Good News! Obamacare to Slam the Economy with $1 Trillion in New Taxes

July 26, 2012 at 8:17 pm (CBO, Congressional Budget Office, Healthcare, Obamacare, Obamatax, Penalty, Penalty Tax, President Obama, Raise Taxes, Tax, Tax Increase, Taxes)

Call it a penalty, call it a tax.  Call it a “penalty tax” as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has.

Call it what you will, we’ll just call it ‘devastating’.

Beltway Confidential reports:

President Obama’s health care law raises taxes by $1 trillion, according to a new report from the Congressional Budget Office.

The individual mandate — which the CBO calls a “penalty tax,” in apparent deference to Chief Justice John Roberts — will produce $55 billion in “penalty payments by uninsured individuals,” the CBO told House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, in a Tuesday letter. Of course, the framers of the law didn’t design the mandate as a tax, and so it produces less revenue than any other provision in the bill.

The “additional hospital insurance tax” is the largest tax increase in Obamacare, projected to bring in $318 billion in new revenues. According to the 2010 report from the Journal of Accountancy, this tax hits “high-income tax payers” — individuals making over $125,000 a year or households making over $250,000 a year.

It may hit so-called high-income tax payers, but it will most certainly have an effect on lower-income families as well.

This from the Tax Policy Blog:

Though Obama vowed not to raise taxes on low-to-middle income Americans, various provisions will most certainly fall on lower income groups. For example, new annual taxes on health insurance providers, drug manufacturers, and the medical device industry will be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices and premiums. More direct are new taxes on high-cost “Cadillac” health plans, the tax on tanning services that is already in effect, and the individual mandate tax/penalty.

Regarding the tax/penalty for not purchasing health insurance, my analysis indicates that many low and middle-income households will experience tax increases of substantial magnitude. For example, starting in 2016, an uninsured family of four with income of $50,000 will owe $2,085—or 4.17 percent of income.  As shown in the table above, the individual mandate represents a $55 billion tax increase over 10 years, and this is before it is fully phased in. 

With high- and low-income earners alike having to worry about massive tax increases, the Obamatax should do wonders for the economy, particularly in the areas of spending and consumer confidence.

Here is a video reminder of Obama saying, “You don’t raise taxes in a recession”.

Permalink Leave a Comment

White House No Longer Denying Involvement in National Security Leaks

July 26, 2012 at 4:32 pm (Dianne Feinstein, Ed Henry, Jay Carney, Mitt Romney, National Security, National Security Leaks, President Obama, Security Leaks, White House)

Today, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, whose chief job is to deny that the sky is blue when the need presents itself, was unable to respond to a media request for a flat-denial of the administration’s involvement regarding serious national security leaks.

As we reported earlier this week, a prominent Democrat and leader of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, stated that it appears the White House itself is responsible for leaks of important classified information.

“I think the White House has to understand that some of this is coming from their ranks,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein told a World Affairs Council forum.

The California lawmaker said she was certain that President Barack Obama, who receives a daily intelligence briefing, isn’t disclosing secret information, but she was uncertain about others at the White House.

As recently as last month, the President had no trouble flatly denying that his administration was responsible for the leaks:

“The notion that my White House would purposely release classified national security information is offensive.  It’s wrong.  And people I think need to have a better sense of how I approach this office and how the people around me here approach this office.”

It wasn’t just the President making such denials, Jay Carney himself stated:

“This administration takes all appropriate and necessary steps to prevent leaks of classified information or sensitive information that could risk ongoing counterterrorism or intelligence operations. Any suggestion that the White House has leaked sensitive information for political purposes has no basis in fact and has been denied by the authors themselves, as one of the authors of The New York Times story on Obama’s counterterrorism record said, ‘The notion that the White House prompted the story or controlled our reporting and writing is absurd.’”

But today, Carney fumbled his way around a request for a flat denial of the administration’s involvement.  Fox News reporter Ed Henry, framed the question:

Henry:  “Can you say flatly that nobody from the White House was involved in the national security leaks that are being investigated?” 

CARNEY:  “Well Ed as you know this is a matter being investigated by two experienced prosecutors. I can’t specifically speak about it. I can point you to the statements of the President, the statements I’ve made in the past about this, about the seriousness with which he takes this issue…”

This new approach of offering no denial, at the very least demonstrates a conflict between previous answers on the topic and recent answers, and at worst warrants further investigation into the source of sensitive national security leaks.

Watch the video below…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Christian Science Monitor Develops "Index of Racist Potential" to Analyze Romney Ads

July 26, 2012 at 4:03 pm (Christian Science Monitor, Index of Racist Potential, Mitt Romney, President Obama, pro-Romney Ads, Racism, Romney Campaign)

The Christian Science Monitor has, unbelievably, developed a series of questions they refer to as an “Index of Racist Potential” to be used when analyzing pro-Romney political ads.  The factors used to determine racial potential are:

  1. Does the ad reference racial stereotypes?
  2. Does the ad show Obama’s image alongside a racial stereotype?
  3. Are all the people surrounding a Romney white?
  4. Does the ad create an ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ racial contrast?
  5. Is the audience where the ad runs mostly white?
An explanation from the CSM for the necessity behind such analysis (h/t Weasel Zippers):

In the presidential election, it’s not a matter of whether racism will appear in campaign messaging, but when. President Obama is running for reelection with the support of the majority of black and Latino voters. Mitt Romney is challenging Mr. Obama with an almost exclusively white constituency behind him. Both candidates will raise and spend unprecedented amounts of money on political advertisements, as will their respective parties and allied super PACs.

