Posts Tagged ‘Baucus’

Redistributing Wealth: Why Not Just Be Consistent And ‘Redistribute’ Beauty And Justice, Too?

March 31, 2010

Max Baucus gave us yet another remark from a Democrat acknowledging the REAL purpose of ObamaCare:

“Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the maldistribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America.”

Well, that and “to control the people.”  And to inevitably lead us into a fully socialist single payer system, or course.

Here’s Baucus on Youtube explaining the need to use Obamacare to redistribute wealth:

We can go back to Obama himself, of course, and hear him talking about “spreading the wealth” to Joe the Plumber.

Redistribution of wealth wants to “spread out” equality, such that we’re all  level.

But we’re NOT all level.  Some people are smarter than other people.  Some people are bigger and stronger and faster than others.  Some people are more creative than others.  Some people have a higher work ethic or ethics in general ethic than others.  Some people work harder than others.  And darn it, some people are just better looking than others.

And since we’re not all level, we see wildly disparate economic results.  When liberals try to “level the playing field” and “spread the wealth around” and “address the maldistribution of wealth,” what they are doing is not merely ignoring fundamental economic realities, but fundamental human realities.

If they’re going to “level the playing field,” they should be consistent, and apply their philosophy across the board.

Even when you get aside from the blameworthiness of the poor (i.e., never bothering to get off one’s butt to look for a job; or never working hard enough or showing responsibility enough to advance to the next level), you’ve still got some issues with wealth redistribution.  For instance, is it “fair” that some people are far more physically attractive than others?  Those pretty people get all the opportunities; whereas, non-pretty people, through no fault of their own, must struggle.  We should redistribute beauty!!!  We should be carving up the pretty people and giving some of their beautiful features to the non-pretty people!!!

I mean, why feel sorry for somebody who never bothered to apply himself or herself?  Who never bothered to work hard, or pursue training/schooling, or made smart choices?  It would seem that that short, fat, butt-ugly guy with the unfortunate flatulence should be the one who merits our sympathy, if anyone does.

Here’s another nice take on the idea of redistributing beauty (I wanted to see if redistributing beauty was my brainchild, and darn it, but it wasn’t!).

That’s the SAME idiotic reasoning that is used to justify wealth redistribution.

We could also move to re-distributing justice.

Let’s take it on the liberal’s argument.  It’s not that black inner-city gang banging kid’s fault that he’s a violent criminal; it’s society’s fault.  That poor kid is a victim.  That poor kid didn’t get the economic opportunities that others did.  He didn’t have a safe home environment.  He didn’t have good public schools.  He was surrounded by poverty and the grinding consequences of poverty, and he was literally conditioned into his life of crime.  So let’s take the punishment that falls on that kid for his crime and redistribute it, spread it out, and make it “fair.”  It seems to me that if that inner city gang-banger murders some innocent kid in a drive-by shooting, Al Gore should go to jail.  Maybe Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi, and we can “spread the justice” between the two of them.

I mean, that poor guy doesn’t have any freedom (metaphor for wealth).  He’s facing life.  And there are all sorts of people outside the penitentiary who have all sorts of freedom.  So we can help that guy out by grabbing you and taxing some of your freedom so we can redistribute it to the convict.

If that welfare queen shouldn’t be held responsible for her “inability” to get off her butt and work, why should the gang-banger be held responsible for his “inability” to live an ethical life?

You know what the liberal will say: “Well, that welfare queen isn’t hurting anybody.”

But she damn sure is: she’s hurting me.  She’s hurting my kids.  Because some jerk keeps seizing my wealth and the wealth I want to leave for my children and giving it to that welfare queen.  She sure IS hurting other people with her laziness and indolence.  And in point of fact the only way she’s NOT going to hurt other people is if liberals stop taking other peoples’ money and redistributing it to her.

