Friday, June 29, 2012

Read my Lips No Tax Increase on Families making less than $250,000 a year

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” (spoken in September 2008 at a town-hall meeting in Dover).

Obama’s pledge against any form of tax increase on Americans making less than $250,000 a year “was thrown out the window” when he signed the healthcare law, says John Kartch, communications director with Americans For Tax Reform (founded by anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist).

Here’s a rundown of seven ObamaCare tax hikes that affect:
No. 1. The Individual Mandate Excise Tax. Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income tax surtax. It goes up each year until 2016 and beyond when a couple would pay a tax of the higher or $1,360 or 2.5% of adjusted gross income.

No. 2. The Over-The-Counter Drugs Trap. Since Jan. 1, 2011, employees with health savings accounts, flexible spending accounts or health reimbursement accounts have no longer been able to use pre-tax funds stashed in these accounts to buy over-the-counter medicines for allergy relief and the like without a doctor’s prescription (there’s an exception for insulin).

No. 3. The Healthcare Flexible Spending Account Cap. Starting Jan. 1, 2013, employees will face a $2,500 cap on the amount of pre-tax salary deferrals they can make into a healthcare flexible spending account. There is no cap under current law. In light of the new cap, employee benefits groups are lobbying for Congress to modify the use-it-or-lose-it rule that means employees forfeit unused funds in their accounts at the end of the plan year.

No. 4. The Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle. Starting Jan. 1, 2013, taxpayers who face high medical expenses will only be allowed a deduction for expenses to the extent they exceed 10% of adjusted gross income, up from 7.5% now. Taxpayers 65 and older can still use the old 7.5% threshold through 2016. For how to score the medical expense deduction before 2013, click here.

No. 5. The Health Savings Account Withdrawal Penalty. Since Jan. 1, 2011, taxpayers who withdraw money from health savings accounts for non-medical expenses before age 65 face a 20% penalty, up from 10% before.

No. 6. The Indoor Tanning Services Tax. Since July 1, 2010, folks using indoor tanning salons face a new 10% excise tax. This one hasn’t been bringing in as much revenue as anticipated.

No. 7. The Cadillac Health Insurance Plan Tax. Starting in 2018, there will be a new 40% excise tax on taxpayers who are covered by comprehensive health insurance plans.

Americans For Tax Reform has a full list of ObamaCare’s 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses.

Higher Taxes with NO Doctors thank you Obama

Get your own Concierge Doctor now before they are all taken.

Doctors will not take the tsunami of new patients.  They will simply opt-out.  GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FREE HEALTH CARE…..  

"Concierge Medicine" is a term applied to a special kind of primary care medical practice offering personalized, in-depth, convenient and high-quality healthcare services. 

So, those with money will still be taken care of.  If you like taking extra time in the emergency rooms now just wait …..                                            

Direct care physicians, as many prefer to be called - typically provide a level of care beyond that of a standard general practitioner, including such perks as easy scheduling of appointments, no waiting times, longer and more thorough examinations, coordination of all medical care and even, in some cases, house calls. Doctor-delivery services are another increasingly popular (and costly) option for patients seeking convenience. In this case, instead of the patient traveling to the doctor, the doctor comes to the patient - and he or she might even carry that iconic black bag.

Of course, all this comes at a price, but most fee-for-service boutique doctors often require a contract and charge an annual retainer fee ranging from $1,500 to upwards of $20,000 per family, and doctor delivery services aren't cheap either. Yet despite that, it seems that a growing number of people are considering those medical bills money well spent. Guess they agree with the old adage "health is wealth."

Since the new law’s ability to deliver care to tens of millions of additional patients rests on its ability to cut costs, both Medicare and Obamacare reimbursement to doctors will be low.

A basic tenet of Obamacare is to force doctors to take untenable cuts in pay, all the while absorbing overbearing new regulations and mandates with little or no personal recourse. Proponents of the Obamacare law know that they can suffer concessions made in Washington, D.C. as long as the doctors delivering the majority of medical care in towns all across this land are made to heel to the new law’s demands in the end.

Some on the political left have conjured up schemes to tie physician state licensure to participation in Medicare and Obamacare. Others have taken solace in the notion that the regional ACOs themselves will be able to quash any doctor rebellions by simply using their control of the purse strings to withhold or limit how much local money each doctor will be paid for his services.

Unbeknownst to most people in or out of the healthcare arena, however, are the legal options available to physicians to either never enroll in Medicare or to voluntarily withdraw their participation in the government’s plan. The legal nuances of the doctor-Medicare relationship may shed light on options available to physicians to skirt inclusion in Obamacare if the law’s enforcers decide to use a heavy hand in mandating their participation.

Universal health care means that the government decides health care allocation and its costs. At first, it reduces how much it pays doctors, hospitals and nurses. As doctors drop out, the government then rations how much care people get. This ranges from requiring verification before surgery to minimum wait times to simply reducing the number of beds to limit supply. More government officials are selected to review the books, make sure all money is spent correctly and find more cuts - but it is never a manager's salary or secretaries, only the doctors or nurses or even cleaning staff whose wages, benefits and even jobs are cut. All of this reduces quality of care in the name of saving money.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) signed on to support Obamacare, the majority ofAmerica’s physicians did not. In fact, about 85% of practicing community doctors in America are not AMA members and do not support the ‘Affordable Care Act’.