A crucial question is: How will we know when pro-Romney ads are potentially racist? It’s not always so easy to recognize.

Reasonable people will disagree about whether an ad appeals to race in an innocuous or outright racist way. This is why we developed the Index of Racist Potential. It is based on the content of more than 1,000 political advertisements we analyzed that were sponsored by candidates in federal election contests from 1972 through 2006 and that included at least one candidate of color (black or Latino). The index measures the degree that a given ad has the potential to evoke – consciously or unconsciously – voters’ stereotypical attitudes about people of color, regardless of the intent of the candidate or campaign team.

When will the CSM be releasing a similar index for pro-Obama ads?  Or is it hands-off to analyze the President for potential racist actions because he is the first African-American president?  If so, is that not inherently racist?

Fortunately, we’ve analyzed the President’s actions recently and have determined that his election has not marked a post-racial presidency as advertised, but rather, it has been the most racially polarizing presidency in modern times.

A summary of facts:

  • Barack Obama is not a post-racial president, but a racially polarizing president.
  • In 2008, the mainstream media did not report that Barack Obama’s mentor Frank Davis, who Obama praises in his memoir Dreams from My Father, was a Communist, Stalin sympathizer, and dismissed the Christian faith as “another White New Hope.”
  • The Obama 2012 re-election campaign is using racist-toned overtures for its ad campaigns, a far cry from its 2008 platform of hope, change and unity.
  • Obama’s first term in office is replete with inherently racist actions:
  • Saying the Cambridge, MApolice “acted stupidly” when an African-American was arrested in his own home and stated theU.S. has “a long history…of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”
  • The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, or referred to as Obamacare) is “littered with race-based incentives”
  • There are instances where the media has “white-washed” their news coverage, ignoring instances where white Americans have been assaulted by African-Americans.
  • Highlights the growing divide between races, of how more Americans feel the country is divided by the issue of race.
  • Obama’s comments on Travyon Martin and the media’s burying of the truth surrounding George Zimmerman’s side of the story.
  • The Obama administration is using “race training” to protect government programs from budget cuts and the like.
  • The Obama administration is pursuing a goal of obtaining illegal votes to ensure re-election, with rampantly disorganized and inaccurate voter registration rolls and fighting state efforts to enact Voter ID laws (which clean up the voter registration rolls).

View all findings and data here…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Bloomberg: First We Came For Your Soda, Now Your Beer

July 26, 2012 at 9:00 am (Alcohol, Beer, Beer Crackdown, Bloomberg Beer, Mayor Bloomberg, Nanny Bloomberg, New York, New York City)

The nation’s most famous nanny is at it again.

Via the New York Post:

Having attacked smoking, trans fats and sugary drinks, the Bloomberg administration is ramping up its campaign against alcohol abuse, The Post has learned.

The city Health Department will be conducting a massive, 50-question telephone survey of New Yorkers to get a better handle on the level of alcohol abuse in the city.

“We routinely conduct surveys about important health issues to learn more about them, and underage and excessive drinking are serious health issues,” said Health Department spokesman Sam Miller.

Rumor has it, f you can’t make it through the 50-question survey without slurring your answers, you can expect Nanny Bloomberg to raid your refrigerator for the Pabst Blue Ribbons.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Report: Obamacare is a "Big Tax, Particularly on the Poor"

July 26, 2012 at 7:00 am (Big Tax, Healthcare, Healthcare Costs, Middle Class, Obamacare, Obamatax, Poor, President Obama, Rich, Supreme Court, Tax)

Just another sobering reminder that the President’s healthcare plan is a burden on people at every income level.  While the administration would like to play semantics on calling it a penalty, the rest of the nation, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, recognizes the massive tax implications of Obamacare – and now we’re learning that the effects will be economically devastating on one class in particular that the President claims to be a champion for … the poor.

The Daily Caller reports:

The penalty imposed by the Affordable Care Act on citizens who elect not to purchase health insurance will be at least $1,000 for most people, and more than $12,000 for high-income earners, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

“We can see that this is a big tax, particularly on the poor,” writes the Tax Foundation’s William McBride. “Higher income families generally pay a higher amount, but actually a smaller percent of their income, making this a regressive tax.”

For example, the penalty for a family of four earning $20,000 will be $2,085, more than 10 percent of its income, according to the Tax Foundation — whereas a family of four making $100,000 will only have two percent of its income taken away by the government.

A regressive tax for a regressive regime.  Why the War on the Poor, Mr. President?

The report then goes on to say that implementation of the individual mandate would have a negative impact on the economy, with people trying to shield their income from the new tax by “working less”.

An unemployment rate at 8.2%, an underemployment rate at nearly 15%, and the implementation of the President’s healthcare plan is going to cause people to ‘work less’ to avoid paying more.

Aren’t people already working less because of the President’s economic policies?

Obama.  Isn’t.  Working.

Permalink Leave a Comment