As documented by Americans for Tax Reform, here are 18 of Senator Reid's tax hikes within H.R. 3590 with bill section and estimated cost. Which ones will cost you in terms of dollars or quality of service?
1) Individual Mandate Tax (Sec. 1501/$8 billion)
2) Employer Mandate Tax (Sec. 1513/$28 billion) - My boss chooses not to insure his employees, so YES.
3) Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Sec. 9001/$149.1 billion)
4) Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Sec. 9002/Min$)
5) Medicine Cabinet Tax (Sec. 9003/$5 billion)
6) HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Sec. 9004/$1.3 billion)
7) FSA Cap (Sec. 9005/$14.6 billion)
8) Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting tax (Sec. 9006/$17.1 billion)
9) Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Sec. 9007/Min$)
10) Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Sec. 9008/$22.2 billion)
11) Tax of Medical Device Manufacturers (Sec. 9009/$19.3 billion)
12) Tax on Health Insurers (Sec. 9010/$60.4 billion)
13) Eliminate tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Sec. 9012/$5.4 billion)
14) Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Sec. 9013/$15.2 billion) - I've been doing so for years since I pay so much out of pocket, so YES.
15) $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Sec. 9014/$0.6 billion)
16) Hike in the Medicare Payroll Tax (Sec. 9015/$53.8 billion) - All workers pay this one, so YES.
17) Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Sec. 9016/$0.4 billion) - This is my new insurer, so YES.
18) Tax on Cosmetic Medical Procedures (Sec. 9017/$5.8 billion)
Taxes also stifle innovation and investment, so eventually all of these will affect us indirectly. Why should I support a bill that takes more money out of my pocket and leaves less for service to others from the heart? The federal government is there in very limited ways to serve us...not the other way around. Recent polls indicate a similar sentiment across the fruited plain. Does that matter to Reid et al?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Stable climate equals peace?
The black portions are a response to an article from the Heritage Foundation criticizing the President's (or teleprompter's) linking climate change and peace in his Nobel Peace prize acceptance speech. The red is my response.
"It is perception such as what is in this article that holds this world back from achieving peace, comfort for ALL classes, and progress for ALL countries."
So, if the world take steps to end climate change, which is constant, the world would have peace, all classes would be comfortable and all countries would enjoy progress? Even if man through his use of fossil fuels is causing more climate change now than ever, man was still warring against man, fewer classes were comfortable (royalty only?) and fewer countries were enjoying progress before his use of them. I do not contend that there has been less war since the industrial age, but can anyone honestly say that fewer people live better lives now than before the dawn of that age? It's certainly not equal, but it's better for those industrialized nations.
"Unbelievable…the only act that takes hope away is the act of ignorance and intolerance."
The President seems to be ignoring the science on climate change, that that big ball of fire some 8 million miles away has more to do with it than CO2 and that changes in CO2 levels lag behind changes in temperature, and the fallout of Climategate, indicating the peddlers of the theory ignored conflicting data, and he is intolerant of the views of thousands of scientists who question the theory of man-made climate change. For someone who won his office on the concept of "hope", are these acts of ignorance and intolerance now taking it away?
"No one is talking about preventing natural disasters. The problem is what our entrepreneurs are doing to the environment with their polluting factories and vehicles. Your President is talking about the reckless use of fossil fuels. Companies need to be held accountable for the damage they release into the atmosphere."
Their polluting factories and vehicles? Does this lady not benefit from the products of those factories or even drive a car? Who made the computer upon which she blogs? Who made the materials for the house in which she lives? Who made the food she eats? Who made the drugs she takes? Who made the car, even if it's a hybrid, that she drives?
The reckless use of fossil fuels is what Saddam Hussein did when he set Kuwaiti oilfields on fire, not people driving their cars to work to make a living. Is there any use of fossil fuels that would not qualify as reckless by this President?
I'm assuming that the "damage" to which she refers is CO2 as that is the topic of discussion at the Copenhagen climate summit. If we hold companies accountable for CO2, then we need to hold people and animals accountable for their CO2. Who will enforce that, and worse yet how will they enforce that? I also think that plants might object since they seem to like CO2.
"As for a “wealth reducer”, wealth is what it comes down to cease progress for the betterment of all man-kind, isn’t it: Money for the upper-class. Doesn’t anyone get it? It’s not about the mighty dollar for the well-to-do. It’s about the health and welfare of ALL people and the world that we reside in."
The article contends that if climate change laws are enacted and enforced, wealth will be reduced. The proponents of said laws claim they are doing it for the health and welfare of mankind. That sounds good, but I contend that it is about the mighty dollar for the well-to-do...that is the bureaucrats and politicians at the UN, EU and here at home. They all witnessed Algore enrich himself peddling man-caused climate change. Why can't they do it too?
