America's Newest Addiction

America is about to take her first “hit” of a very dangerous, addictive, opiate drug called “socialized medicine”.   Our President and the liberal left Democrat majority have started this nation on a pathway to addiction and Obamacare is the gateway drug.  We are no longer “unique” as a nation.  Tomorrow, when President Obama signs the Health Insurance Reform legislation into law, we will join the likes of other addict nations such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, China, and Russia.  Instead of being a unique nation in world – a nation “Of the People, by the People, and for the People” -  we will join the ranks of the “governed nations”; a nation of lemmings looking to our government for answers that it simply cannot supply. 

We have been told time and time again by Pres. Obama,  Sen. Reid, and Speaker Pelosi that this legislation is about insuring the 30-40 million uninsured Americans.  But, is that what this legislation is truly about?  To quote House Minority Leader John Boehner, “HELL NO!”   Really people, stop and think about it.  We could have done exactly that for a heck of a lot less than what this legislation is costing us and the generations to come.  Instead, we have legislation that, by this administration’s own estimates, will be just $60 billion short of $1 Trillion dollars; and that is with collecting taxes for 10 years but paying benefits for only 6 years.  Heck, we could have deposited $1 million dollars in a medical savings account for each of these 30-40 million so-called uninsured Americans at a total cost of $40 million dollars and saved ourselves $900 billion dollars as a result! (Of course I’m not advocating that, but I think you get my point)  So, how can anyone claim this is about insuring the uninsured? 

Well, you ask, if it’s not about insuring the uninsured then exactly what is this legislation all about?  Look no further than other countries with socialized medicine to find that out.  Socialized medicine has never delivered the health care utopia its proponents claim.  What it does deliver is an entire nation of people that are dependent on the government to meet their needs.  Once a government has its citizens dependent on it to deliver their basic needs, then the party that promises more and more benefits will get more and more power – no matter what the cost in terms of tax dollars or individual freedoms for future generations. 

No, this is not about the health care needs of the American people.  This is about the political power needs of this President and his Democrat party.  This legislation is the opiate that will lead to an addiction by the common citizen –  like that of a child born to a cocaine addicted mother; not addicted by choice, but addicted nonetheless.

However, it is not just the people that will be addicted.  The politicians will be addicted as well.  To stay in power they will have to give the appearance of giving more and more to the people.  Like an addict, they will know that what they are doing is destructive to the body of America.  But they will not be able to stop.  They will occasionally make an effort to curtail their addiction, they will make impassioned promises, they will plead for trust, and they may even kick-the-habit for a time.  But it won’t be long before they are back on the “stuff” again.

Some of you are reading this with disbelief – you are thinking to yourself that I must be wrong.  Well, I’m not wrong… and I can prove it.

I hold up to you as proof our Medicare system – the proverbial “third rail” of the federal political system.  Everyone knows it’s bankrupt.  Everyone knows the money is simply not there to sustain it.  Everyone knows… the people who currently receive its benefits, those who will one day receive its benefits, and the government that administrates it benefits.  Yet no one is willing to change it.  Why – because the beneficiaries NEED it and the politicians NEED it.  Is this not the behavior of an addict?   We can say same the same for Social Security.

This is not an American phenomenon either.  My wife and I had visitors from Canada this summer.  It was a great opportunity for me to ask them how they liked their socialized medicine.  I was particularly interested in speaking with them because I knew the wife needed gallbladder surgery, a routine surgery that is normally performed here on an outpatient basis and usually within a week of having a diagnosis.  As for her, she waited in agony for well over a year before the surgery was performed. 

So I asked her and her husband, “How do you like your Canadian Socialized Medicine.”   Their response stunned me, “We love it – we would not want to do without it.” 

So I dug deeper asking the woman, “Didn’t you have to wait a very long time for your gallbladder surgery?”  Her response, “Well, not so long really.”  Now, I know through family members that she waited nearly 18 months to have her operation and that she was in agony during that time. 

I pressed on, “What about doctors and nurses.  Are there enough to go around or are they leaving the field?”  Their reply, “More and more are leaving the field of medicine.  There is a real shortage of doctors and nurses in Canada.”

I could not believe it.  These were seemingly rational people giving me completely irrational responses:

• I had to wait 18 months for surgery to stop my pain and agony – but that was not too long
• There are not enough trained people in the field of medicine – and more and more doctors and nurses are leaving the profession
• I love the system and could not do without it.