Contrary to common lore, most physician are not rich. By increasing the number of low-paying ‘Obamacare card-carrying’ patients they will be asked to see, and failing to address the long-term Medicare (‘SGR’) payment formula for physicians, many quality docs will be forced to restrict, rather than expand, their services (or close shop altogether). The recent Congressional two-month extension to the ‘Doc Fix’ problem is unacceptable.

The medical field demands that the best and the brightest students make a huge personal sacrifice of time and expense. Most medical students finish their residency training at the age of about 30 or older; their undergraduate and graduate school debt ranges from $250 thousand to $600 thousand or more. Coming ‘out’ to the work force a decade later than most in their age group, and working 80-100 hour work weeks is stressful business for doctors. Medicine is a fascinating and wonderful profession, but the undertaking demands the highest caliber individual. There are two ways to insure that American doctors remain the best in the world: sustain competitive, free-market incentives, or go completely ‘socialist’ by paying for the entire process of medical education and training as is done in many European countries. Obamacare does neither, and thus leaves physicians dangling in a precarious position as education costs continue to climb and reimbursements continue to fall.

Every President, every congressman, and every person who has every worked in or around the White House, the Pentagon, Capitol Hill, or any other elevated branch of government receives the very best the American medical system has to offer. This basic assumption of quality, and the implicit policy of safety under a physician’s care, will always be there for those with power or means; under Obamacare, the powerful will continue to be well cared for. But for the rest of America, this assumption will likely not hold.

In 1993, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, then known commonly as ‘Medicare’, cut the reimbursement for my specialty of anesthesiology by roughly 70%.

Many other specialties have received large cuts in reimbursement since. Anesthesiology as a specialty was able to survive in teaching institutions, community hospitals and surgical centers because of higher reimbursements received by private health insurers.

Under Obamacare, there will be an expansion of what are called ‘physician extenders’. Many patients may not consider the care of non-physicians to be an acceptable replacement to their doctor. As more and more companies drop their private health insurance plans, and society moves toward a nationalized, single-payer health care system, doctors will no longer be able to afford to meet expenses, pay off educational loans, and be incentivized to endure the challenging and demanding years of study and training to become board-certified.

Only in America can a pregnant patient expect an obstetrician to be accompanied by a board-certified anesthesiologist at any time of the day or night to place a labor epidural to ease the pain of childbirth. Only in America can a patient expect the highest degree of anesthesia experience, surgical expertise, radiological skill, and internal medicine know-how to guide them through treatments for advanced and complex disease. Only in America, today. With every year we move forward under the new health care legislation, these services, which we take for granted, will recede progressively. Once gone, finding ample numbers of trained physicians willing and able to provide this highest level of care will be increasingly difficult.

All of this brings us back to our esteemed political representatives in America, who will continue to receive the best medical care in the world, while many Americans will have to settle for something less than the best—something far less than what we have now.

Obamacare was crafted in back rooms to satisfy political goals and schemes, but not to expand the delivery ofAmerica’s best medical care to all Americans. In the absence of major changes to the Obamacare legislation, danger in terms of physician coverage for hospitals and physician availability for office visits lies ahead.

None of us would fly on an airplane without a trained and experienced pilot in the cockpit. Then why would we allow ourselves to ‘go under’ without an anesthesiologist at the head of our bed in the operating room, a cardiologist treating our heart problems, or an internal medicine specialist physician writing our prescriptions?

TheUnited States health system is not perfect and our heterogeneous population poses tough challenges, but our philosophy has always been to go the extra mile to treat our patients. {For example, theU.S. has perhaps the most advanced premature infant treatment programs in the world. Here, we do everything we can to save lives, even for the weakest, prematurely delivered babies. Obviously, in doing so, we extend great cost and also accept a greater mortality rate for this vulnerable population.
Be wary of the enemy at the gate. Health care reform is tricky business and the ‘Affordable Care Act’ does not have its act together. The Obamacare journey to the future could be a very treacherous one indeed.

Here are three potential approaches to understanding how physicians may resist Medicare and, by extension, Obamacare participation:

Physician enrollment in Medicare is voluntary. Sec.1866. [42 U.S.C. 1395cc] (a)(1) states a provider is “qualified to participate and eligible to receive payments from the government if s/he files with the Secretary” an agreement (i.e., voluntarily completes form CMS-855).

A non-enrolled physician has equal protections and due process rights under laws that prohibit the federal government from demanding a physician either serve (enroll in) Medicare or give free medical care to Medicare beneficiaries.

Some would say the US Constitution, Amendment Thirteen, protects every American from “conscription” in that:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States …”

Section 1842(i)(2) does not restrict a physician to only two choices: “participating” or “non-participating.” Sec.1842. [42 U.S.C. 1395u] (i)(2) clearly states “The term … nonparticipating physician refers … to a physician who … is not a participating physician … (as defined in subsection (h)(1))” Sec. 1842(i)(2) is a conditional statement: if non-participating, then not participating.