"This President gives hope that there will be change, if America can squash it’s old selfish ways."
America like every other country has selfish people for sure, but America like few other countries has a free people, free to overwhelmingly respond to natural disasters at home (New Orleans hurricane and flooding) and around the world (Pakistan earthquake, Indonesian tsunami) with their wealth without even the government's suggestion, prodding or laws. The accumulation of wealth is not an indication of selfishness. They can certainly go hand-in-hand. St. Nicholas was born into wealth, but he gave it all away...by his choice, not the forceful hand of government. We are the most generous nation on earth because we have so much.
"It is perception such as what is in this article that holds this world back from achieving peace, comfort for ALL classes, and progress for ALL countries."
So, if the world take steps to end climate change, which is constant, the world would have peace, all classes would be comfortable and all countries would enjoy progress? Even if man through his use of fossil fuels is causing more climate change now than ever, man was still warring against man, fewer classes were comfortable (royalty only?) and fewer countries were enjoying progress before his use of them. I do not contend that there has been less war since the industrial age, but can anyone honestly say that fewer people live better lives now than before the dawn of that age? It's certainly not equal, but it's better for those industrialized nations.
"Unbelievable…the only act that takes hope away is the act of ignorance and intolerance."
The President seems to be ignoring the science on climate change, that that big ball of fire some 8 million miles away has more to do with it than CO2 and that changes in CO2 levels lag behind changes in temperature, and the fallout of Climategate, indicating the peddlers of the theory ignored conflicting data, and he is intolerant of the views of thousands of scientists who question the theory of man-made climate change. For someone who won his office on the concept of "hope", are these acts of ignorance and intolerance now taking it away?
"No one is talking about preventing natural disasters. The problem is what our entrepreneurs are doing to the environment with their polluting factories and vehicles. Your President is talking about the reckless use of fossil fuels. Companies need to be held accountable for the damage they release into the atmosphere."
Their polluting factories and vehicles? Does this lady not benefit from the products of those factories or even drive a car? Who made the computer upon which she blogs? Who made the materials for the house in which she lives? Who made the food she eats? Who made the drugs she takes? Who made the car, even if it's a hybrid, that she drives?
The reckless use of fossil fuels is what Saddam Hussein did when he set Kuwaiti oilfields on fire, not people driving their cars to work to make a living. Is there any use of fossil fuels that would not qualify as reckless by this President?
I'm assuming that the "damage" to which she refers is CO2 as that is the topic of discussion at the Copenhagen climate summit. If we hold companies accountable for CO2, then we need to hold people and animals accountable for their CO2. Who will enforce that, and worse yet how will they enforce that? I also think that plants might object since they seem to like CO2.
"As for a “wealth reducer”, wealth is what it comes down to cease progress for the betterment of all man-kind, isn’t it: Money for the upper-class. Doesn’t anyone get it? It’s not about the mighty dollar for the well-to-do. It’s about the health and welfare of ALL people and the world that we reside in."
The article contends that if climate change laws are enacted and enforced, wealth will be reduced. The proponents of said laws claim they are doing it for the health and welfare of mankind. That sounds good, but I contend that it is about the mighty dollar for the well-to-do...that is the bureaucrats and politicians at the UN, EU and here at home. They all witnessed Algore enrich himself peddling man-caused climate change. Why can't they do it too?
"This President gives hope that there will be change, if America can squash it’s old selfish ways."
America like every other country has selfish people for sure, but America like few other countries has a free people, free to overwhelmingly respond to natural disasters at home (New Orleans hurricane and flooding) and around the world (Pakistan earthquake, Indonesian tsunami) with their wealth without even the government's suggestion, prodding or laws. The accumulation of wealth is not an indication of selfishness. They can certainly go hand-in-hand. St. Nicholas was born into wealth, but he gave it all away...by his choice, not the forceful hand of government. We are the most generous nation on earth because we have so much.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Paying the bills
An “additional income tax to the upper brackets, folks earning more than $200,000 or $250,000,” could fund more troops, Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said in an interview for Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag has estimated that each additional soldier in Afghanistan could cost $1 million, for a total that could reach $40 billion if 40,000 more troops are added.
That cost, Levin said, should be paid by wealthier taxpayers. “They have done incredibly well, and I think that it’s important that we pay for it if we possibly can” instead of increasing the federal debt load, the senator said.
