President Obama and his cadre of ideological clones have been doing somersaults, celebrating the government numbers on unemployment and economic growth. The cheerleaders in the media have linked hands with the administration, performing journalistic handstands to mark the turnaround.
The coordinated attempt to brainwash voters in the final days of the presidential election is without precedent because it involves collusion with supposedly non-partisan government agencies. Skepticism about the federal data has been met with stinging administration rebukes.
Yet heading into October, most financial experts agreed the economy was comatose. Leading indicators showed only a weak economic pulse. Then two government agencies released data on unemployment and expansion of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) that raised eyebrows.
The opening propaganda volley was fired by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which reported the nation's unemployment rate inexplicably nosedived to 7.8 percent in September. The turnabout occurred after 43 consecutive months of unemployment rates above eight percent.
According to the statisticians, the economy added a staggering 873,000 jobs in a single month, following three months of stagnation. The jump was the nation's largest gain in workers in 29 years, despite little change in economic activity.
Retired General Electric CEO Jack Welch was the first to challenge the data. The president's Propaganda Minister Jay Carney and the media sheep tried to silence the former executive by ridiculing him for daring to suggest the numbers were cooked.
Welch had good reason to be skeptical. The data appears at odds with reality. The nation's plodding economic expansion does not explain the extraordinary job gains.
The bureau's glowing job numbers were based on in-person and telephone interviews of 60,000 households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. Households are selected in each state by the census organization to represent the entire country. Each sample includes 75 percent of the same households that participated in the previous month's survey.
Surveys are notoriously flawed. They depend entirely on the honesty of respondents and the accuracy of the interviewer in recording answers. In the aftermath of the unemployment drop, critics expressed concerns about the methodology.
They had grounds to question the veracity.
As part of each monthly report, government statisticians at the bureau also examine the actual payrolls of 141,000 businesses. In September, the inspection found 114,000 jobs were added. That is a discrepancy of more than 600,000 jobs between the payroll data and the household interviews.
No plausible explanation has been forthcoming from the media or the government statisticians. It is further evidence that the media has abdicated its role as government watchdog to avoid spoiling the president's reelection chances. The media and the administration had one more trick up their sleeves.
Last week the Commerce Department issued an "estimate" showing growth of 2.0 percent in the third quarter for the GDP, a measurement of the goods and services produced by the nation's economy. The Obama Administration backflipped and the media cartwheeled.
The improvement surprised the nation's top economists. In a survey of 48 financial experts, their consensus was the economy would grow by 1.8 percent, according to the USA Today. For the second quarter, the GDP growth had been an unimpressive 1.3 percent.
There was a a little noticed nugget buried in the commerce report. Most of the growth could be attributed to federal government spending, which rose 9.6 percent in the third quarter after tumbling 0.2 percent in the second quarter. Surely that wasn't a coincidence.
In addition, not a single media outlet called attention to the cautionary language contained in the department's report, which emphasized the third quarter figures were an "advance estimate based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision."
Isn't it convenient, too, that revised figures with more complete data will not be released until November 29, some 23 days after the election?
Yet Americans are supposed to trust the media when it claims the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Commerce Department are beyond rapprochement. Really? Government data is constantly being updated to correct figures already in the public domain.
As a recent example, the press breathlessly proclaimed that jobless claims fell to 342,000 for the week ended October 13, marking the lowest number since February of 2008. Long after the news grabbed headlines, the Labor Department quietly corrected the figure by raising it to 388,000.
A democracy demands a vigilant and impartial media. The United States has neither.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
Earth to Obama: US Has a Spending Problem
Listening to the president the past four years, it's clear he views hiking taxes as the only way to grow government revenue and slice the yawning federal deficit. Imagine his shock when he realized this month that tax receipts actually rose last fiscal year without an increase in federal income taxes.
Even with those evil Bush-era cuts in force, tax revenues increased six per cent in fiscal 2012, which ended September 30. Washington collected three percent more in personal taxes. Corporations coughed up an increase of 34 percent over fiscal 2011.
Despite the healthy growth in tax revenue, the nation recorded a $1.089 trillion deficit in 2012. This marks four straight years of trillion dollar deficits. To pay for the deficits, the United States is expected to bump up against the $16.39 trillion debt ceiling before the end of 2012.
The cumulative federal debt will likely reach 70 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) by the end of the year, according to this month's estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). That would be the highest level since World War II. It was 40 percent when George W. Bush waved goodbye to Washington.
