White House Health Czar: Must be on drugs

Several sources, including the Department of Health and Human Services in its report, have said that the Health Care Reform bill will increase premiums, and increase taxes. But Nancy-Anne Deparle again states that the bill will reduce insurance premiums, reduce taxes, and amazingly reduce the deficit by $100 billion over the next 10 years (that's $10 billion a year). Wow! Projected deficits may reach $10 TRILLION, in addition to the current debt. Do the math. This is insignificant.

Does the current administration really think we're stupid?

Here you go, more propaganda from the White House:



To quote the Health and Human Services report: "...the provisions in support of expanding health insurance coverage (including Medicaid eligibility changes and additional CHIP funding) are estimated to cost $828 billion through fiscal year 2019)."

Other opeds commenting on the growing power of the federal goverment:

Mrs. Obama and Fat Government, by Mona Charon
Fifteen Things to Despise about Government Regulation
Enough Money, by Thomas Sowell

This is where we're headed

Note the problem the Brits are having with their nationalized health-care system. Seems not all cancer patients are getting the medicines they need to treat their diseases. So the government increased taxes to cover the cost. From Health Insurance and Protection, from the UK:

All cancer patients would have access to the cancer drugs they need under a Conservative government, the Tories are claiming, thanks to a £200m cancer drugs fund [sic] created by raising the threshold for employers national insurance contributions.

The party claims that this policy will ensure that no cancer patient is refused access to drugs that have been licensed since 2005, if their doctors say they need them. Currently drugs that are licensed may still not be available on the NHS, if the national institute for health and clinical excellence (NICE) deems them to be not clinically or cost effective.

Note that they have a national institute making decisions about who gets a drug, and who doesn't. Not necessarily the doctor, nor the patient. And for all of this, the average Brit pays about 11 percent more of his smaller average salary in taxes than does a worker in the U.S.

This is where the Democrats want to take us to. But I think the majority of Americans were thinking something different when they heard "Health Care Reform."

Tax Cuts for the Rich

This tired old liberal mantra -- usually called "Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich" -- is beginning to wear thin. Just about every liberal commentator can't help themselves and will work it into the majority of their columns. A search on Google News today for the exact phrase "tax cuts for the rich" found 53 current news articles.

It's a bunch of verbal virtuosity (borrowing the term from Thomas Sowell) in an attempt to get you to believe that the tax cuts where only for the rich. They were not. Let's look at some facts.

Assume a median family of four income of $66,381, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The figure is for Texas, which I picked because I live here. And for simplicity sake, let's assume that is taxable income, because there are so many varibles when it comes to deductions, it's hard to figure an average, though the IRS reports that there were 17.6 million people who made between 50,000 and 75,000, for an average of $61,000 per year. So it's close.

In 2001, a taxable income of $66,381 required a tax payment of $12,603 for a married couple filing jointly.  In 2009, this tax is $9,121. 

These tax cuts are set to expire next year. Not just for the rich, but for everyone. So if Congress doesn't do anything, this average family of ours will see their tax bill go up $290 a month.

If you're in a lower tax bracket, it's just as bad. For example, with a taxable income of $25,000, the tax in 2001 was $3,754 for married filing jointly. In 2009, it's $2,919.

If your're fortunate enough to have a taxable income of $95,000, the tax in 2001 was $20,468. In 2009, it is $16,119. If you have a taxable income of $95,000, you're well off, but are you "rich"?

These figures don't include Social Security taxes of 6.2 percent, or the medicare tax of 1.45 percent, for an extra tax burden of 7.65 percent.

On the expiration of the “Bush” tax cuts, the tax brackets will change as follows:

Brackets 10, 25, 28, 33 and 35 percent will be increased by 50%, 12%, 10.7%, 9.1% and 13.1% percent, respectively, to 15, 28, 31, 36 and 39.6 percent. Those of you at the bottom of the income chart will see a 50% tax increase. Still think that those tax cuts are strictly for the wealthy? The child tax credit will be cut in half (even for those wealthy families with children) so in reality, the upper and lower classes benefited the most from the tax changes, with the lower class receiving far and away the largest benefit. Yet, we seldom hear this in our daily news. The phrase “tax cuts for the rich” has been repeated so many times that the majority of the people simply believe it.

But it's not true. And if this happens, the recession will come roaring back. We'll be in worse shape than we are now.

Observations about Taxes and the Stimulus

Liberals want to tax the "rich" and redistribute this money to the "poor." Conservatives want the lowest taxes possible for everyone.

Remember, Bush's tax cuts were for the "rich." Yet, if you do any small amount of research and study, when these tax cuts expire at the end of 2010, the "rich" will actually pay less of a share of taxes than they do now, according to the Tax Policy Center. This is because the lowest bracket, 10 percent, will go away and be replaced by the older 15 percent bottom bracket.