This lines up with the psychology of a drug addict:

• I know I’m in physical, psychological, and spiritual agony and I know this drug is causing it
• I know the cost of this drug is preventing me from caring properly for myself and my family
• I love this drug and could not do without it.

We look with compassion on the drug addict and try to find them help – and many do get help and learn to live a “clean” life.  But, where is the Twelve Step Program for a nation state?  Where is the Twelve Step Program for a people so addicted to their government entitlement programs that they are willing to say, “Oh, I only had to wait in pain and agony for 18 months before I got the surgery I needed, but that’s alright”?   Where’s the Twelve Step Program for the political party willing to sacrifice the future of our children for their “power fix” today.

America is about to takes her first “hit” of a very dangerous, addictive, opiate called “socialized medicine” – and the drug pushers reside in the Executive and Legislative Branches of our government.

Some of us are old enough to remember Layaway programs.  They used to be all the rage before this country became addicted first to department store revolving charges and later to credit cards.  When you bought something on Layaway, you made a small deposit and the store kept the merchandise while you made a number of payments.  Once the item was paid for in full, you took it home.   I remember trying on winter coat after winter coat in the middle of the hot summer so my parents could retrieve it from layaway before the snow started to fall. 

Well, what the Senate healthcare legislation proposes is Healthcare Layaway.  We get to pay for this massive, multi-trillion dollar entitlement over a period of about four years; then we get to take it home.  As a bonus, we then get to continue to pay, and pay, and pay.  That’s the sliding-scale math the CBO had to use to in their analysis; ten years of payments for 5 years of expenses.  And that my friends is how Pres. Obama says we will reduce the deficit by $190B over ten years. 

Listen to what he is selling here.  Ten years of payments, the first four of which we will not receive the benefits we are paying for, and the deficit will be reduced by some fantasy number.  That begs the question:  Is the President telling us that those first fiveyears of payments are not being set aside for healthcare benefits and instead will be used to reduce the deficit?   What happens after that?  Well, the Republicans asked the CBO to score “the rest of the story” (wink and a nod to the late Paul Harvey).

When you score the legislation over fourteen years (first five years of taxes with no benefits, + 10 years of taxes with benefits) instead of reducing the deficit, we add close to $3 trillion dollars to it. In other words, this is a known deficit buster.  We know going in that the system they are proposing can not and will not be sustainable.  This is maddness.

Hmmm… so what we really have here is a Federal Healthcare Layaway Program where the payments go on and on, AND we continue to pile on more debt.  Don’t people in the private sector go to jail for these kind of ponzi schemes?

This was in response to a question about Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ remarks regarding Pres. Obama’s State of the Union comments pertaining to the recent Supreme Court Decision on campaign finance; comments that broke with both tradition and decorum.  During the Q&A session following a speech at the University of Alabama, Chief Justice Roberts said the following in response to a student’s question:

“So I have no problems with that,” he said. “On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.”

Of course, Gibbs completely ignored the part in Robert’s comments about the appropriateness of the time and place of Pres. Obama’s remarks on a decision made by one of the Constitutional Branches of our government.  Instead, he showed real concern about the voice of the little guy – you and me; how touching.

Hey, this might actually be a breakthrough for this administration.  I’m wondering if our President will start to pay attention to the voice of the people on the proposed healthcare legislation.  Maybe he will show genuine concern for the fact that the latest Rasmussen poll shows that:

• 81% of voters say the current healthcare reform legislation will cost more then the government projections.
• 57% say the legislation will hurt the economy while only 25% think the plan will help the economy
• 66% believe the legislation will add to the budget deficit
• 78% believe that taxes will go up on the middle-class as a result of this legislation

I guess I’m feeling a little bit like the people from Who-ville in the Dr. Seuss book “Horton Hears a Who”.  Could it be that Pres. Obama will perk-up his pachyderm-like ears and finally hear the faint voice of the American people exclaiming, “We’re here, and were not buying what you’re selling!”

I came across this site today, the Kaiser Family Foundation site,  that has couple of really nice tools to help a taxpayer consider the various health care reform bills currently working their way through both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate.

One tool is the cost calculator and the other is a side-by-side health reform comparison tool. 