But physicians obviously have more than two possible relationships with Medicare including “opted out,” never enrolled, voluntarily terminated, or employed by a Medicare Advantage IPA/HMO.

Section 1848(g)(4)(A) explains how a physician who is enrolled in Medicare should submit bills under Part B; it does not mandate every physician who is non-enrolled into enrollment, thus triggering mandatory claims submission. Section 1848(g)(4)(A) does not grant the federal government authority to press physicians into service (enrollment).

So what about patient reimbursement by Medicare? Can a patient pay his/her doctor and then seek reimbursement from Medicare? Most physicians will agree to bill the government, but if they don’t does this mean they must give free medical care to Medicare beneficiaries?

Healthcare attorney Andrew L. Schlafly wrote the following: “… even if the federal government attempted to assert control over payments by patients to disenrolled physicians, courts may well hold that it is unconstitutional for government to interfere with payments made by Medicare enrolled patients for services rendered by physicians who have disenrolled. We are unaware of a court case establishing or forbidding this option. Government may prefer not to test its authority over disenrolled physicians rather than risk a new precedent against its power.”

The Supreme Court decided on the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate requiring all Americans to either participate in Obamacare or pay a penalty_TAX_.

Health insurance is an important and vital component of a free-market society. The question remains, should government mandate coverage? Obamacare mandates participation, additional fees, over a hundred new government agencies, and layers of additional bureaucracy, but fails to include rules to allow insurance entities to compete across state lines; it also lacks tort reform to lessen the costly and widely denounced practice of defensive medicine to ward off frivolous lawsuits.

It seems the question is not one of intent in criticizing the new health care law, but rather one of content. Obamacare gets it wrong at almost every turn. Instead of finding tax-credits and other incentives to help doctors care for the uninsured, it imposes paternalistic, over-bearing, and anti-competitive pressures to coerce providers of care to see more patients for less under unfavorable conditions.

Obamacare opponents are not against healthcare for all; nor are they against government-sponsored health insurance. What they find troubling is the notion that the government wants to control every minute detail of the medical care delivered between a doctor and a patient.

In the match up of Doctors vs. Obamacare, physicians have already opted-out—in due time, this reality will become more and more obvious.

The poor will not be able to find a doctor with Obama care.

Those with money will have their own doctor on call.  This is the new America higher taxes with no doctors for our health care.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

If you like Taxes you'll Love Obamacare

Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes

Obamacare law contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses

Taxpayers are reminded that the President’s healthcare law is one of the largest tax increases in American history.
Obamacare contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses.
Arranged by their respective effective dates, below is the total list of all $500 billion-plus in tax hikes (over the next ten years) in Obamacare, where to find them in the bill, and how much your taxes are scheduled to go up as of today:
Taxes that took effect in 2010:
1. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971
2. Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113
3. “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105
4. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies ($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980
5. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike ($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004
6. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services ($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399
Taxes that took effect in 2011:
7. Medicine Cabinet Tax ($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer 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). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959
8. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike ($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959
Tax that took effect in 2012:
9. Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Min$/Jan 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957
Taxes that take effect in 2013:
10. Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93
Capital Gains Dividends Other*
2012 15% 15% 35%
2013+ 23.8% 43.4% 43.4%
*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.
11. Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax ($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:
First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
All Remaining Wages
Current Law 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
2.9% self-employed
Obamacare Tax Hike 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
3.8% self-employed
Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93
12. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers ($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986
13. Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI ($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995
14. Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” ($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. 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. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389
15. Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D ($4.5 bil/Jan 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994
16. $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives ($0.6 bil/Jan 2013). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000
Taxes that take effect in 2014:
17. Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following
1 Adult 2 Adults 3+ Adults
2014 1% AGI/$95 1% AGI/$190 1% AGI/$285
2015 2% AGI/$325 2% AGI/$650 2% AGI/$975
2016 + 2.5% AGI/$695 2.5% AGI/$1390 2.5% AGI/$2085
Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337
18. Employer Mandate Tax (Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346
Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years
19. Tax on Health Insurers ($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993
Taxes that take effect in 2018:
20. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans ($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the invasive revenue generating device could produce as much as $36 billion over ten years.[15] The fines are euphemistically dubbed "shared responsibility payments."[16] Employers would be required to deduct the penalties from employees paychecks.[17]

ObamaCare will do more than detrimentally impact healthcare accessibility. According to the Heritage Foundation, Obama is intentionally sacrificing millions of jobs, at a time when unemployment is around 10%, with the Medicare surtax without any objective exception of increases in revenues.[19] ObamaCare will cost 650,000 U.S. jobs if it is not repealed. The Congressional Budget Office says the figure would be more than 800,000 people would lose their jobs. [20]

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Obama violates principles on which this American government was founded

Obama continues to break the law
Barack Obama, a man who was elected, among other things, on the oft-repeated promise of “open and accountable government”, I would simply ask that you judge this president by his repeated actions. Barack Obama sidesteps the law every time the occasion to do so presents itself. He has openly stated he intends to govern “without Congress” a clear and dangerous violation of the foundational principles on which this American government was founded upon.