Without significant changes, the CBO warned that federal debt could hit 90 percent of GDP by 2022. If that sounds ominous, consider this: the financially distressed country of Spain is on pace to reach the 85.3 percent mark by the end of this year.
How did the United States arrive at this financial precipice?
In his first two years in office, President Obama boosted federal spending by 28 per cent. His latest budget proposal for 2013 would tack on another $1 trillion in debt. The administration's long-term forecast calls for a stunning 57 percent increase in government outlays by 2021.
Over the previous 50 years, spending has averaged 20.2 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Last fiscal year, federal government expenditures topped 24 percent of GDP.
As a result of the spending binge, America is drowning in a ocean of red ink.
Without a major policy shift, the U.S. is barreling toward a financial meltdown of epic scale. If that sounds alarmist, just read the CBO report of August 22, chronicling the Mount Everest of debt that has accumulated since Barrack Obama vowed to "cut the deficit in half" during his first term.
"If current policies are continued, it would lead to a level of federal debt that would be unsustainable from both a budgetary and an economic perspective," the non-partisan CBO stated in its chilling review of federal deficits and spending.
President Obama's answer to spiraling deficits is escalating taxes. Obama has promised to raise the top tax rates for nearly every major federal tax. That includes levies on capital gains, corporate dividends, death taxes as well as soaking high-earners with a 20 percent increase in personal tax rates.
Forcing Americans to give up more of their hard-earned income to Uncle Sam is not the answer. That will only kill the puny economic growth that Obama has presided over during his four years. Spending must be addressed if the nation is serious about curbing runaway deficits.
It is delusional and irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Economic growth, not taxes, is the best way to increase federal revenues. A booming economy, accompanied by spending cuts, would enable the government to address the cataclysmic deficits.
Like so many things during the last four years, the same media that harped on the Bush era deficits has elected to treat the current financial crisis as mere political theatre. It can't be Obama's fault. Yet the numbers do not lie. America is in worse financial shape than at any time since World War II.
The nation is spending itself into ruin. The country cannot afford four more years of Barrack Obama.
Even with those evil Bush-era cuts in force, tax revenues increased six per cent in fiscal 2012, which ended September 30. Washington collected three percent more in personal taxes. Corporations coughed up an increase of 34 percent over fiscal 2011.
Despite the healthy growth in tax revenue, the nation recorded a $1.089 trillion deficit in 2012. This marks four straight years of trillion dollar deficits. To pay for the deficits, the United States is expected to bump up against the $16.39 trillion debt ceiling before the end of 2012.
The cumulative federal debt will likely reach 70 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) by the end of the year, according to this month's estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). That would be the highest level since World War II. It was 40 percent when George W. Bush waved goodbye to Washington.
Without significant changes, the CBO warned that federal debt could hit 90 percent of GDP by 2022. If that sounds ominous, consider this: the financially distressed country of Spain is on pace to reach the 85.3 percent mark by the end of this year.
How did the United States arrive at this financial precipice?
Over the previous 50 years, spending has averaged 20.2 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Last fiscal year, federal government expenditures topped 24 percent of GDP.
As a result of the spending binge, America is drowning in a ocean of red ink.
Without a major policy shift, the U.S. is barreling toward a financial meltdown of epic scale. If that sounds alarmist, just read the CBO report of August 22, chronicling the Mount Everest of debt that has accumulated since Barrack Obama vowed to "cut the deficit in half" during his first term.
"If current policies are continued, it would lead to a level of federal debt that would be unsustainable from both a budgetary and an economic perspective," the non-partisan CBO stated in its chilling review of federal deficits and spending.
President Obama's answer to spiraling deficits is escalating taxes. Obama has promised to raise the top tax rates for nearly every major federal tax. That includes levies on capital gains, corporate dividends, death taxes as well as soaking high-earners with a 20 percent increase in personal tax rates.
Forcing Americans to give up more of their hard-earned income to Uncle Sam is not the answer. That will only kill the puny economic growth that Obama has presided over during his four years. Spending must be addressed if the nation is serious about curbing runaway deficits.
It is delusional and irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Economic growth, not taxes, is the best way to increase federal revenues. A booming economy, accompanied by spending cuts, would enable the government to address the cataclysmic deficits.
Like so many things during the last four years, the same media that harped on the Bush era deficits has elected to treat the current financial crisis as mere political theatre. It can't be Obama's fault. Yet the numbers do not lie. America is in worse financial shape than at any time since World War II.