I wish I can say that $40 billion for an Afghanistan troop surge sounds like a lot of money, but after the $700 billion TARP bill last fall, the $787 billion stimulus bill in February, the $400 billion omnibus bill in the spring and the record $1.4 trillion deficit for the 2008-2009 fiscal year as well as the looming $800+ billion climate change bill, the looming $800+ billion health care reform bill and the $12+ trillion debt, $40 billion is peanuts. I'm happy to hear that the senator is concerned with increasing the federal debt load, but isn't it a little too late for fiscal responsibility? Does the cliche "stepping over a dime to save a penny" come to mind?
Unemployment is already high; raising their taxes won't help. What concerns me more is that eventually someone will have to pay for all of these new bills and programs, as well as the old existing ones, and the politicians will need more than just these wealthy taxpayers to do it. Will there come a day when we will be forced to turn over all of our wealth to them? If so, we will be slaves of the state.
That cost, Levin said, should be paid by wealthier taxpayers. “They have done incredibly well, and I think that it’s important that we pay for it if we possibly can” instead of increasing the federal debt load, the senator said.
I wish I can say that $40 billion for an Afghanistan troop surge sounds like a lot of money, but after the $700 billion TARP bill last fall, the $787 billion stimulus bill in February, the $400 billion omnibus bill in the spring and the record $1.4 trillion deficit for the 2008-2009 fiscal year as well as the looming $800+ billion climate change bill, the looming $800+ billion health care reform bill and the $12+ trillion debt, $40 billion is peanuts. I'm happy to hear that the senator is concerned with increasing the federal debt load, but isn't it a little too late for fiscal responsibility? Does the cliche "stepping over a dime to save a penny" come to mind?
Unemployment is already high; raising their taxes won't help. What concerns me more is that eventually someone will have to pay for all of these new bills and programs, as well as the old existing ones, and the politicians will need more than just these wealthy taxpayers to do it. Will there come a day when we will be forced to turn over all of our wealth to them? If so, we will be slaves of the state.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Here's a question for you. Who said in so many words the best way to avoid war is to be prepared for it...Ronald Reagan or Hugo Chavez? Would you believe both?
Reagan is credited with saying, "The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression - to preserve freedom and peace."
Bloomberg reported in a November 8, 2009 news article, “Generals of the armed forces, the best way to avoid a war is to prepare for one,” Chavez said in comments on state television during his weekly “Alo Presidente” program.
Were they both right or both wrong? Reagan was not satisfied with the status quo U.S.-Soviet relationship of MAD and detente. He promoted a stronger defensive position that ultimately led to the demise of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall which happened twenty years ago today. Was there an ensuing peace with the Soviet Union? Do we still have it two decades later?
The U.S. agreement with Colombia, giving American troops access to seven Colombian bases is part of an effort to “strengthen and increase ties with countries in the region,” Robin Holzhauer, spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, said by telephone. “We’ve done that with governments who want to have partnerships with us.” Colombia has said the agreement would help combat drug trafficking. Apparently, Chavez isn't buying it.
How much can nations increase their defenses without planting seeds of war in the minds of their neighbors? Will this U.S. agreement with Colombia start another mini-detente with Venezuela?
Reagan is credited with saying, "The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression - to preserve freedom and peace."
Bloomberg reported in a November 8, 2009 news article, “Generals of the armed forces, the best way to avoid a war is to prepare for one,” Chavez said in comments on state television during his weekly “Alo Presidente” program.
Were they both right or both wrong? Reagan was not satisfied with the status quo U.S.-Soviet relationship of MAD and detente. He promoted a stronger defensive position that ultimately led to the demise of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall which happened twenty years ago today. Was there an ensuing peace with the Soviet Union? Do we still have it two decades later?
The U.S. agreement with Colombia, giving American troops access to seven Colombian bases is part of an effort to “strengthen and increase ties with countries in the region,” Robin Holzhauer, spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, said by telephone. “We’ve done that with governments who want to have partnerships with us.” Colombia has said the agreement would help combat drug trafficking. Apparently, Chavez isn't buying it.
How much can nations increase their defenses without planting seeds of war in the minds of their neighbors? Will this U.S. agreement with Colombia start another mini-detente with Venezuela?
Friday, November 6, 2009
Recessions & unemployment
I enjoyed the irony from today's AP.
"The unemployment rate has surpassed 10 percent for the first time since 1983 — and is likely to go higher. Nearly 16 million people can't find jobs even though the worst recession since the Great Depression has apparently ended."
Apparently ended? How do those newly unemployed people feel about the apparent end of the worst recession since the Great Depression? Is it even the worst recession since the Great Depression?