The President tried to turn the election issue from the economy to immigration.  Alright, lets see....
The economy is still going down the tubes but with immigration comes border issues and
Operation Fast and Furious.

Department of Defense
INSTRUCTION Number 5525.08

January 3, 2007

SUBJECT: Service by Members of the Armed Forces on State and Local Juries

(a) DoD Directive 5525.8, subject as above, June 13, 1988 (hereby canceled)
(b) Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense memorandum, “DoD Directives Review –
Phase II,” July 13, 2005
(c) DoD Directive 5124.02, “Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness (USD(P&R)),” October 17, 2006
(d) Section 982 of title 10, United States Code
This path to citizenship for immigrants has been on the books for many years. 
So, Obama can not take credit for it.  However, going around the back on congress is something he can take credit for.
June 17, 2012
U.S. economy downshifts to lower gear
Raft of indicators weaken, more of same expected this week


By Jeffry Bartash, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The U.S. economy has clearly slowed. What’s far less clear is
Direct quote from Reince Priebus, Chairman of the Republican Party after viewing the jobs market report for the month of May 2012: “President Obama is working hard to keep his job. It’s just a shame he’s not working as hard to ensure unemployed Americans can find jobs for themselves.” how long the soft patch will last — or whether it turns into a quagmire.
The negative signals are everywhere, most recently in the latest downbeat figures on retail spending, manufacturing production and consumer confidence. See charts of most recent economic data.
This week’s light batch of data surely won’t reverse the trend.
Investors will mainly focus on the ongoing crisis in Europe and the reaction of the Federal Reserve when the central bank meets on Wednesday. There’s a growing sense among economists the Fed will take additional steps to try to boost growth, a notion that most viewed as unlikely just a few weeks ago.
MarketWatch consensus
date report Consensus previous
June 18 Home builders' index 28 29
June 19 Housing starts 722,000 717,000
June 21 Weekly jobless claims 384,000 386,000
June 21 Philly Fed 0.0 -5.8
June 21 Existing home sales 4.60 mln 4.62 mln
June 21 Leading indicators 0.1% -0.1%
The GOP Chair also credited Obama’s “weak leadership.Instead of pursuing policies that would help job creators put Americans back to work, he’s burdened them with ObamaCare, regulations, and continued threats of higher taxes, quoting former Alabama Democratic Congressman and 2008 Obama National Co-Chair Artur Davis, who this week left the Democrat Party: “I have regularly criticized an agenda that would punish businesses and job creators with more taxes just as they are trying to thrive again.”
The Philadelphia Federal Reserve’s survey of regional manufacturing executives could also be telling. In a big surprise, the index plunged last month to herald the slowdown in manufacturing.
Another decline would confirm that U.S. manufacturers are struggling to cope with a global economic downturn that’s hurting American exports.
 By Jerry McConnell Wednesday, June 13, 2012 Direct quote from Reince Priebus, Chairman of the Republican Party after viewing the jobs market report for the month of May 2012: “President Obama is working hard to keep his job. It’s just a shame he’s not working as hard to ensure unemployed Americans can find jobs for themselves.”

This stunning truth was a result of “Market Watch” report of June 01, 2012, by Jeffry Bartash, where it was reported that the woefully weak U.S. economy generated a measly 69,000 jobs in May, 2012, “the fewest number of new jobs in a year” and making it even more miserable was the unwanted accompanying news that the “unemployment rate moved up to 8.2% from 8.1% - the first increase in 11 months.”
Making matters more uncomfortable for Barack Obama, the great ‘promiser’ of a strong recovery, was the timing just FIVE short months from the November 2012 national elections mixing with unfavorable comments from notable members of his own Democratic political party.
GOP Chair Priebus said in his interview on June 01, 2012, that former President Bill Clinton was heaping praise on Obama opponent Mitt Romney for his sterling career while in the private sector and on the following morning, Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip, echoed that sentiment, underscoring the importance of the private sector in growing our economy.
Priebus also commented that “President Obama has failed to live up to the promise of his candidacy. In 2009, he and his team promised an unemployment rate below 6 percent by 2012. We’re far from it.”
Mr. Priebus reminds us “Not only has President Obama presided over a devastating economy, but he also refuses to hold himself accountable for it. In 2009, however, he was singing a different tune. If he didn’t have the economy fixed “in three years,” he promised, his presidency would be a “one-term proposition.”
Now don’t you think that an offer such as that from a person who would have us believe in his messianic makeup, should be accepted after failure to even come close to being successful in his promise? But, how many out there actually believed those pledging promises as opposed to the number who dismissed his asserted vows as ‘just more lies’ from a colossal prevaricator?
Obama’s lack of leadership qualities are nearly equal to his propensity for lying instead of facing realities. Since his very first major attempt to exercise his presidential authorities by foisting the monumental and gigantic nearly trillion dollar bailout bill to answer the growing specter of unemployment which ultimately also failed, he has floundered in shallow waters and attempted to place the blame on everybody and everything but the real culprit - HIMSELF.
The most recent failure to bolster the employed ranks with the paltry gain of 69,000 jobs in tandem with another increase in the unemployment rate gave rise to falling stocks with Dow Jones industrial average falling more than 250 points. This sort of information is to the public like pouring more water on the sinking Titanic. economists had forecast an increase of 165,000 new jobs and the jobless rate to hold steady at 8.1 percent. This latest information took a toll on investors who were already concerned with Europe’s dismal money woes and its effects on our own money markets.
The May 2012 disaster in jobs numbers will most certainly dampen and discourage hopes for a significant uptick in new jobs in the coming months, casting a pall over Democrat hopes for a successful national election campaign. MarketWatch had most economists believing the U. S. was on track to add up to 200,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth, but they have also stated that “at least a 250,000 jobs increase for several years would be required to bring employment back to pre-recession levels.”