On the cost calculator, select the “No” option for the question “Is Employer Coverage Available?”  This will show you what the selected legislation will cost those individuals or families who will be required by law to purchase health care insurance.  It will also show you how much you will have to pay if/when your employer drops your health care insurance coverage as a result of this legislation. 

I compared the results from the calculator with an analysis from Heritage Foundation of the Baucus bill and found the results to be consistent.

Think your employer paid health care is safe… think again.  For example:  Why is it that unions throughout all sectors of the economy are supportive of this health care reform?  The answer to that is simple and self-serving.  For over a decade now, wages have pretty much been stagnant with many increases being at or below the cost of living.  One reason is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate higher wages as the cost of providing health care insurance has risen sharply.  Unions would like nothing more than to see health insurance be taken over by the Federal Government and dropped by employers.  This way, they can improve their bargaining position for higher wages.  Higher wages for union employees equals higher dues for the unions.  Of course, the employee then has to pick up the cost of health care insurance.  This may or may not be off-set by higher wages and, depending on your level of income, some government subsidies.  But at the end of the day, the union employee will pay higher dues, higher taxes, more out-of-pocket health care costs, etc.  This is not a win-win scenario for the union and the union employee.

In a perfect world, the employment rate would be high enough where employers would have to be highly competitive in the wages and benefit packages they offer in order to attract the most qualified employees.  But, the current economic climate is such where employers are not having to compete for the best talent.  And with higher deficits, higher taxes, and higher costs due to more regulation and mandates (cap-and-trade for example) it does not appear that we are in for an economic climate improvement anytime soon.  Employers looking to cut costs to survive would be crazy not to look at dropping health care insurance coverage.

I would encourage you to consider the “what could this cost me” scenario if your employer was to drop the employer based health care insurance coverage to determine not only what this will cost you today, but what it could cost you tomorrow.  Then, formulate your opinion based on the realities of your family budget and contact your Senator and Representative to let them know your position.

This health care insurance reform is a massive new federal entitlement, with massive subsidies that are funded by massive tax increases and the gutting of Medicare.  By all measures, this is a bad idea that will have both long and short-term implications.  I firmly believe that people want to do the compassionate thing here, but it is not prudent to allow our desire to be compassionate to blur our vision of reality and blind us to unintended consequences.

In his book “Money, Greed and God – Why Capitalism is the Solution and Not the Problem”, author Jay W. Richards points out that for much of U.S. history, “the federal government cost every citizen about twendy dollars a year” – and that is in “today’s” dollars.  He goes on to say, “Now it costs every one of us, on average, about then thousand dollars.”  You would think that with the trillions of dollars we have spent on the war on poverty through entitlement programs, we would have something to show for it.  Well, we do – according to Richards, studies have shown:

• Welfare benefits have resulted in reduced work hours (9% less for husbands, 20% less for wives, and 43% less for single males)
• One study shows that for every dollar spent on subsidised income results in 80 cents reduction in labor earnings.
• Another study shows that 10% increase in welfare benefits resulted in a 12% increase in out-of-wedlock births.
• Yet another study showed that a 50% increase in AFDC and food stamps led to a 43% increase in out-of-wedlock births. 

The single leading indicator for children being raised in poverty is children that are born out-of-wedlock. 

These studies reveal the unintended consequences of “government mandated compassion” – the term itself is an oxymoron.  Compassion implies we suffer alongside – massive federal programs do not suffer alongside.  Instead, they replace people closest to the concern with bureaucratic programs that can not consider the individual need – instead they paint with a broad paintbrush grouping people into ”classes” based on certain criteria.  The further we remove compassionate efforts to lend a helping-hand from the individual and individual responsibility, the more likely it is that there will be unintended consequences.  Aristotle put it this way – “If you want to encourage something, reward it.  If you want to discourage it, punish it.”

To limit the unintended consequences, it is best that assistance come through those that have the best understanding of actual, real needs of an individual or family.  This means that the first line of help is the individual in need (what are they doing to help themselves), followed by the family, then by local charities/churches, then the larger communities of city, county, state, federal, and international organizations.  The further you get from the individual, the effectiveness of assistance drops because the understanding of individual needs also drops.  When effectiveness and understanding of needs drop, the likelyhood of unintended consequences will increase.  This is one reason I financially support organizations – like World Vision – that put people in the community to help those in need.  They don’t simply throw money at a problem, they put boots on the ground, build community, and work to raise the standard of living through real compassion – suffering alongside for the purpose of lifting up.