One of the rule-of-thumb definitions of a recession is two consecutive down quarters of GDP; by that definition the current recession started in the fourth quarter of 2007 which is not in dispute. If you assume that a recession ends after two consecutive up quarters of GDP, as AP apparently does, then we are "out of the woods" so to speak because the first, second and third quarters of this year saw changes in GDP of -6.4%, -0.7% and +3.5%, respectively; the last two quarters are "up".
While 3.5% is historically strong and -0.7% is a big shift in the right direction from -6.4%, it is driven primarily by private investment, namely residential investment which grew at 23.4% in the third quarter of 2009. This is probably due to a large number of people buying homes that were overpriced for years and the first time homebuyers tax credit. As the price of anything falls, more of it is purchased. However, this same residential investment figure had been negative (an average of -20%!) from the first quarter of 2006 through the second quarter of 2009. Wouldn't it be good to see a few more consecutive up, if not positive, quarters of residential investment specifically, private investment generally, private consumption and overall GDP before we conclude that the recession is over? (Government investment and consumption also factors into GDP, but what it invests and consumes must first be taken from the private sector.)
Also, if this is the worst recession since the Great Depression, then what was the 1983 recession? In 1983, unemployment was just as high and reached even higher (10.8%) before trending back, and inflation and interest rates were much higher then too (10.3% & 21.5%). Shouldn't we wait for numbers similar to or higher than these before we say that this recession was the worst? Well, since it's apparently over now, I guess it was not the worst recession.
Furthermore, "Congress sought to address the impact of long-term unemployment this week by approving legislation extending jobless benefits for the fourth time since the recession began. The bill would add 14 to 20 extra weeks of aid and is intended to prevent almost 2 million recipients from running out of unemployment insurance during the upcoming holiday season. President Barack Obama is expected to quickly sign the [$24 billion]legislation."
Do these people realize that this is essentially a loan...and a buyoff? They probably do not know or don't care, but I bet Congress does. This President and Congress have already spent $1.4 trillion more this year alone than has been taken into the treasury. Since they don't have the money now, it must be borrowed or printed. Who has to pay back this loan or deal with the inflation down the road? The same people getting the "benefits" and their children will pay it back. Congress also has to keep the electorate happy at least until next November.
If the recession is over and unemployment remains high, then is this not a jobless recovery similar to the one over which Bush presided in his first term? Hiring usually lags behind GDP growth and that played out after the last recession. Will a similar recovery occur now?
"The unemployment rate has surpassed 10 percent for the first time since 1983 — and is likely to go higher. Nearly 16 million people can't find jobs even though the worst recession since the Great Depression has apparently ended."
Apparently ended? How do those newly unemployed people feel about the apparent end of the worst recession since the Great Depression? Is it even the worst recession since the Great Depression?
One of the rule-of-thumb definitions of a recession is two consecutive down quarters of GDP; by that definition the current recession started in the fourth quarter of 2007 which is not in dispute. If you assume that a recession ends after two consecutive up quarters of GDP, as AP apparently does, then we are "out of the woods" so to speak because the first, second and third quarters of this year saw changes in GDP of -6.4%, -0.7% and +3.5%, respectively; the last two quarters are "up".
While 3.5% is historically strong and -0.7% is a big shift in the right direction from -6.4%, it is driven primarily by private investment, namely residential investment which grew at 23.4% in the third quarter of 2009. This is probably due to a large number of people buying homes that were overpriced for years and the first time homebuyers tax credit. As the price of anything falls, more of it is purchased. However, this same residential investment figure had been negative (an average of -20%!) from the first quarter of 2006 through the second quarter of 2009. Wouldn't it be good to see a few more consecutive up, if not positive, quarters of residential investment specifically, private investment generally, private consumption and overall GDP before we conclude that the recession is over? (Government investment and consumption also factors into GDP, but what it invests and consumes must first be taken from the private sector.)
Also, if this is the worst recession since the Great Depression, then what was the 1983 recession? In 1983, unemployment was just as high and reached even higher (10.8%) before trending back, and inflation and interest rates were much higher then too (10.3% & 21.5%). Shouldn't we wait for numbers similar to or higher than these before we say that this recession was the worst? Well, since it's apparently over now, I guess it was not the worst recession.
Furthermore, "Congress sought to address the impact of long-term unemployment this week by approving legislation extending jobless benefits for the fourth time since the recession began. The bill would add 14 to 20 extra weeks of aid and is intended to prevent almost 2 million recipients from running out of unemployment insurance during the upcoming holiday season. President Barack Obama is expected to quickly sign the [$24 billion]legislation."