Burton Folsom, Jr. points out how this mindset was anathema to America until FDR came along:

Throughout American history, right from the start, charity had been a state and local function.  Civic leaders, local clergy, and private citizens, evaluated the legitimacy of people’s need in their communities or counties; churches and other organizations could then provide food, shelter, and clothing to help victims of fires or women abandoned by drunken husbands.  Most Americans beleived that the face-to-face encounters of givers and receivers of charity benefited both groups.  It created just the right amount of uplift and relief, and discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic.

The Founders saw all relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for the government in providing charity.  James Madison, in defending the Constitution, observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”  In other words, if relief, and other areas, were made functions of the federal government, the process would become politicized and politicians and deadbeats could conspire to trade votes for food” (New Deal or Raw Deal, page 76-77).

The way it used to be is the way it ought to be again.

Folsom goes on to document how A) administrations and courts had throughout history repeatedly ruled “welfare” programs unconstitutional until the New Deal and B) how they did in fact become a political boondoggle during the New Deal.  And that has been the growing trend ever since.

Benjamin Franklin put it this way: “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Samuel Adams said:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

Franklin also said:

“Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. … Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.”

These three statements, when combined together, mean: 1) Those who don’t pay their own way are a disgrace to themselves and a disgrace to their countrymen; 2) If you ARE forced to pay your own way in life, you will ultimately be the better for it, both in your provision and in your character; and 3) If we continue on the social welfare spending track we’re on, we will destroy our nation.

Liberals yearn to be more like Europe, just as they always have.  Thomas Jefferson said, “With all the defects in our Constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell.”  And that is every bit as true today as it was when Jefferson said it.

FDR waged a war on poverty that has been going on for 77 years.  Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty anew in 1964.  And poverty has been kicking our asses ever since.  We’re no better off than we were before; in fact, we’re worse off.

What has the war on poverty got us?  As much poverty as ever, and a debt of ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY THREE TRILLION DOLLARS (just add our total US debt with our debt in unfunded liabilities).

There’s that Dr. Phil question: “How’s federal government war on poverty working for you?

Frankly, if we had been “redistributing” pieces out of Brad Pitt’s and Angelina Jolie’s faces to give to the less beautiful, or if we’d been “redistributing” justice by taking freedom from Al Gore or Hillary Clinton to give more freedom to convicts, it would have been morally idiotic.  Still, if we’d done those things instead of redistributing wealth, it would have saved us a few million tons of money.

Advertisements

How CBO Scored Baucus Health Care Plan As Defict Neutral

October 9, 2009

Suppose I told you that I can fly by flapping my arms at a rate of 40 miles an hour, and I were to ask you how long it would take me to get to the top of a hill located 30 miles away.  The correct answer would be to say, “45 minutes.”

In actual point of fact, of course, I can’t fly by flapping my arms, I can’t walk at anywhere near the rate of 40 miles an hour, and I would likely have to take a considerably longer route up to the hilltop.  It would probably take me a good two days to get to that hilltop, if I were operating in the realm of factual reality.  But your job wasn’t to check whether I had wings; it was to score the math in my proposal.

That’s basically the sort of answer the Congressional Budget Office gave to the $829 billion (so far) Baucus health plan.

When the Senate Finance Committee handed the abbreviated version of the Baucus plan to the CBO, the CBO assumed that Congress would do exactly what the plan said Congress was supposed to do.  And if Congress does ONLY what is in the bill without adding ANYTHING, and imposes EVERY unpopular (even with Democrats) tax that the bill calls for, the CBO claimed that the Baucus plan would cost a deficit-neutral $829 billion over ten years.

Here are some things that would have to happen for the deficit-neutral $829 billion cost projection to be even close to correct:

First, the Medicare budget – which has never been cut or reduced in spite of repeated attempts to do so in the past – would have to be slashed by $404 billion over ten years.  Senior citizens would absolutely freak.  It will not happen.  If it did happen, Democrats would lose every single seat in the next election, as Republicans simply promised that if they are voted in, they would overturn the bill.

So add that $404 billion back in.  And the bill is already no longer even CLOSE to being “deficit neutral.”