Here in Detroit, the Federal Government dropped a $15.2 million of federal tax dollars through the T.A.R.P. legislation for the purpose of helping those who were about to lose their homes.  Over a couple of days, some 65,000 people lined up outside Cobo Hall to apply for a grant – ultimately only about 3,500 are expected to receive one.  Ken Rogulski of WJR Radio in Detroit interviewed a number of applicants.  One such applicant responded to his questions this way:

ROGULSKI: “Why are you here?”
WOMAN #1: “To get some money.”
ROGULSKI: “What kind of money?”
WOMAN #1: “Obama money.”
ROGULSKI: “Where’s it coming from?”
WOMAN #1: “Obama.”
ROGULSKI: “And where did Obama get it?”
WOMAN #1: “I don’t know, his stash. I don’t know. (laughter) I don’t know where he got it from, but he givin’ it to us, to help us.”
WOMAN #2: “And we love him.”
WOMAN #1: “We love him. That’s why we voted for him!”
WOMEN: (chanting) “Obama! Obama! Obama!”

Now, I realize that in that crowd of 65,000 people there are many who need and deserve assistance.  At the same time, one can not ignore the reality either.  This program does little or nothing to attack the real problems facing those in line.  Essentially, the Federal Government borrowed $15.2 million dollars from foreign governments (that we and our children will have to pay back) to drop into this program where only a handful of people will receive any assistance.  Of that hand-full, there is no real chance of the Federal Government truly understands the individual needs of the family they are trying to help.  Perhaps that real help is not throwing thousands of dollars at a housing problem.  Perhaps the real problem is the need for real accountability on a drug addiction, or a real need for job training, or a real need for medical assistance.  My point is that this is not compassion at all.  Instead this is a cold-hearted bureaucratic process assuming it knows best how to meet the needs of a hand-full of individuals.

Massive federal entitlement programs are the least effective way of addressing real need.  They take billions and billions of dollars out of the hands of taxpayers to fund these programs.  These dollars are filtered through layers and layers of bureaucracy – each one syphoning off more and more funds to pay for the bureaucracy itself.  In turn, the taxpayer now has less of the money they earned, money they could have used to help family members or to fund local charities that are closer to the people and therefore closer to the problem.  Money that could be applied directly where the rubber hits the road.

Families will be subsidized on a sliding scale based on the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).  As an example, a family of four with total combined income of $30,000 (100-150% of FPL) will receive total subsidies of $13,600 a year to pay for health care insurance and related out-of-pocket expenses.  This is tax dollars being taken from one family and given to another.  The table below shows how that sliding scale would work.

A family of four earning just $66,000 a year are required to pay out-of-pocket $13,300 a year.  That works out to be over $1,100 a month.  That is after they get help from the government.  Earn more than 350% of the FPL and you can expect to pay the full $16,500 a year and more.

Refuse to anti-up, and you will face a fine of up to $3,800 a year.  Refuse to pay the fine and you can be fined an additional $250,000 and imprisoned for 1 year.

I raised a family of four at one point we had a combined income in the $66K a year range.  I can tell you, we did not live extravagantly.  We rented for housing, we had a used car, and we had no credit cards.  There was no way that I could have found an additional $1,100 a month to pay for health care insurance – no way!  Let’s be clear – $66,000 a year is $5,500 a month.  From this, the family can expect to pay taxes, food, housing, utilities, transportation, clothing… the usual expenses.  Under the Baucus Bill, the family in this category is mandated by this legislation to pay approximately 20% of their income towards health care insurance and related expenses.

How out-of-touch are our elected officials?  How does reducing a family’s income by 25% make health care affordable?  This is going to kill those families running small businesses; the independent contractor, the accountant, the mechanic.  This is nonsense at a scale that has been unseen in this nation’s history.  It’s nothing but a huge transfer of wealth on the backs of the middle-class.

This new entitlement program is going to suck out whatever life is left in this economy.  This bill must be killed!

[1] Congressional Budget Office Report, An Analysis of Premiums Under the Chairman’s Mark of the America’s Healthy Future Act, Sept. 22, 2009

[2] The Heritage Foundation: Baucus Bill – a big cost for taxpayers by Dennis Smith Oct. 6, 2009

We’ve heard a lot about change over the past three years; first during a two + year presidential campaign and now 9 months into the presidency of the Barak Obama.  On the domestic front, the ideas on the table from the left:

• Cap and Trade
• Massive Health Care Reform
• Repeal of the Bush tax cuts
• T.A.R.P.

