. His position has shifted now that it's becoming clear that such a requirement will be part of any legislation Congress sends him. Conservative activists are calling it a violation of his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class.

"This is exactly what George Bush Sr. did when he said he wouldn't raise taxes, and it cost him the next election," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "Obama is doing the same thing, but he's insulting people by telling them that if you don't call it a big purple banana, somehow it wouldn't be a tax."

Some liberals acknowledge that Obama might be vulnerable on the insurance requirement. But they contend that most people will understand as long as the legislation provides enough of a subsidy to make the coverage affordable. That's a central issue this week as the Senate Finance Committee starts voting on legislation.

"I think it's a metaphysical question as to whether it's a tax or not," said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future. "The real question that will determine whether people are upset is whether the insurance is affordable."

During an interview that aired on ABC's "This Week" Sunday, Obama insisted that the insurance requirement is not 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. "What it's saying is . . . that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore.
"Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance," Obama said. "Nobody considers that a tax increase.

"You just can't make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase," he said. But a Democratic staff description of Sen. Max Baucus' bill calls the proposed fines an "excise tax." Penalties of up to $950 for individuals and $3,800 for families would be imposed on those who don't get coverage.

The House bill uses a complex formula to calculate the penalties, calling them a "tax on individuals without acceptable healthcare coverage."

Did you get that? You're going to be fined if you don't have acceptable healthcare. Thats a federal mandate. Thats a tax. You MUST purchase coverage or you will be fined. Where in the Constitution does it give Congress the authority to do that? and don't give me the "promote the general welfare" BS. Thats in the Preamble.

I know all you obamabots just hate it when conservatives have a reasoned arguement against government healthcare/insurance reform/whatever the hell ya'll are calling it today, so when I found this little tidbit, I couldn't wait to post it.

Its the best response to the "the government requires you to have to have automobile insurance, whats the difference?" argument the obamabots are so fond of using. I can expand on this simply by explaining that liability insurance is not for your direct protection, it protects against potential property damage and personal injury that you MIGHT cause, if you have an accident. You are required to have it, but if you don't, you must pay an uninsured motorist fee to the DMV, and you will still be liable for any damages and medical expenses you cause.

Collision and comprehensive are not required unless you finance your vehicle. The bank requires you to have it to protect THEIR interests. Once the vehicle is paid for, you can discontinue coverage with no penalties.

From an article in the American Spectator, via my heart-throb, Michelle Malkin:

Obama argues at another part of the interview that, "right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase." But there are many reasons why this is a flawed analogy. Most importantly, car insurance mandates, which apply at the state level, only apply to people who drive a car on public roads. If I don't drive, I don't have to purchase car insurance. By contrast, the health insurance mandate would apply, with few exceptions, to everybody in the United States. Also, people aren't forced to report car insurance in their federal tax returns, and fines are not assessed through the federal tax code. And if car insurance mandates are the model, then they certainly aren't effective, with an estimated 13.8 percent of drivers going without coverage in 2007, according to the Insurance Research Council.

Healthcare Update Alert

TOP 10 FACTS ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATS’ HEALTH CARE “REFORM” LEGISLATION
DEMOCRATS’ BILL WOULD INCREASE TAXES, RAISE HEALTH CARE COSTS & RATION CARE;
HOUSE REPUBLICANS ARE PROPOSING BETTER SOLUTIONS
June 10, 2009 House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) Permalink

House Democrats have begun rolling out their long-awaited health care “reform” legislation, and it turns out there’s not much “reform” to it after all. Instead, it would increase taxes, raise health care costs, ration care, and leave key medical decisions to government bureaucrats, rather than patients and their doctors – a proposal that House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) warned in an op-ed published on Townhall.com could cause more than 100 million Americans to “be forced out of their current health care plan and onto the government rolls.”

With a debate on health care reform slated to begin in Congress, here are the top 10 facts about the House Democrats’ health care proposal:

1. A Government Takeover of Health Care. The House Democrats’ plan will create a new government-run program, will make health care more expensive, limit treatments and ration care, and put bureaucrats in charge of medical decisions rather than patients and doctors. Translation: higher costs, lower quality, and fewer choices for patients.

2. Forcing More than 100 Million Out of their Health Care. The House Democrats’ plan will force more than 100 million Americans out of their current health care plan and onto the government rolls. A Lewin Group study confirms that under a new government-run health plan millions will lose their current health care coverage.

3. Rationing Health Care Treatments. The House Democrats’ plan establishes an “advisory committee” that will put bureaucrats and politicians in charge of deciding patient treatments and cures. Translation: The government will make health care treatment decisions rather than doctors and patients.