Second, there are $201 billion in taxes for the so-called “Cadillac” health care plans.  And while there are some bigwig execs that collect such benefits, the overwhelming majority of the plans go to union employees.

Question: do you truly believe that Democrats won’t exempt the Democrat-supporting unions – which will just go to show what a truly partisan plan the Democrats are truly offering – before all is said and done?

So you can subtract a whopping load of the $200 billion in tax revenue.   It aint going to happen.  And that deficit this bill will create will go up by another giant amount.

Third, the Baucus plan is going to impose $121 billion in taxes – with $29 billion of that just discovered hidden in the byzantine language of the bill  – on insurers and medical device suppliers – which the CBO has said would simply be passed on to customers in higher prices.

This amounts to a tax on customers that is passed off as “fees” for the business that will pass the taxes on to customers.  It is simply a cowardly way to raise taxes.

And this goes to the heart of what is wrong with “the public option.”  If you tax the insurers and the providers in order to generate revenue for the public option, what obviously happens?  You undermine the private companies in order to supplant them with the government.  It will drive the private industry out of the industry, leaving only the government to fill the vacuum that it created in the first place.

In addition to those taxes, there will also be $27 billion in taxes collected from those who will be forced to buy insurance.  So much for Obama’s promise that people making under $250,o00 won’t see their taxes go up a single dime.  Unless you want to argue that “$27 billion is NOT a single dime,” so Obama was telling us the truth.

Healthy younger people who have historically decided they could forgo insurance will HAVE to pay significantly into the Democrats’ system in order to “spread the risk and share the burden.”  Too bad they didn’t know that when they voted for Obama.  What can I say except, “Surprise!”

Fourth, it needs to be pointed out that after that ten years, the costs of the Baucus bill would absolutely skyrocket.  Why?  Because the Baucus plan – if passed – would begin collecting taxes/fees beginning next year, but would not actually begin supplying benefits and thus accumulating costs until after 2013 — and don’t go fully into effect until 2015.  The Baucus plan will therefore have three to as much as five years to collect revenue before having to pay out any money.  That makes it a lot easier to be “deficit neutral.”  But it’s based on smoke and mirrors.  And of course outright lies.

But unfortunately, the CBO only scores the plan for the first ten years.

Stop and think: the federal budget deficit for 2009 was just announced to be a an absolutely staggering $1.4 TRILLION – which is more than THREE TIMES more than Bush’s all-time high 2008 deficit of $459 billion.  Which incredibly cynical Democrats pounced upon as “fiscally irresponsible.”  And Obama’s 2009 deficit will represent an astounding and utterly unsustainable 9.9% of the nation’s entire gross domestic product (it was 3.2% in spend-crazy 2008).  There is utterly no possible way we will be able to afford to see our spending continue to skyrocket in future years as it will under the Baucus plan.

And fifth, it turns out that Joe Wilson was more right when he shouted “You lie!” at Obama for saying that illegal immigrants would not be covered than many first realized.

According to what we’re being told, the Baucus plan would cover 94% of the population by 2019.  That means about 25 million people would not be covered.  Including illegal immigrants.  From the AP:

It said that by 2019, “the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 29 million,” either through private insurance or by enrolling in federal programs. That would leave an additional 25 million uninsured, about one-third of them illegal immigrants who are not eligible for coverage under the bill.

At the time that Wilson made that outburst, the language in the plans actually proved that Obama was factually wrong — and the Democrats’ proposals WOULD have covered illegals.  They since tightened up the language such that illegals are excluded.

But ARE they excluded?  It turns out that this is just another fantasy, smoke-and-mirrors illusion as well.  The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court has been very consistent in its interpretation of the word “persons” over the last couple of decades.  The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled the “persons” means ALL people in the country, whether citizen or illegal alien whenever government social plans have been at issue.

Do you know what that means?  It means that the only way to prevent illegal immigrants from being allowed to obtain benefits from a big government social program is to not have the big government social program in the first place.