The nation is spending itself into ruin. The country cannot afford four more years of Barrack Obama.
Monday, October 15, 2012
What the U.S. Can Learn From France
Since President Obama considers raising taxes on the wealthy a patriotic duty, he should ponder the recent fallout in France after that country's new socialist leader zapped millionaires. The maneuver has fueled a selling frenzy of pricey real estate and triggered an exodus to tax friendly nations.
The great escape began when candidate Francois Hollande pandered to his Socialist Party faithful by vowing to levy a 75 percent tax on all personal income that exceeds one million euros a year. Many figured it was an election stunt. But President Hollande has rammed through the new tax and signaled he wants to increase taxes on businesses, too.
The confiscatory tax, scheduled to take affect later this year, has sent shivers through France's top earners. About 500 residences worth more than one million euros have gone onto the Paris market since May. Lawyers report an unprecedented number of calls from prosperous executives wanting to flee France.
The country's wealthiest man made no secret of the fact he is seeking citizenship in neighboring Belgium. Bernard Arnault, chief executive of luxury brand Moet-Hennessy Louis Vuitton (MHLV), wants no part of Hollande's soak-the-rich scheme.
The French media acted with outrage. Hollande scolded Arnault for being unpatriotic. Socialists and trade unions squealed with delight. However, Hollande's public approval ratings have nosedived. The French president has no one to blame but himself and his lousy political acumen.
In defending the tax, France's top man claimed the revenues would help reduce the nation's hefty budget deficit. However, the tax revenue from an estimated 30,000 wealthy earners would make-up a tiny fraction of the 33 billion euros needed to help balance France's budget.
The tax does nothing to address France's economic woes. The country recorded zero growth in the second quarter. Unemployment ticked up to 10.3 percent, the highest in more than a decade. Raising taxes will blunt any chance of economic recovery.
Does any of this sound familiar? It should. Hollande and his socialist pals have ripped a page right out of the playbook of Barrack Obama. If the U.S. president gets his way, America will be treated to the same sort of spectacle.
It is political naiveté to think sharp increases in taxes will be met with passive resignation. As France is discovering, the new levy is stifling business growth, drying up capital for new ventures and motivating foreign companies to consider alternative locations for their investment.
The draconian tax, aimed at the wealthy, has harmed every French citizen and splintered the nation by pitting one class against another.
Don't expect America's socialist president to learn from his French connection. President Obama is determined to hoist the top tax rate to 39.6 percent on every couple earning $250,000 or more. Why stop there? In 1963, the United States' highest individual income tax rate stood at 91 percent.
Democratic Party President John Kennedy lobbied for a lower rate. After his death, Congress sliced the rate on the largest earners to 70 percent. President Reagan trimmed the top rate to 50 percent in 1982. He went a step further in 1988, dropping it to 28 percent, igniting the longest sustained economic boom in the nation's history.
The French lesson should be painfully obvious. Higher taxes often hinder economic growth by reducing consumer spending and investment. In the midst of the current U.S. economic malaise, the idea of a tax hike on any wage earner deserves public scorn.
It is rotten political and economic policy.
The great escape began when candidate Francois Hollande pandered to his Socialist Party faithful by vowing to levy a 75 percent tax on all personal income that exceeds one million euros a year. Many figured it was an election stunt. But President Hollande has rammed through the new tax and signaled he wants to increase taxes on businesses, too.
The confiscatory tax, scheduled to take affect later this year, has sent shivers through France's top earners. About 500 residences worth more than one million euros have gone onto the Paris market since May. Lawyers report an unprecedented number of calls from prosperous executives wanting to flee France.
The country's wealthiest man made no secret of the fact he is seeking citizenship in neighboring Belgium. Bernard Arnault, chief executive of luxury brand Moet-Hennessy Louis Vuitton (MHLV), wants no part of Hollande's soak-the-rich scheme.
The French media acted with outrage. Hollande scolded Arnault for being unpatriotic. Socialists and trade unions squealed with delight. However, Hollande's public approval ratings have nosedived. The French president has no one to blame but himself and his lousy political acumen.
In defending the tax, France's top man claimed the revenues would help reduce the nation's hefty budget deficit. However, the tax revenue from an estimated 30,000 wealthy earners would make-up a tiny fraction of the 33 billion euros needed to help balance France's budget.
The tax does nothing to address France's economic woes. The country recorded zero growth in the second quarter. Unemployment ticked up to 10.3 percent, the highest in more than a decade. Raising taxes will blunt any chance of economic recovery.