4. A New Mandate on Individuals. The House Democrats’ plan mandates that every American buy health insurance or pay a hefty tax to Washington. This would force more Americans into government-run system that will make health care more expensive, ration care, and put bureaucrats in charge of medical decisions.

5. A New Mandate on Employers. The House Democrats’ plan would impose employer mandates and cost jobs by requiring some employers – especially small businesses – to pay a new tax to Washington. The plan would also slap employers that are unable to offer coverage the government deems adequate with another new tax to Washington. These two new taxes will make it more difficult than ever for small business owners to reinvest in their businesses and create and retain good paying jobs.

6. Harming Small Businesses. The House Democrats’ plan doesn’t yet define “small businesses,” which is troubling news for millions of Americans who depend on these engines of economic growth. One Democratic draft plan revealed to date only provides assistance to ease employer mandates for small businesses with an average of 27 or fewer employees. This leaves a huge number of small businesses to deal with the onerous and expensive mandates of the Democrats’ government defined health benefit plan (“small businesses” are traditionally defined as employing less than 500 people).

7. Expanding Entitlements. The House Democrats’ plan expands the Medicare and Medicaid programs without reform, ignoring the pending insolvency of programs that millions of seniors and families rely upon. These policies will result in benefit cuts and premium increases for many Americans who depend on these programs.

8. Unfunded Mandates on States. The House Democrats’ plan creates new unfunded mandates for already cash-strapped states by expanding Medicaid, forcing both the federal government and states to pay more to finance this entitlement expansion. This will leave states no choice but to raise taxes or reduce services for citizens of those states.

9. How Many Taxes Will Democrats Raise? The House Democrats’ plan expands benefits and includes massive new subsidies and government-dictated benefits, but it doesn’t identify any significant savings to help pay for the new scheme, nor does it acknowledge the massive new costs it will impose on individuals, employers, and states. In the past, Democrats promised a series of new tax hikes to pay for their plan. How many will there be? When do Democrats plan to reveal them?

10. Shifts Massive New Costs onto Taxpayers. The House Democrats’ plan represents a bait-and-switch that will make health care more expensive and hit the middle class particularly hard with higher taxes, rationed care, and new health costs. As millions of middle-class families are struggling to make ends meet while making responsible choices, this plan forces those that make responsible decisions to foot the bill for those who don’t.

3,000 Show Up At Richmond Tea Party

Thats my estimate. I was pleasantly surprised and extremely impressed with the set-up and the venue. I'll have some video as soon as I edit it.

Well done folks. Very Well Done!!!!!!!!!!!!

...promote the general welfare...

Maybe I'm missing something; or perhaps I misread the Preamble. It does mention "promoting the general welfare" right? So how is it that Congress, all of the members of which must take an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution", decide that confiscatory taxation on "evil" corporations is "promoting the general welfare"?

In this addled old brain, it would seem to me that the best method of "promoting the general welfare" would be to make the things we use daily, the things we MUST have to function as a free society, as cheap as possible for the citizens and charge everyone else double.

Lets see; we need electricity. Hell, even Congress needs electricity. Yet they impose regulations on the power companies that drive up the cost of producing and distributing electricity, which drives up the cost to the citizen. Not to good for the general welfare.

Gasoline; yeah yeah, I know, we need to pay for roads. OK. BUT!!!! why not make it easy for the oil companies to extract the crude and refine gasoline and diesel fuel, thereby making it cheaper for the citizen. Keep the road tax in place. I don't mind paying for my half of the road, (and that really is the simplest method of collecting funds for road construction and maintainence,) but jeeez louise, if we stop buying oil from other countries and start using our own, it seems to me the price could be reduced considerably. Wouldn't that be good for the general welfare? Cheaper delivery costs, keeps the independent truckers rolling, and everyone is happy.

(Am I over-analyzing this thing?)

If you're gonna tax something, don't tax the stuff we need, tax the crap we want. You want a big screen TV, fine. Its gonna cost ya another $300.00 in taxes. Now that little 25 inch TV, you can have that for the normal price, plus the usual sales tax. You want a big fast boat? Sure Bro, but we're gonna have to get another $2500.00 in taxes from ya. Now that little 16 foot john boat over there, that one doesn't have any extra taxes on it, because we know you and your kids are going to be spending the day on a lake fishing somewhere and that is definitely "promoting the general welfare".

Someone grab my clue bat and meet me in the lobby of the Canon Building, I have a plan.