Illegal immigrants WILL ultimately be covered under this plan.  Don’t be so naive as to think otherwise.  That will cost us plenty.  And nobody is factoring it in.

Medicare has cost more than NINE TIMES more than projected by 1990:

In 1966, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated Medicare would cost $12 billion a year by 1990; in 1990, however, Medicare cost $107 billion, nine times more than its estimate.

And the Medicare program is so deep in the bottomless pit of red ink that Newseek says it could go bankrupt as soon as NEXT YEAR.

Does anyone think the government will do better counting its cost now than it ever has in the past?  Does anyone truly believe that a president who created a deficit THREE TIMES higher than Bush’s historic 2008 deficit (again, $1.4 TRILLION vs. $459 billion) will be able to control spending?

Think about it: Medicare is about to go bankrupt even as Democrats are voting to raid some half trillion dollars from it to pay for their new liberal health gimmick.

We need to fix and reform Medicare rather than create a giant system that will make the coming health care collapse all the greater.

Health Care: Democrats Upset That Republicans Would Hold Them Responsible For Their False Promises On Taxes

October 3, 2009

Not raising taxes on the middle class was one of Obama’s signature pledges.  In fact, let’s go back and review it:

“I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. “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.”

And Obama repeatedly claimed to the cheering crowds that if he was elected their taxes wouldn’t go up a single dime.

In point of fact, during the presidential campaign, Barack Obama repeatedly attacked Hillary Clinton for supporting the same sort of mandates he wants to impose on the American people now.  He even ran a huge ad campaign demonizing her for doing the very thing he is now doing.

Remember George H.W. Bush’s now famous pledge, “Read my lips, no new taxes?”  Congressional Democrats who controlled the House and Senate forced Bush the elder to raise taxes – and then demagogued him for having raised them.  In the case of Barack Obama, no rival party is manipulating him; he’s breaking his promises all on his own.

Senate Republicans pointed out yesterday that Democrat health plans would make Obama’s promise to the American people a cynically deceptive and incredibly manipulative lie:

John ensign (R-NV), Senate Finance Committee:  “[Obama] said, ‘But let me be perfectly clear: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase a single dime.'”

Mike Crapo (R-ID), Senate Finance Committee:  “If we can’t do health care reform without taxing people in the middle class – and the lower income categories – then we’ve got the wrong plan in front of us.

Republicans pointed to several tax provisions – one clearly labeled an ‘excise tax’ in Sen. Baucus’ plan – would fine a family as much as $1,900 if it didn’t buy health insurance.  And if one failed to pay the tax, the IRS would take more even more drastic action:

Sen. Ensign:  “We heard that the other day.  The effect is, up to a $25,000 fine and one year in jail.”

One blogger backs up the tax increases in the Democrats’ plan by citing their own bill:

All the Democrat bills include tax penalties, administered through the Internal Revenue Service, for individuals and families who do not purchase “government-approved” coverage. Page 29 of the Baucus bill would subject families with incomes higher than three times poverty to an “excise tax” of up to $3,800 per year. Likewise, page 167 of the introduced version of House Democrats’ government takeover of care (H.R. 3200) includes the following language:“There is hereby imposed a tax” on individuals who do not purchase “government-approved” insurance-and neither the House nor the Senate bills exempt those with incomes under $250,000 from the penalties. How is what the legislation plainly calls a new tax on all Americans not purchasing “government-approved” insurance not a tax increase on the middle class?

So Republicans, serving as the guardians of the president’s pledge on taxes (and who ELSE is serving as guardians of the presidents’ pledges on anything?), offered amendments to exempt most taxpayers.

Sen. Crapo:  “It will remove all taxes,fees, and penalties from the bill that apply to families earning less than $250,000 per year.”

The Democrats have chosen to embark upon an incredibly deceitful and false assertion that what is clearly a tax someone isn’t a tax.  Give it up; it’s a TAX (see this also).  And in fact it is a tax with penalties imposed by the iron-gloved hand of your ever-friendly and compassionate Internal Revenue Service.  BECAUSE IT’S A DAMN TAX.