Do these people realize that this is essentially a loan...and a buyoff? They probably do not know or don't care, but I bet Congress does. This President and Congress have already spent $1.4 trillion more this year alone than has been taken into the treasury. Since they don't have the money now, it must be borrowed or printed. Who has to pay back this loan or deal with the inflation down the road? The same people getting the "benefits" and their children will pay it back. Congress also has to keep the electorate happy at least until next November.
If the recession is over and unemployment remains high, then is this not a jobless recovery similar to the one over which Bush presided in his first term? Hiring usually lags behind GDP growth and that played out after the last recession. Will a similar recovery occur now?
Friday, October 30, 2009
Dealing with Iran
Consider the following excerpts from a NYT article dated October 29, 2009.
Mr. Ahmadinejad also suggested that Iran expected Western countries to honor payments for nuclear assistance it made before the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Iran paid more than $1 billion to help build a French reactor in return for access to that reactor’s fuel. After the revolution, France reneged on the contract. “We have nuclear contracts,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said. “It has been 30 years, we have paid for them. Such agreements must be fulfilled.”
and
If Iran’s stated estimate of its stockpile of nuclear fuel is accurate, the deal that was negotiated in Vienna would leave the country with too little fuel to manufacture a weapon until the stockpile was replenished with additional fuel, which Iran is producing in violation of UN Security Council mandates.
So, while Iran's president violates a mandate from the UN, it wants the West to honor its contract with Iran made 30+ years ago. Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black or payback for the West's breach of contract?
Mr. Ahmadinejad also suggested that Iran expected Western countries to honor payments for nuclear assistance it made before the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Iran paid more than $1 billion to help build a French reactor in return for access to that reactor’s fuel. After the revolution, France reneged on the contract. “We have nuclear contracts,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said. “It has been 30 years, we have paid for them. Such agreements must be fulfilled.”
and
If Iran’s stated estimate of its stockpile of nuclear fuel is accurate, the deal that was negotiated in Vienna would leave the country with too little fuel to manufacture a weapon until the stockpile was replenished with additional fuel, which Iran is producing in violation of UN Security Council mandates.
So, while Iran's president violates a mandate from the UN, it wants the West to honor its contract with Iran made 30+ years ago. Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black or payback for the West's breach of contract?
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Having it both ways?
I'm trying to resolve two seemingly contradictory AP articles regarding the economy. One dated October 20, 2009 is entitled "High jobless rates: The new normal?". The other one dated October 21, 2009 is entitled "Economy recovering in many areas, but not others." A few contradictions seem to exist.
While the former tells us to just get used to higher unemployment and a lower standard of living due mostly to a faltering auto and construction industries, the latter tells us that "pickups in housing and manufacturing activity are leading the budding recovery in most of the country". Economists and policy-makers say the former, and the Federal Reserve board says the latter. I think those two entities need to collaborate. Is the economy getting better or worse? Does the auto industry not comprise a significant part of manufacturing activity? Is the construction industry not primarily driven by housing? Are they improving or not? Is the worst over or yet to come?
The latter article continues to say that the gains in housing spurred on by the first-time homebuyer tax credit could fizzle after that credit expires at the end of November and that factories ramped up production to restock inventories depleted by the now-expired Cash for Clunkers program. So this budding recovery supposedly started by the infusion of government (i.e. taxpayer) money will falter once that money runs out or policies expire or change at their whim.
Does the AP want us to believe that there is just enough life in this economy to keep the same bums in office, but not quite enough life to not let them continue intervening for the "public good"? While government dangles a carrot in front of us, there is a buffet line awaiting us all if they would just leave us alone as the Constitution requires. We the people must hold them to it next November.
While the former tells us to just get used to higher unemployment and a lower standard of living due mostly to a faltering auto and construction industries, the latter tells us that "pickups in housing and manufacturing activity are leading the budding recovery in most of the country". Economists and policy-makers say the former, and the Federal Reserve board says the latter. I think those two entities need to collaborate. Is the economy getting better or worse? Does the auto industry not comprise a significant part of manufacturing activity? Is the construction industry not primarily driven by housing? Are they improving or not? Is the worst over or yet to come?
The latter article continues to say that the gains in housing spurred on by the first-time homebuyer tax credit could fizzle after that credit expires at the end of November and that factories ramped up production to restock inventories depleted by the now-expired Cash for Clunkers program. So this budding recovery supposedly started by the infusion of government (i.e. taxpayer) money will falter once that money runs out or policies expire or change at their whim.
Does the AP want us to believe that there is just enough life in this economy to keep the same bums in office, but not quite enough life to not let them continue intervening for the "public good"? While government dangles a carrot in front of us, there is a buffet line awaiting us all if they would just leave us alone as the Constitution requires. We the people must hold them to it next November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)