April 2, 2009 knowledge of gun program

The rest of the natinal media needs to follow the lead of and focus on what has happened along the border with Mexico.
There has been some coverage and it probably would not have come to light except for CBS News’s initial reporting, but the scandal — and it is a scandal — has mostly flown under the radar.

In fact, the whole war on our Southern border, the kidnappings and killings spilling over into our country, etc. really have not made major, sustained national news.
Katie Pavlich’s book, comes in at 194 pages of text, then copious end notes and indexing, provides all the background you need to know to understand what happened and what is and is not being done.
Here’s the thing — a lot of conservative activists are focused on the scandal, but many have their facts jumbled, which makes it even harder to explain just how terrible a situation it is. Katie focuses on the facts, explains what happened, and has really produced a good primer on the subject for anyone in the press or activist community who wants to understand the extent of Operation Fast and Furious.

43 weapons in Phoenix traffic stop linked to ATF strategy
PHOENIX - The ABC15 Investigators have linked an additional 43 weapons recovered during a Phoenix traffic stop to the controversial Fast and Furious ATF case.
According to court paperwork, Phoenix Drug Enforcement Administration agents discovered the guns in mid-April. They pulled over a vehicle near 83rd Avenue and Interstate 10, near the Phoenix and Tolleson border.
Documents filed in federal court reveal five suspects named in the case are accused of conspiring to possess and distribute “500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine…”
Four of the suspects are listed as undocumented immigrants. The fifth suspect had been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa, according to court documents.
Posted: 09/08/2011
PHOENIX - The ABC15 Investigators have learned a weapon connected to the controversial Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Fast and Furious case was found at the scene of a 2010 violent crime in Maricopa, AZ.
Bart Graves, a spokesperson for the Arizona Department of Public Safety, confirms officers found two weapons, an AK-47 and a Beretta pistol, inside a stolen truck in March 2010 after a driver trying to evade members of the Arizona Vehicle Theft Task Force slammed the stolen vehicle into two DPS vehicles.
The AK-47 is linked to the Fast and Furious case, according to the ATF.
Last week, the Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich said three weapons linked to the Fast and Furious case were used in violent crimes in the United States.
Two of the weapons turned up at the Arizona murder scene of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
As part of the Fast and Furious case, Phoenix ATF agents recently testified that they knowingly allowed weapons to slip into the hands of straw buyers who would then distribute the weapons to known criminals.
Police arrested the driver of the stolen truck where the AK-47 was found, Angel Hernandez Diaz, on March 4, 2010.
According to court paperwork , he’s accused of and charged with multiple crimes, including unlawful flight from a pursuing law enforcement vehicle, aggravated assault on an officer with a dangerous instrument or deadly weapon, theft of means of transportation, and misconduct involving a weapon.
Posted: 03/30/2012
PHOENIX - The special state committee, created in January to investigate the controversial ATF Fast and Furious case, will not meet its March 30, 2012 deadline to provide its findings about the controversial case to the governor.
According to Rey Torres, the Director of Communications for the Arizona House of Representatives, the Ad Hoc Committee on Operation Fast and Furious has not yet held a meeting and currently has no meeting scheduled.
The group was formed to investigate the factual background of the flawed Fast and Furious case , in which ATF agents admitted to allowing straw buyers to obtain weapons and distribute them to known criminals .
Torres said it is unlikely that a meeting will be scheduled before the legislative session is finished sometime next month.
According to Rep. David Burnell Smith, the committee chairman, the group will aim for June 2012 as a new target date for delivering a report to the governor.
The ABC15 Investigators have obtained a police report, audio recordings, and photographs of a weapon linked to the Fast and Furious case after it turned up at a crime scene in Maricopa, AZ in March 2010 .
According to an Arizona Department of Public Safety police report, members of a special vehicle theft task force were attempting to pull over a truck that had been stolen from Avondale when the driver fled and then pointed a handgun at an officer.
According to the police report, the driver, Angel Hernandez-Diaz, also had an AK-47 semi-automatic assault rifle in his possession during the vehicle chase.
The AK-47, according to the ATF, is linked to the Fast and Furious case.
 Today’s Washington Post, reports that Attorney General Holder has rejected the legal opinion of the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that the so-called D.C. voting-rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional. According to the article, the new OLC — led by deputies (including very liberal legal academics) selected and appointed by the Obama administration — reached the same conclusion that OLC had reached under the Bush administration two years ago: The bill is unconstitutional. But dissatisfied with this answer, Holder turned to the Solicitor General’s office to ask it the very different question whether it “could defend the legislation if it were challenged after its enactment.”
I’m glad to see Obama is focused on the most important issues of the day.