And in point of fact both taxes that the Senate Finance Committee is debating would fall heavily on those who make less than that magical $250,000 a year. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, for instance, 71% of those families facing the tax for refusing to buy health insurance make less than $110,000 a year. The change in deductibility would hit most heavily at even lower incomes.

Democrats didn’t dispute the impact of the taxes, but rather – and amazingly – simply accused Republicans of simply making political points:

Sen Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman, Senate Finance Committee:  “Basically what you’re saying is you want to, you want to gut the president’s program.  More than that, you want to gut health reform.”

It’s an interesting – and yet all too typical – tactic from the Democrats.  They’re liars.  They have broken their word to the American people.  They got themselves elected by making one false promise on top of another.  But Republicans are the ones to blame, because Democrats have put on their “Carnac the Magnificent” hats and read the hearts and minds of Republicans’ motives in exposing the Democrats’ lies.

The fact is, the Democrat’s reform efforts depend on getting more healthier young people, for instance, to buy insurance and spread the risk.  And Sen. Baucus didn’t apologize for forcing them to do so:

“If we’re serious about making sure that Americans have health insurance, we have to have shared responsibility.  We all have to participate.”

And outside the committee, Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) suggested there is very likely no way around higher taxes:

“I’m prepared to go to my constituents and tell them there are tough choices to be made.”

Maybe Ron Wyden is prepared to force millions of people to pay high taxes that Barack Obama promised them that they would never have to pay, but what about the people who are going to now have to pay those taxes?

This is a question of lack of honesty, or lack of competence: were Democrats so clearly incompetent that they truly didn’t know that they wouldn’t be able to cover 45 million more people for less money?  Did they truly believe that their promises not to raise taxes on the middle class could even possibly be fulfilled given their massive government spending?

But that’s okay.  Because they’re going to make you pay for their broken promises.

The amendments to halt any tax increase failed by only one vote – with, of course, only Democrats voting against it.  Their vote is a cynical admission that the Democrats are dishonest thieves who will lie to your face about being on your side even as they prepare to rob you blind.  Just the two provisions debated yesterday would raise taxes by over $35 billion over ten years.  And yes, people making under $250,000 would be forced to pay higher taxes – in spite of President Obama’s word to the American people.

If you thought Republicans were bad, Democrats are proving that they are the worst kind of dishonest, arrogant, and cynical hypocrites imaginable.  The Party that self-righteously proclaimed its “transparency” have voted against amendments that required them to read the bills they pass – and even mocked bothering to read such bills, and then said there’s no point to bothering to read the bills they vote on.  If it’s bad enough that Democrats won’t bother to read their own damn bills, they now refuse to allow YOU a chance to read them either, essentially claiming that you are too stupid to understand them.  Moreover, Democrats have ave voted against even bothering to require that bills even be written before they are voted upon.

It’s long past  (and I mean two years of false campaign promises in addition to the last nine months past) holding Democrats accountable to their past promises and demanding that they live up to their rhetoric.  And if they can’t pass their legislation without breaking their campaign promises, then they are offering false and depraved legislation that should never be allowed to pass.

Ready To Go To Jail For Not Buying ‘Free’ Government Health Care?

September 27, 2009

Liberals have oft exalted communist Cuba’s “free” health care system.  Isn’t it wonderful?  Why can’t we do that?

Of course, for one thing, the “free” system in Cuba isn’t nearly so wonderful as “Sicko” Michael Moore made it in his propaganda film.  Frankly, I wouldn’t take my dog to a Cuban hospital.

It isn’t just Michael Moore; CNN depicted the Cuban system as a model for America, too.

Most Americans would only go to Cuba at the point of a gun.  But Obama is trying to bring Cuba to us.