Does any of this sound familiar? It should. Hollande and his socialist pals have ripped a page right out of the playbook of Barrack Obama. If the U.S. president gets his way, America will be treated to the same sort of spectacle.
It is political naiveté to think sharp increases in taxes will be met with passive resignation. As France is discovering, the new levy is stifling business growth, drying up capital for new ventures and motivating foreign companies to consider alternative locations for their investment.
The draconian tax, aimed at the wealthy, has harmed every French citizen and splintered the nation by pitting one class against another.
Don't expect America's socialist president to learn from his French connection. President Obama is determined to hoist the top tax rate to 39.6 percent on every couple earning $250,000 or more. Why stop there? In 1963, the United States' highest individual income tax rate stood at 91 percent.
Democratic Party President John Kennedy lobbied for a lower rate. After his death, Congress sliced the rate on the largest earners to 70 percent. President Reagan trimmed the top rate to 50 percent in 1982. He went a step further in 1988, dropping it to 28 percent, igniting the longest sustained economic boom in the nation's history.
The French lesson should be painfully obvious. Higher taxes often hinder economic growth by reducing consumer spending and investment. In the midst of the current U.S. economic malaise, the idea of a tax hike on any wage earner deserves public scorn.
It is rotten political and economic policy.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Obama Czars Deserve Fate of Russian Tzars
They are shadowy figures. Most enjoy six-figure salaries. Few appear in public. Their activities are cloaked in secrecy. They are seldom held accountable. Yet they wield enormous power. Even the media can't determine exactly how many there are. But their numbers are growing.
They are the czars of the Obama Administration.
Since taking office, President Obama has installed personal advisors in so-called czar positions in the White House and elsewhere in the executive branch. At last count, there were about 45. In addition, there may be as many as 18 other unfilled czar jobs. But those numbers remain circumspect.
Those crowned czars by Obama include: Car Czar, Climate Czar, Drug Czar, TARP Czar, Technology Czar, Terrorism Czar, Oil Spill Czar, Safe Schools Czar, Science Czar, Regulatory Czar, Stimulus Accountability Czar, Pay Czar, Green Energy Czar and Great Lakes Czar.
And that's just a partial list. Virtually every one of these czars has shared responsibilities for issues that are under the purview of either Cabinet level executives or heads of the endless list of federal government departments. The amount of redundancy is staggering.
These czars are largely unaccountable to Congress. Their activities often are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, which allows the individuals to operate with almost no public scrutiny. That provides cover for the czars to conduct their activities in secrecy.
In 2011, the House tacked on an amendment to a spending package to defund a select list of czars. After it was approved, it went nowhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate. President Obama breathed a sigh of relief and quietly began plans to expand the czar regime.
In fact, as part of the bogus American Jobs Act the president proposed a whole new group of czars. These faceless autocrats will be charged with managing more than a trillion dollars in taxpayer funds to construct bridges, highways, waterways and other infrastructure projects.
Doesn't the Department of Transportation have responsibility for those matters? Why does the nation need another layer of bureaucracy?
The media should demand answers to those questions from the president. No way that will happen.
Instead, the mainstream media looks the other way while President Obama continues to build a shadow government that operates out of view from the prying eyes of taxpayers who are funding the excesses of his administration.
In fairness, President George W. Bush dabbled in czars, too. But Obama has raised the number as a way to avoid having to seek Senate confirmation for often controversial appointees. Some of the more disreputable Obama czars have disappeared never to be heard from again.
Independent Judicial Watch has sued in federal court to gain information about the specific activities of some czars. An impartial media would have exposed long ago the idea of giving unaccountable officials the power to regulate and control wide swaths of the economy and government.
In a democracy, there is no room for czars. Americans should demand an end to the practice. Even Russia's swooning infatuation with tzars came to a close in 1917, some 96 years ago. It's time for the U.S. to follow suit.
They are the czars of the Obama Administration.
Since taking office, President Obama has installed personal advisors in so-called czar positions in the White House and elsewhere in the executive branch. At last count, there were about 45. In addition, there may be as many as 18 other unfilled czar jobs. But those numbers remain circumspect.
Those crowned czars by Obama include: Car Czar, Climate Czar, Drug Czar, TARP Czar, Technology Czar, Terrorism Czar, Oil Spill Czar, Safe Schools Czar, Science Czar, Regulatory Czar, Stimulus Accountability Czar, Pay Czar, Green Energy Czar and Great Lakes Czar.