Holder wasn’t asking the SG’s office for its best view on whether or not the bill was constitutional (a role that belongs to OLC, not to the SG). He was asking it merely whether the position that the bill is constitutional is so beyond the pale, so beyond plausible defense, so legally frivolous, that the SG’s office, under its traditional commitment to defend any Act of Congress for which any reasonable defense can be offered, wouldn’t be able to defend it in court. And based on the virtually meaningless answer from the SG’s office that it could defend the legislation, Holder overrode the OLC opinion.
At his confirmation hearing, Holder promised not to politicize DOJ’s legal positions. As the Post’s article reports:
We don’t change OLC opinions simply because a new administration takes over,” he said. “The review that we would conduct would be a substantive one and reflect the best opinions of probably the best lawyers in the department as to where the law would be, what their opinions should be. It will not be a political process, it will be one based solely on our interpretation of the law.
From today’s Post story, it appears that on the D.C. voting-rights bill Holder has ignored the “best opinions of probably the best lawyers in the department as to where the law would be, what their opinions should be” and has imposed a “political process” designed to advance his, and the Obama administration’s, policy position in favor of giving D.C. a vote in the House of Representatives.

Taxpayers get the bill for ‘free’ gov’t cell phones
Between 2008 and 2011, the budget appropriated for the nation’s food stamps program more than doubled — from $35 billion to $75 billion. But providing food for the poor is only part of the federal government’s efforts to help those less fortunate.
A taxpayer-funded program called Lifeline also provides free phones and minutes to anyone receiving food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, Head Start and several other government programs. This “phone stamps” program reportedly costs taxpayers $2.1 billion each year. And without major reforms, the FCC predicts the cost of Lifeline will reach $3.3 billion by 2014.
Breitbart’s John Sexton rightly wonders why American consumers are providing free cell phones to 10 million people in the first place:
As you can see in this video report from a Chicago ABC affiliate, some people signing up for these free phones are doing so to replace cell phones they already have (and have to pay for). If the goal is really to connect individuals to essential services such as fire and police, FCC rules already mandate that carriers transmit those calls along with detailed location information regardless of whether an individual has service with a carrier or not. Given our debt and our deficits, it is time to consider hanging up on this booming, fraud-ridden Lifeline to taxpayer’s wallets.

Sunday, June 10, 2012

Obama and the Keynesian play book

America Remains in Recession

 The Obama administration has been claiming an economic recovery now for 3 years. There was the 2009 Recovery Summer. This led to the Recovery Summer of 2010, which continued into the summer of 2011. In order to be able to make a plausible claim that the economy is recovering, there needs to be empirical data that supports the contention that there is an actual “economic recovery” occurring. Two pieces of economic data that is indicative of economic growth are employment and income. Other information necessary to correctly analyze the data is inflation and the value of the dollar.
The so-called economic recovery has been the slowest since the Great Depression. This is an important factor to understand the velocity and direction of the current economic recovery, in that the same economic Keynesian play book, used by President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression, is currently being deployed by President Obama.

From 1930 on through 1936 the federal government attempted to “create” jobs through “stimulus” spending. Under FDR, the stimulus spending on “infrastructure”, which is similar to the one trillion dollars in failed stimulus spending on “shovel ready” infrastructure projects under Obama, was claimed by FDR to be working in creating jobs.
However, in 1937 another recession/depression began within the depression, which is precisely where we stand today under the non-recovery economic recovery Obama and his administration, along with the media, are claiming. The problem arose because the government spending programs were not actually improving the economy because there was no “recovery” underway. The jobs that were created under FDR were temporary government centric jobs that did not increase demand or stimulate consumer spending, which is precisely what is occurring today.
In 2011 the Christmas spending was up, however it was up because people increased their debt spending through credit cards. This is precisely what Obama has been doing, spending money on credit. Debt spending is not indicative of a strong growing economy.
Unemployment in 2011, as calculated by the federal government fell from 9 percent in November 2011 to the current level of 8.6 percent. However, the reason that the number declined .4 percent was due to a corresponding decrease in the number of people looking for employment. In other words, even though the number of people unemployed is up and the number of people looking for work is down the government does not count people as unemployed unless they are looking for work.
In 2012, the unemployment outlook is not going to be improving. Large companies such as Bank of American and IBM, will be laying off more employees, as will other large corporations. However, these layoffs aside, the current unemployment rate when calculating in all unemployed Americans is approximately 11 percent.