My conclusion on the liberal argument is that it is really about class warfare and perception, rather than based on fact.

Liberals firmly believe in taxation. Was it a coincidence that the national income tax (with a constitutional amendment) was instituted shortly after the birth of modern liberalism in the late 1800s and early 1900s?

In 1894, Democrats in Congress passed the Wilson-Gorman tariff, which imposed the first peacetime income tax. The rate was 2% on income over $4000, which meant fewer than 10 percent of households would pay any. The purpose of the income tax was to make up for revenue that would be lost by tariff reductions.

The Supreme Court later decided this was unconstitutional, so the Democrats responded by getting the 16th Amendment passed (ratified in 1913), which stated that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

As an amendment, it's pretty much permanent, hence the problems we face today.

Earlier this year, Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), which, among other things, temporarily put into place some of the refundable credits proposed during the campaign. The Tax Policy Center estimates that under the new law, 47 percent of taxpayers will owe no income tax in 2009.

Also according to the Tax Policy Center, 80 percent of taxpayers earning less than $50,000 a year pay no taxes.

According to the IRS, 23 million taxpayers received earned income credit -- which means they did not pay taxes, but received an amount of money from the government. That is about 17 percent of all individual taxpayers. Millions more get other credits, rather than paying taxes.

I hear all the time from conservatives that more than 50 percent of all Americans -- or is it wage earners -- do not pay income tax. This is about right, according to tax statistics. About 40 percent pay no taxes, yet receive a refund. The other 10 percent is more fuzzy, because the statistics are divided into quintiles. Yet liberals want more taxes, especially for the "rich." But the top 5 percent -- I guess those are "rich" people -- pay nearly 45 percent of federal taxes. Seems enough to me.

Liberals also believe that the worst time to cut taxes is during a recession (of course, during growth periods, they want to raise taxes). Increases government spending will get us out of recessionary periods. Conservatives on the other hand, believe cutting tax rates along with smaller government actually stimulates the economy.

What is the truth?

The Stimulus Doesn't Work

As of Sept 1, 2009, about 17 percent of the $787 billion stimulus package has been spent. You can bet as we get closer to mid-term elections next hear, much more will be spent. But it probably won't make much difference, if government spending doesn't work. Of course, as the economy slowly recovers, the Dems will take credit.

A further study of history will bear out the fact over government spending, yet our friends on the left won't or can't believe it.

What about you?

Stop Harrassing Big Oil, Bill

I'm tired of hearing Bill O'Reilly accuse the oil companies of screwing Americans. While I generally like the Factor, I don't watch it as much as I used to, because most of his guests are idiots. But I did catch a recent report where he called on the oil companies to contribute 2 percent of their profits into a general fund to help the poor heat and/or cool their homes.

Karl Rove was his guest to analyze. First of all, Rove is correct in saying that government should not impose penalties. And he also stated that oil companies generally only make 8 cents on the dollar in net profit. Also fairly accurate. Rove finally agree that oil companies contributing to charity isn't a bad idea -- just don't make it mandatory. Rove wins the debate with Bill, at least by my account.

Over the last 10 years, ExxonMobil has averaged 9.7 percent. Still low compared to other industries, but higher than some. The 8 cents on the dollar may be true for all oil companies -- I didn't do the math on that yet. But I like to be precise. When we're talking billions of dollars, a few percentage points is a lot of money.

However, the Christian Science Monitor reported today:

In the first quarter of 2008, Big Oil had a profit margin of 7.4 percent. Over that same period, the pharmaceutical and medicine industry earned a 25.9 percent profit, the chemical industry earned 15.7 percent and the electronic equipment industry earned 12.1 percent.

Bill keeps bringing up the fact that Exxon made 80 billion dollars (or is that the top five; it's hard to keep it straight). He fails to mention the dividends returned to shareholders ($43 billion for the top five), and the taxes these companies already pay.

Should the oil companies contribute 2 percent of the net profits to the poor for heating and cooling? I don't want government to impose that, but donating money to the poor is always a good idea, and could be good P.R.

Bill, why don't you set up a non-profit? Put your money where your mouth is. I'll contribute. Let everyone, including getting the oil companies to make tax-deductible contributions.

Better yet. I think I'll do it myself. And Bill, you better contribute, with money and publicity. Then maybe you can quit trashing Big Oil.

Windfall Profits and Pelosi's Myths

Obama has proposed a windfall profits tax. This is not the first time we've heard this. Hillary Clinton also said once she wanted to go after the oil companies. Let's penalize free market capaitalism. It's been tried before, and while it might make some folks feel good, it didn't work then, and wouldn't work now.