Just to name a few…

Of the above, only T.A.R.P – an $780 billion economic stimulus package – has been enacted.  This legislation was so massive in scope and so out of control that even today legislators are “surprised” by its content.  Why?  Because by their own admission they did not, and could not, have read the bill before the House and Senate leadership brought it to the floor for a vote.  The President, his Treasury Secretary, and congressional leadership had everyone whipped into a panicked frenzy with claims that if this legislation was not passed in days the entire world economy would collapse. 

So, it passed, and the deficit ballooned, and the money is rolling out and the results are pouring in.  Month after month, the unemployment rate continues to rise – e.g. reaching 9.8% nationally just yesterday (17% if you include the underemployed and those who have just stopped looking for work).  Month after month, businesses continue to fail – e.g. GM announces the closing of Saturn this week. 

Saturday, during the Defending The American Dream Summit sponsored by American’s For Prosperity, CNBC’s Larry Kudlow said. “Look, if it (T.A.R.P) was going to work, it would have worked by now.”  In Kudlow’s opinion, T.A.R.P. is already a failed, massive, government intervention into the free market and our society. 

Regardless if you agree with Kudlow’s assessment or not, one thing is true:  Irrespective of the success or failure of T.A.R.P. to stimulate our economy, our children and grand-children are going to have to foot the bill.  To me, that is simply irresponsible on our part to allow that to happen.

According to Senator Demint (R – SC):  “This year alone, the Senate has passed a $787 billion stimulus, a $350 billion Wall Street bailout extension, a $400 billion earmark-infested omnibus spending bill, a $109 billion loan to the International Monetary Fund, $6 billion to federalize charities and pay volunteers, $3 billion for cash for clunkers, $400 million in corporate welfare to help tourism corporations advertise overseas, and a $4 billion bailout of the Postal Service.” [1]

Given the apparent dismal, albeit short, track record of this administration, would it not be helpful if we were able to test their ideas before implementing them?  After all, don’t we test drugs before we give them to humans to cure them and don’t we test cars before we give them to drivers to drive them?  So, before we try to fix or drive our economy/health care/environment, would it not be a good idea to test these ideas before our legislators vote on concepts (not content) and implement change blindly?

Fortunately, the ideas being proposed by the Democrats in charge in Washington D.C. have in fact been tried and we have the ability to examine the results.  For example, California has implemented Cap in Trade and the Federal legislation passed by the U.S. House and under consideration by the U.S. Senate.  So, how’s it going in California – and elsewhere – where Cap and Trade has been implemented?

According to the Legal Planet, a blog run by UCLA’s Berkeley Law School (hardly a conservative think-tank), Cap and Trade laws have a dismal track record where ever they have been implemented.  In his article, “Cap and trade: it’s never worked, so let’s try it on a massive scale”, the author Ethan Elkind points out that the failure is the result of the lack of ability for government(s) to effectively legislate and administer environmental change with the resulting outcome being only massive tax increases and manipulation of so-called Cap and Trade markets [2].  Elkind’s position is supported by a law suit recently filed by several environmental advocacy groups against the California Air Resources Board (CARB) – the agency charged with implementing California’s Can and Trade Law – claiming that the government is failing to meet the objectives of the legislation [3].

So, if Cap and Trade laws have failed because governments, for a number of reasons, have been unable to implement them in a way to achieve the desired outcomes, then why are we moving forward to implementing them on a national scale with one economic analysis after another warning of massive job loss to India and China along with massive tax increases and massive negative economic impact on both businesses and individuals.

This is not the kind of change we need.