The sad reality – as the “public option” makes its way back into the Democrats’ plans – is that the system that they are so determined to impose is neither “free” nor anything other than a giant step down from the system we have.

When you factor out deaths by accidents and homicide – which say nothing about the quality of a health care system – the U.S. system is the best in the world measured by life expectancy.  One teenage gang-banger blown away in a drive-by shooting does serious damage to mortality-rate tables.  It would be nice if the mainstream media actually quit serving as Michael Moore-like propagandists and started telling their viewers and readers that fact.

You’ll be getting a whole lot less.  But don’t think you won’t be paying a whole lot more for the privilege of getting a whole lot less.

And you may even be going to jail for the “privilege” of ObamaCare.

The Provocateur explains how the mushrooming lies surrounding the Democrats’ health care plans will actually end up in jail time for many Americans:

Anyone that’s still not convinced that the Baucus bill is rotten should be convinced after they read this latest discovery.

Under the health care bill being considered in the Senate Finance Committee, Americans who fail to pay a penalty for not buying insurance could be charged up to $25,000 by the Internal Revenue Service or face up to a year in jail, according to congressional analysts.

To understand how this can happen you need to follow the wonky nature of the bill and our tax code. It’s important because the so called logic reveals just how perverted not only the Baucus bill is but the Democrats’ philosophy on health care.

Under the Baucus bill, health insurance is no longer optional. It’s not even a right but rather a mandate. In other words, if you’re living, you have to heave health insurance. If you don’t have health insurance, the government penalizes you. The penalty has been changed once and currently that’s as much as $1900. This penalty will be assessed by the IRS.

This is no small point because the president argued that this penalty is NOT a tax. That’s important because the President ad nauseum promised not to raise taxes on anyone that earns less than $200,000 yearly. Of course, if this penalty were considered a tax, then this would break his promise. Of course, if the IRS is the one imposing the fee/penalty, it’s hard to see this penalty as anything but a tax.

Now, let’s follow the logic. Health insurance is now a mandate. If you don’t pay it, you pay a penalty. If you don’t pay the penalty, you are now evading your taxes. Tax evasion is a crime, just ask Al Capone. So, all those that refuse or can’t pay for their health insurance and refuse or can’t pay the fine for refusing are now considered the same kind of criminal as Al Capone once was. Such is the logic of President Obama and the Democrats.

Let me return to Cuba–and all the other communist totalitarian dictatorships along with it.  Do you seriously believe that the millions of human beings who have been oppressed and dehumanized under these systems knew what they were going to receive?  Do you believe that the supporters of Marxism told the truth, and explained to the people what the system was going to yield?

They were fed lies, and when they believed those lies, they fell prey to an oppressive yoke that they could not throw off.

And lies abound about this takeover of 1/6th of the American economy:

Last Sunday, Barack Obama proved that he is a liar by refusing to call what is clearly a tax a tax.  And Obama’s own hometown newspaper proves the obvious.

Last Tuesday, the Democrat-approved Congressional Budget Office laid out Obama’s lie that Medicare would not be cut:

Congress’ chief budget officer on Tuesday contradicted President Barack Obama’s oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn’t see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul.

Last Thursday, Republicans exposed the Democrats in their lie that Americans could keep their health care if they were satisfied with it.

And the real catastrophic fruits of those lies – such as actual jail time under IRS tax evasion statutes unless you pay something that we’re assured all the while isn’t a tax at all.

Democrats KNOW Their ‘You Can Keep Your Current Health Coverage’ Line Is A Lie

September 27, 2009

I’m sure that you’ve heard Barack Obama, congressional Democrats, and their media propagandists say over and over again that if you like your current health coverage, you can keep it.

Last Thursday, as the Senate Finance Committee was marking up the Baucus version of the bill, Sen. Orrin Hatch tested the sincerity and integrity of the Democrats by offering this incredibly simple amendment:

The purpose of this amendment is simple. If the secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that more than 1 million Americans would lose the current coverage of their choice because of this bill, then this bill would not go into effect.