However, one of the most important factors in improving consumer spending and confidence is workers income. During the recession from 2007 to 2009 income declined by 3.2 percent. When you calculate the devaluation of the dollar, inflation and investment losses the negative impact on workers confidence and spending habits was devastating, because consumer spending accounts for between 60 to 70 percent American economic activity.
During the Obama “economic recovery” between 2009 and 2011 the average American worker’s individual income has declined 6.7 percent according to a research report issued by Sentier Research.
Also occurring in 2011 the U.S. dollar was devalued between 5 to 10 percent during the year and inflation was up by at least 5 percent when calculating gasoline prices increasing 23 percent as well as food and commodity price increases of over 10 percent. The devaluation of the dollar coupled with inflation and the decline in income substantially reduces consumer purchasing power. This leads to lower consumption and consumer demand and the demand that is there is focused on lower end, lower quality and lower cost products.
Therefore, during the recession income fell 3.2 percent and during the recovery income declined over twice as much - 6.7 percent. Hence, personal income has declined nearly 10 percent from 2007 to 2011. This is the equivalent of the prices of everything you buy including mortgages, rent, utilities and food increasing in price by 10 percent. Couple this with two other economic phenomenon, increasing inflation along with dollar devaluation, and you have an economy that is in a recession and not recovery.

by:  Burton Folsom, Jr.

FDR and Obama
President Obama, who often cites FDR, followed his example of targeting spending to interest groups. He signed into law a $787 billion stimulus package that sent tax dollars to various cities and voting groups across the nation. He later supported an expensive “jobs bill” that would send money into key congressional districts. The President also campaigned for a cap-and-trade bill and universal health coverage, both of which promised to increase the federal debt substantially. In fact, the increase in federal debt under Obama and Roosevelt is similar. The national debt more than doubled in Roosevelt’s first two terms, and it is projected to double again in eight to ten years.

Spending fails. After the large increases in federal spending under Roosevelt and Obama, unemployment remained high. In the 1930s unemployment fluctuated, but recovery never occurred. In April 1939, toward the end of Roosevelt’s second term, unemployment was almost 21 percent. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau complained, “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.” Nonetheless, almost all of FDR’s programs continued—usually with annual budget increases.
When Obama took office unemployment was at 8 percent, and in the next year it steadily increased to over 10 percent before falling back just under that mark. He and his advisers were puzzled that large spending increases did not slash unemployment, and he argued that his spending was saving jobs that would otherwise have been lost.

Critics of Roosevelt and Obama insisted that it was impossible to spend our way out of a recession. During the New Deal, economics writer Henry Hazlitt observed that public-works spending destroyed as many jobs as it created. “Every dollar of government spending must be raised through a dollar of taxation,” Hazlitt emphasized. If the Works Progress Administration builds a $10 million bridge, for example, “the bridge has to be paid for out of taxes. . . . Therefore for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else.”

Tax rates raised. During the Great Depression Roosevelt raised both income and excise taxes. In 1935, with FDR’s push, the top marginal tax rate hit 79 percent. Few paid that rate, but thousands of Americans were in the 50-percent bracket. Entrepreneurs had to hand over more than half of any income above a certain level. Facing disincentives to make capital investments, many entrepreneurs used their wealth cautiously—investing in tax-exempt bonds, art collections, and foreign banks. Little wealth went into creating jobs, so high unemployment persisted. During World War II FDR raised taxes further, to 94 percent on all income over $200,000.

quote by Margaret Thatcher: 'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. '
Most of the tax hikes under Obama are planned for the future. Thus far we have seen proposed tax hikes on products such as cigarettes, liquor, plane tickets, and soft drinks. He wants the tax cuts enacted under President Bush to expire. That will mean a spike in the capital gains tax, the income tax, and the estate tax. As FDR showed, tax hikes eventually follow large spending increases.

Scapegoats.  The sequence of massive federal spending followed by a lack of recovery plus tax hikes is poison for a politician. Therefore Roosevelt sought scapegoats to explain his failure. Wall Street bankers were his favorites. He called them “economic royalists” and blamed them for causing the Great Depression. He also blamed America’s top businessmen for instigating a “capital strike”—they were refusing to invest in order to make him look bad. FDR then launched IRS investigations of key Republicans and used the newspapers to encourage hostility toward these targets.

Obama has followed FDR’s playbook of attacking Wall Street bankers and various corporate leaders. He condemns the raises these bankers sometimes receive and the profits earned by some large oil companies and health insurance companies.

Such emphasis on “class warfare” may be an inevitable part of redistributing wealth from one group to another. Perhaps Roosevelt and Obama believed that by increasing envy and resentment toward some Americans, they could capture the votes of larger groups of Americans and thereby win reelection (in FDR’s case there is evidence of this). True, this strategy guarantees that many wealthy Americans will attack any president who uses class warfare, but the campaign for redistribution will always supply large amounts of money to subsidize favored groups.

About the Author Burton Folsom, Jr. is a professor of history at Hillsdale College and FEE’s senior historian.