Footnotes:

[1] Washington Politicians’ Most Titanic Lie The Washington Examiner, Oct. 1, 2009 by Sen. Jim DeMint

[2] Cap and trade: it’s never worked, so let’s try it on a massive scale; Legal Planet, the Environmental Legal and Policy Blog, by Ethan Elkind

[3] Lawsuit alleges California’s cap-and-trade plan fails to minimize GHG emissions; Global Climate Law Blog by Lucy Wheatley Sept. 17, 2009

This report is detailed and has a lot of “finance speak”. It includes a couple of tables with valuable information. I’m providing  portions of the tables here that cut through all the calculations and get to the heart of the matter… What’s this going to cost me? If you currently don’t have insurance from your employer, here is what you can expect to pay in insurance premiums, co-pays, and uncovered medical expenses before you would qualify for any federal assistance:

                                              Congressional Budget Office Report [1]

These expenses are calculated based on the second lowest “Silver-Plan” insurance coverage as outlined by the Baucus bill.  Of course, you can choose not to purchase coverage. That will cost you anywhere from $750 – $3,800 a year in a new Federal Excise Tax [2] plus any out-of-pocket medical expenses you might have that year.

Look, numbers don’t lie. Let’s look at a family of four making $66K a year. What we are talking about here is an out-of-pocket expense of 20% of their income or $13,300 a year. I don’t know of any four person households at that income level that can find an additional $1,100 a month in their budget. The only option they really have is to pay the new Excise Tax of $750-$3,800 a year and hope that no serious illness hits the family.

For those of you who currently have health insurance coverage through your employer don’t get comfortable! The incentive is there for employers to drop your coverage. The reality is that the penalty for not providing employer based coverage is in many cases less than what employers pay for coverage. What this means is that there is a real incentive for some employers to drop health insurance coverage telling their employees that there is now a co-op for them to buy their coverage individually.

Additionally, consider the potential impact on our economy in general. If the family of four making $66K a year is going to have to spend 20% of their income on health care, then they are not going to be spending it on housing, appliances, clothing, automobiles, entertainment, etc. The impact on other segments of our economy will be devastating.

Furthermore, this is an incentive killer for people to improve themselves and therefore improve their income.  What is the motivation for the head of a household who currently earns $30,000 a year to improve their skills and add another $12,000 a year to their families income.  NONE!  By doing that, the out-of-pocket medical related expenses jump from $2,900 a year to $6,100 – more than double!

I know that people are hurting, that unemployment is high, and costs are up.  But, numbers don’t lie.  There is no relief in this bill for the average American family.  The burden on the middle-class is very high and the downside is quite real. 

This is a bad bill.  This is a bad idea.

Footnotes:

[1] An Analysis of Premiums Under the Chairman’s Mark of the America’s Healthy Future Act http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10618/09-22-Analysis_of_Premiums.pdf

[2] Preliminary Analysis of Specifications for the Chairman’s Mark of the America’s Healthy Future Act http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10572/09-16-Proposal_SFC_Chairman.pdf

During the interview, Stephanopoulos pointed out to the President that it appeared as though he was willing to renege on his “No New Taxes” campaign promise on families making less than $250K a year by supporting a health care bill that included a penalty for an individual whose annual income is 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Line or above.  The President’s response, “… Nobody considers that a tax increase.”

To quote Ronald Reagan, “Well… there you go again.”  The problem with the President’s comment is that the Baucus Bill introduced last week calls the penalty he was talking about an “Excise Tax” on an individual/family ranging from $750 to $3,800 a year.  Here is the text (emphasis added) [1]:

Baucus Health Care Bill, page 32:

Excise Tax: The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.  If a taxpayer’s MAGI is between 100-300 percent of FPL, the excise tax for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or an individual claimed as a dependent) is $750 per year.  However, the maximum penalty for the taxpayer unit is $1,500.  If a taxpayer’s MAGI is above 300 percent of FPL the penalty for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or as an individual claimed as a dependent) is $950 year.  However, the maximum penalty amount a family above 300 percent of FPL would pay is $3,800.

... The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal Tax owed.

Like my Grandpa used to say… if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck – it’s a duck!

Footnotes:

[1] Bausus Health Care Bill

Today, the Treasury Dept., in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the Competitive enterprise Institute released demonstrates that the Obama administration calculated the potential cost of Cap and Trade to be over $1700 per a family per a year. [3][4]

I guess we should not be surprised that a mere $1,660 discrepancy in tax impact to the American family would be overlooked by a democratic party that continues to allow the House Ways and Means Committee – you know, the committee that writes the tax code – to be chaired by Charlie Rangel (D-NY).  Yesterday, the National Legal and Policy Center filed a complaint with the House Committee Standards of Official Conduct to expand its ongoing investigation in Rangel’s under-reporting his income and capital gains by some $2 million dollars. [5][6]

Yet, we are asked to blindly believe Pres. Obama and the Democratic House and Senate leadership when they tell us that the Health Care Reform Act will be “deficit neutral”; that only the Federal Government can provide proper oversight of the health insurance industry; that only the Federal Government can provide meaningful competition to health insurance companies; that only the Federal Government can find waste, fraud and abuse in the system.  So far, the confidence meter in the ability of this administration to get anything right is pegged at zero. 