It seems like a very, very simple but perfect amendment for those of us who have integrity. This amendment is simply trying to safeguard President Obama’s pledge to the American people, you’ll get — that you will get to keep what you have.

And the Democrats failed the test.

Every single Democrat in the Finance Committee voted against it.  Every single one.

As Powerline put it:

One of President Obama’s mantras with regard to the Democrats’ health care proposal (whatever it turns out to be) is that if you like your present health insurance coverage, you will get to keep it. More recently, when the fraudulent nature of that pledge was revealed, he changed the formula to “the bill won’t require you to lose your coverage.” That’s right; it won’t require you to lose your coverage, it will just cause you to lose your coverage.

Don’t think for a second Democrats and President Obama don’t know what a pack of liars they are.

Last Sunday, Barack Obama proved that he is a liar by refusing to call what is clearly a tax a tax.  And Obama’s own hometown newspaper proves the obvious.

Last Tuesday, the Democrat-approved Congressional Budget Office laid out Obama’s lie that Medicare would not be cut:

Congress’ chief budget officer on Tuesday contradicted President Barack Obama’s oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn’t see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul.

The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators that seniors in Medicare’s managed care plans could see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee.

The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage plans by more than $100 billion over 10 years.

The Democrats’ shocking deceit – and Barack Obama’s own personal deceptions and lies – are incredible.  They will literally say ANYTHING to get their terrible plan passed.

The biggest Democrat lie of all is the one that they tried to use to justify their takeover of health care in the first place: that they could cover nearly 50 million more people with better care while saving money.  People with common sense knew it was a blatant lie even before all the various iterations and deceptions came out.  It was simply transparently false from the outset.

Please don’t trust these liars to take over 1/6th of the U.S. economy during a period when the economy is already in deep trouble.  And please don’t turn the lives of seniors over to a plan that will literally kill many of them.

Obama And The HUGE Health Care Tax That He Simply Refuses To Call A Tax

September 21, 2009

At the Oct. 7 presidential debate, Barack Obama said, “If you make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you will not see a single dime of your taxes go up. If you make $200,000 a year or less, your taxes will go down.”

I point this out so that you realize that Obama supports your (note: use any word but “taxes” here) going up by 85800 dimes if your family makes $66,000 a year.  More on that later.

And as part of my “I told you so” moment, allow me to cite my October 2008 article entitled “Obama-Biden Will Come After Middle Class With Taxes.”

Our Narcissist-in-Chief appeared on five Sunday morning political talk show programs to sell the current iteration of ObamaCare.  During his time with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week,” there was this exchange:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate…

OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t

How is that not a tax?

OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on.

If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.

People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…

OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…

OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…

OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that.

Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

This little chunk of dialogue should show anyone what a truly disingenuous little weasel Barack Obama truly is.

Let’s start with the “critics say it is a tax increase” part that Obama deceitfully jumped all over.  Obama’s answer makes it seem that all the people characterizing the “individual mandate” as a “tax increase” are rightwing Republican loons.  But – to allude to Joe Wilson’s famous outburst – Obama lies.

It’s not just conservatives who are calling it a tax increase.  Senator Max Baucus, the author of the Senate bill – HIMSELF calls it a tax increase, as the Politico article entitled, “Baucus bill calls individual mandate a tax, Obama says it isn’t” kind of proves.

And it isn’t just Max Baucus who calls it a tax.  The bill itself calls it a tax:

Page 29, sentence one of the bill introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) says: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.”

And just in case someone wants to argue that Obama wasn’t familiar with the details of the Baucus bill because it’s so recent (in which case an honest man would have simply kept his mouth shut), allow me to refer to the House bill that has been around for months:

From HR 3200, page 167, line 15:

What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .”

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.

And if that isn’t enough to convince someone that Obama is flat-out lying to the American people, let’s go back to his days on the campaign trail to see that he very much knew that his health care agenda was going to cost huge money that would require heavy taxation:

So the “notion” that Obama “absolutely rejects” is absolutely true.  It’s Obama who is lying.