This is what the Economist had to say recently:

Mr Obama says that he would tax oil firms for “windfall profits”, and give motorists a rebate ($1,000 for families, $500 for individuals). Such a populist gesture might go down well with voters, but imposing a windfall tax would cause uncertainty in the oil industry and divert funds from investment in production of more oil, thus contributing to higher prices. Another suggestion, to release some oil from the strategic reserve, would bring a temporary benefit at best.

Of course, Obama and the rest of his ilk really do believe in income restribution, so that's no surprise. Take ExxonMobil. It's sales are staggering, some $116 billion last quarter. Its profit margin was about 9.7%. Over the last 10 years, Exxon has averaged 7.7% profit, from a low of about 4% to a high of 10.4%.

Everyone is yelling about huge profits, and they may be historic, but then again so is the price of oil, due to the shrinking spread between supply and demand and the speculation it causes in the markets. But the dividends these compaines are paying are equally outstanding. Exxon, Chevron, BP, Total and Royal Dutch and ConocoPhillips paid nearly $43 billion in dividends last year. And they've been buying back shares, which increases stockholder value (if you pay $1 billion in dividends, but there are fewer shares, each shareholder gets more of the dividend pie).

Regular people, like you and me, own these companies, either directly as stockholders, or through our retirement accounts, 401Ks, insurance programs, state retirement funds, etc.

So this is not such a bad deal. If it's so horrible that Exxon make 9 percent profit, why is no one yelling about other companies, like Microsoft, which makes nearly 30 percent profit. Where's the outcry?

So Obama and Pelosi have a no-drill policy. No debate allowed on the house floor. Turn off the lights, and let's go home.

Then during the weekend, she was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos. She continues with her ignorant myths. Anyone with the ability to read, investigate and think clearly can see that developing more of ALL of our resources is the answer short-term and long-term.

But Obama and Pelosi are elitists and don't care about you. Let's save the planet, while destroying America. That will solve all of our problems.

Where Has All Our Money Gone?

During the last two years (2006 and 2007), the U.S. Government spent about $5.3 trillion. This astronomical sum of money is almost beyond comprehension. During these same two years, the government collected about $5.0 trillion. Again, a huge pile of cash.

One way to look at this amount of money -- $5.3 trillion over two years -- is how that breaks down for every person in the country, called per capita: It's $17,385 per person for two years, or about $8,690 per person per year.

Another way to look at is how much money does the U.S. Government spends per each worker, those who are employed. During the second quarter of this year, there were about 146 million people with jobs. It comes to $18,150 per employed person per year.

Page 19 of this table will show you a summary of where the government gets its money. Page 22 shows a summary of which agency gets what.

And we've all heard of earmarks. Well, you can find out what is being spent on these little jewels. The Office of Management and Budget has the information.

Our government has grown so large that no one can control it, a concept offered in this article called Insatiable Government by Garet Garrett:

There are many aspects of government. The one least considered is what may be called the biological aspect, in which government is like an organism with such an instinct for growth and self-expression that if let alone it is bound to destroy human freedom — not that it might wish to do so but that it could not in nature do less. No government ever wants less government — that is, less of itself. No government ever surrenders power, even its emergency powers — not really. It may mean to surrender them, but on the first new occasion it will take them all back. One of the American Government's wartime powers was the War Finance Corporation. The present Reconstruction Finance Corporation is a revival of that power in time of peace. And so it goes.

This was first published on June 25, 1932. We haven't learned. From the New Deal to Johnson's War on Poverty, we've allowed the government to control just about everything we do. This is not freedom.

It will only get worse, unlesss we do something about it.

Bailing out idiots

Today, the Senate by a large majority voted to keep working on a $300-billion mortgage foreclosure rescue bill. As Fox News reports:

WASHINGTON — A massive foreclosure rescue bill overwhelmingly cleared a key Senate test Tuesday, drawing broad support from Democrats and Republicans alike.

As a home-owner who pays a mortgage, I'm a little bit teed-off at this comtemplated rescue by Congress of both people who bought larger mortgages than they could afford, or were sold mortgages by companies who really didn't care if the buyer could afford the payment later down the road. And for all those banks who bought risky mortgages, how do you like your stock prices now?

If the bill makes it through Congress, and the President is dumb enough to sign it, it will reward bad behavior of both homeowners and mortgage lenders. All with my tax dollars.

Again, the liberal-controlled Congress, and the weak-kneed Republicans, are spending my money to rescue people who shouldn't be rescued.

As Lewis Black said two years ago: On the one side, you have the Democrats, the party of No Ideas. And on the other side, you have the Republicans, the party of Bad Ideas.

I guess he had something there, huh?