Footnotes:

[1]  Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, letter to Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) April 1, 2009 

[2] Cap and Trade a ‘Declaration of War’ say Republicans by Josiah Ryan, CNSNews.com Staff Writer May 01, 2009

[3] Global Warming Tax Costs Revealed in FOIA Treasury Dept Documents, CEI Analysis Confirms Massive Tax on Energy by Christine Hall, Sept. 17, 2009  

[4] Dept. of Treasury reply to FOIA request from Competitive Enterprise Institute

[5] NLPC Alleges Charles Rangel Hid More Income in Complaint to House Ethics Committee by Ken Boehm, Sept. 17, 2009 

[6] Complaint by National Legal and Policy Center filed with the Committee of Standards and Official Conduct Sept. 16, 2009 

When it comes to federal spending, the system is Broke² :

• Broke:  No longer functioning correctly
• Broke:  Out of money

As a family, we have been through tough times financially.  We have learned that in order to get the family budget under control you have to ruthlessly control those things you can control such as discretionary spending, borrowing, luxuries, etc. 

As a country, we will never get our financial house in order as long as earmarks are allowed in the legislative process.  You would think that our elected officials would be tightening the federal government’s belt just like our families are doing.  But that is far from reality.  Here are some examples for the latest list of earmarks for the 2010 budget:

• $12 million to monitor sea turtles and monk seals.
• $5 million for a supercomputer to help study planets and fruit flies.
• $8 million for a cultural exchange between villages that once made a living killing whales.
• $24 million for the East West Center, a private think tank even President Obama wants to cut.
• $500,000 for music enrichment programs for Native Hawaiian children — part of $59 million for health and education programs targeted to Native Alaskans or Hawaiians.
• $201 million to his alma mater, the University of Mississippi, including $10 million for programs at the Thad Cochran Research Center (the Senator who earmarked the funds).
• $750,000 Mississippi Biotechnology Association building — an organization that has no members and doesn’t exist, and that got $450,000 last year.
• $4.4 million to build fire stations, $14 million to improve drinking water in local communities (responsibilities typically left to the states).
• $1.6 million for a mobile music lab.
• $650,000 to a private Christian school (Piney Woods) on 2,000 wooded acres where student tuition is $31,400.
• $400,000 to pay overtime for the Jackson Police Department to combat drug use.
• $950,000 for the local Audubon Society, despite national Audubon assets topping $18 million.
• $1 million for a trolley museum.

     (Source:  Fox News )

These are just a handful of earmarks from a three senators; Inouye D-Hawaii, Cochran R-Mississippi, and Murtha D-Pennsylvania.

I find that this kind of “back-door-budget” process violates the trust of the American people.  It demonstrates the kind of aristocratic thinking that led to the American Revolution.  The attitude in Washington is that it’s their money to spend as they like.  If they need more, well they will just come and take it from you and me.

Of course today politicians know that raising taxes on the middle-class is tantamount to political suicide.  So instead they say they are going to tax corporations and other businesses.  Former Fed. Reserve Chairmen Allen Greenspan said it best, “Corporations don’t pay taxes; people pay taxes.”  Some have misunderstood that statement to mean that corporations used loop-holes to get out of paying taxes.  But that is not what he meant.  What he meant was simply this:  Raise a tax on a corporation and the corporation has no choice but to pass that increased cost onto you and me – the consumer – in the form of increased prices.  These cost increases are known as “Hidden Taxes” and they cost you and me plenty every year. 

Tonight, President Obama is going to use the “bully-pulpit” of his office to try to convince us that the Federal Government can do the best job in providing healthcare insurance.  Frankly, I don’t see how that is possible when our elected officials cannot control themselves when it comes to spending our money and our children’s money.

Take a positive step Mr. President and demand a Federal Law that will put an end to earmark spending once and for all.  You claim that you are for transparency – well, let’s get transparent in the budget process before you try to re-engineer our society any further.