And fortunately, at least some part of the mainstream media realizes it.  In their article entitled, “FACT CHECK: Coverage requirement enforced with tax,” the Associated Press begins by saying:

WASHINGTON – Memo to President Barack Obama: It’s a tax.

So when Obama says, “My critics say everything is a tax increase.”  And, “My critics say I’m taking over every sector of the economy,” maybe people will finally start to trust us when we tell them that everything he’s proposing IS a tax increase, and he really IS taking over every sector of the economy.

You just can’t trust this guy.  He’s the kind of fellow who would candy-coat cow pies and sell them by the dozen.

Let’s look at just how disingenuous and deceitful Obama is as he tries to sell his lie.  He says to Stephanopoulos:

“No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase.”

And so Stephanopoulos – perfectly reasonably – referred to the dictionary to demonstrate that he was hardly “making up language” as Obama had just falsely claimed:

“I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — ‘a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.'”

And you can just wrap up every lie, every fallacy, every disinformation tactic, every pile of crap, ever uttered by this Weasel-in-Chief in this one amazing rhetoric:

“George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.”

So Obama begins by saying that the notion that the government mandate on individuals being “tax increase” is “made-up language”, and then tries to say that referring to a dictionary and documenting that it is clearly NOT made up language somehow demonstrates the opposite of what it in fact clearly demonstrates.

This is a president who truly believes that you are stupid.

Now that we’ve pointed out that 1) Obama is a liar who 2) thinks you’re stupid and that 3) it clearly IS a tax increase, let us see just how huge of a tax increase that Obama wants to foist on the sea of drooling idiots he calls America.

Under the section entitled, “Would there be an individual mandate?” Time Magazine answers:

Yes. Beginning in 2013, individuals would be required to have health insurance. Individuals and families who do not have insurance for more than three months in a given year would be subject to an annual excise tax of $750 and $1,500, respectively, if their income is below 300% of the federal poverty line (or $66,150 for a family of four). Tax penalties for individuals and families with incomes above that would be $950 and $3,800. The excise tax would be waived for Native Americans and individuals and families whose health-insurance costs would be more than 10% of their annual income.

George Will brings that paragraph into sharp focus in the discussion that followed Obama’s appearance, saying:

“And this week, George, something immense happened, and that is we got a big number. Actually, we got a little number. We deal with hundreds of billions and trillions of dollars in talking about this. The number that came out this week is 13 percent.

They said 13 percent of a family’s income, a family making $66,000 a year, about $15,000 over the median income, about 13 percent of their income under this plan would go for health care, not counting co-payments and not counting deductibles.”

That’s right.  The tax increase that Obama deceitfully refuses to call a tax increase (because that would expose his even more fundamental lie that he would LOWER TAXES for people making less than $200,000 a year) would cost a family making $66,000 a year a whopping $8,500 bucks – not counting co-op payments or deductibles.

That’s 85,850 dimes for those of you who bought Obama’s campaign promise.

So we’re not just talking about a giant lie; we’re talking about an incredibly expensive lie.  Quite possibly the most expensive lie in American political history.

Barack Obama is a man who literally began his presidential run with a lie:

MR. RUSSERT: But, but—so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

As another gigantic lie, Obama promised that he would accept federal matching funds if John McCain did (which McCain kept his word and did).  In rejecting federal matching funds, Obama became the first candidate to reject such funds.  After hypocritically and self-righteously praising the federal matching funds system as “limiting the corrupting influence of money on the race.”

Obama is even worse than a liar. He is a deceiver; he carefully crafts a story with just enough of the truth in it to fool you so you will buy a whole package of lies.

An awful lot of people who voted for Obama or who are supporting his health care plan are going to find themselves very, very shocked if Obama gets anything close to his way.

Don’t believe this president who was against individual mandates before he was for them.  And don’t forget his amazing lie that a huge tax increase isn’t a tax increase.