Civilian Unemployment Rate (UNRATE)
2012-05: 8.2 Percent Last 5 Observations
Monthly, Seasonally Adjusted, Updated: 2012-06-01  
Graph of Civilian Unemployment Rate

Debt Outstanding Domestic Nonfinancial Sectors - Household, Home
Mortgage Sector (HHMSDODNS)
2012:Q1: 9,747.04 Billions of Dollars Last 5 Observations
Quarterly, End of Period, Seasonally Adjusted, Updated: 2012-06-08) 
Graph of Debt Outstanding Domestic Nonfinancial Sectors - Household, Home Mortgage Sector

Delinquency Rate On Single-Family Residential Mortgages, Booked 
In Domestic Offices, All Commercial Banks (DRSFRMACBS)
2012:Q1: 10.18 Percent Last 5 Observations
Quarterly, End of Period, Seasonally Adjusted, Updated: 2012-05-23) 
Graph of Delinquency Rate On Single-Family Residential Mortgages, Booked In Domestic Offices, All Commercial Banks

hyperinflation 1 300x177 Get your hands on the governments playbook

The government’s playbook

  July 4, 2011
In this bubblicious world of trillion dollar deficits, sovereign bailouts, and fiscal stimulus measures of historical proportions, there is one economist whose theories and underlying philosophy underpin the foundation of modern macroeconomics.

His name is John Maynard Keynes, and his most famous work, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936) has become the playbook from which politicians and central bankers are making their trillion dollar decisions.

Just about every politician knows the name Keynes. Most would consider themselves “Keynesian” in that they believe in government spending as a means to maintain economic stability. Few have actually read his book. And yet even fewer realize that Keynes was a major advocate of Soviet-style central planning.

Among the many fascist viewpoints in his General Theory, Keynes argued that:
1) A high rate of interest which encourages saving is bad for society. Consumption and borrowing must be promoted. In fact, high interest rates are to blame for why “the world after several millennia of steady individual saving, is so poor…”

2) Consequently, the government should make money cheap, controlling interest rates with a target level of zero. Further, the government should never deliberately increase rates as inflation will not set in “until unemployment has completely disappeared.”

3) Even if inflation should happen to appear, it’s likely due to the “arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes…” As such, the better solution to control prices and keep the boom going is to simply impose high income and death taxes in order to make a more economically just society.

4) If the boom starts to fade and low interest rates aren’t doing the job, it is the role of the government to step in and ‘invest’ obscene amounts of money to stimulate growth. Only the government is capable of doing this, as “the duty of ordering the current volume of investment cannot safely be left in private hands.”

5) As Keynes favored “a somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment,” he recognized that such complex decisions of investing other people’s money would be “above the heads of the vast mass of more or less illiterate voters.”

6) Not to worry, though, these key decision makers of the state-run economy will have the right “moral position,” so it’s just a question of making sure that the right people are directing the economy.

7) In the event of a crisis, the answer is simple. A government should simply borrow and spend more. In a 1934 article for Redbook magazine entitled “Can America Spend Its Way into Recovery,” Keynes opened with “Why, obviously!”

8 ) If the crisis doesn’t abate after substantial spending an interest rate cuts, Keynes blames these continued problems on not following his advice closely enough: “[A]uthorities of the world have lacked the courage or conviction at each stage of the decline to apply the available remedies in sufficiently drastic doses.”

I could go on, but I don’t want to spoil the ending where the entire global financial system collapses as a result of following these ridiculous policies.

In terms of economic philosophy, very little separated Keynes from Lenin. Keynes even praised Lenin when he wrote, “Let us not belittle these magnificent experiments or refuse to learn from them… the Five Year Plan in Russia, the Corporative state in Italy…”
And yet, this is the man who is held up by world leaders as the architect for economic bliss. Politicians and central bankers are calling his plays almost verbatim– enormous stimulus packages where volume and quantity are all that matter, quality counts for nothing; interest rates at zero; spending your way out of recession; borrowing your way out of debt…
It’s absolutely mind-boggling how modern governments have built such an apparatus to control their economies and run them into the ground. Ironically, each time a crisis occurs, these regulatory agencies, central banks, and executive powers are granted even more authority. This only makes things worse.

Sure enough, in the “Seventh Quarterly Report” that President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors released on Friday (right before a long weekend, naturally), the numbers show that the administration’s Keynesian stimulus spending has saved 2.4 million jobs at a cost of $666 billion. That’s a total of $278,000 per job, all at taxpayer expense.
In the world of Keynes where debt does matter and inflation doesn’t exist, this number is completely acceptable, right comrades? In the real world, it’s further evidence of how horrific misallocations of capital are bankrupting the economy.

To Keynes, people who work hard to create value cannot be entrusted with their own money. It must be confiscated by politicians for them to invest with the utmost objectivity and expertise, all for the benefit of society as they define in their sole discretion. And if they falter, we must reward them with even more power to tax, print, borrow, and spend.
This is the underlying philosophy of the man whose ideas have driven global macroeconomics for the last 60+ years… and continue to create inflation, bubbles, and economic ruin.