And that's just a partial list. Virtually every one of these czars has shared responsibilities for issues that are under the purview of either Cabinet level executives or heads of the endless list of federal government departments. The amount of redundancy is staggering.
These czars are largely unaccountable to Congress. Their activities often are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, which allows the individuals to operate with almost no public scrutiny. That provides cover for the czars to conduct their activities in secrecy.
In 2011, the House tacked on an amendment to a spending package to defund a select list of czars. After it was approved, it went nowhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate. President Obama breathed a sigh of relief and quietly began plans to expand the czar regime.
In fact, as part of the bogus American Jobs Act the president proposed a whole new group of czars. These faceless autocrats will be charged with managing more than a trillion dollars in taxpayer funds to construct bridges, highways, waterways and other infrastructure projects.
Doesn't the Department of Transportation have responsibility for those matters? Why does the nation need another layer of bureaucracy?
The media should demand answers to those questions from the president. No way that will happen.
Instead, the mainstream media looks the other way while President Obama continues to build a shadow government that operates out of view from the prying eyes of taxpayers who are funding the excesses of his administration.
In fairness, President George W. Bush dabbled in czars, too. But Obama has raised the number as a way to avoid having to seek Senate confirmation for often controversial appointees. Some of the more disreputable Obama czars have disappeared never to be heard from again.
Independent Judicial Watch has sued in federal court to gain information about the specific activities of some czars. An impartial media would have exposed long ago the idea of giving unaccountable officials the power to regulate and control wide swaths of the economy and government.
In a democracy, there is no room for czars. Americans should demand an end to the practice. Even Russia's swooning infatuation with tzars came to a close in 1917, some 96 years ago. It's time for the U.S. to follow suit.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Three Big Lies About Obama Care
President Obama's propaganda machine to indoctrinate Americans about the benefits of his health care reform law has relied on the "Big Lie" technique. The president has repeated his fabrications at every opportunity counting on the echo chamber in the media to broadcast the fallacies.
Left unchallenged, the misinformation has become accepted fact. Even well-informed people refuse to believe the convincing evidence about the falsehoods perpetuated by the administration. The blame rests with the media, which has failed its duty to fact-check the president.
Americans will soon learn the hard way about the president's deception. Once the law's health insurance mandate goes into affect in 2014, most people will be shocked by the reality of Obama Care. The president hopes Americans have short memories about his promises.
Here are the president's three biggest whoppers about the Affordable Care Act signed into law in 2010:
"If you like your (current health care) plan, you can keep it."
There is absolutely no guarantee and it depends entirely on what your employer does. Companies will have a disincentive to offer health insurance. Employers who decide to forgo offering health insurance will have to pay a tax of $2,000, which is far less than what it costs most major firms to provide health care benefits to each employee.
Take the example of Southwest Airlines. Under Obama Care, the company would expect to pay $414 million annually to provide health care to its employees or it could drop coverage and fork over $111 million in taxes. The financial discrepancy will encourage firms to end employee plans.
House Republicans released a study in May that found 71 of the 100 Fortune companies it surveyed could save $28.6 billion by eliminating health care plans and paying the $2,000 government tax.
No wonder a recent McKinsey and Co. report found 30 to 50 percent of current employers would dump company-sponsored health plans by 2014 when the mandate goes into effect.
The Congressional Budget Office had even worse news. It found as many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-provided coverage under what it calls a "worse case scenario."
Even that scenario may be too rosy. Starting in 2018, a 40 percent excise tax will be slapped on taxpayers who are covered by a high-cost health insurance plan, the so called "Cadillac"coverage offered by many large companies.
Under any scenario, your current health care coverage will not be the same that it is today. That is a guarantee.
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
That assumes your doctor will not opt out of Obama Care. A survey conducted by the non-partisan Doctor Patient Medical Association reported that 83 percent of doctors have considered leaving their current practice over the new health care law.
The disturbing finding comes at a time when the medical profession is forecasting severe shortages of doctors to meet the new demands for health care. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the deficit could be 50 percent worse in 2015 than originally forecast.
A new study published in the journal Health Affairs predicts 16 million people will be added to the rolls of Medicaid in 2014. Medicaid, funded jointly by the federal government and states, serves low-income families. Under Obama Care, millions without insurance today will wind up on Medicaid.
However, the study documents that nearly one-third of doctors today are not accepting new Medicaid patients. This will exacerbate the looming issue of doctor shortages. If the AAMC estimates prove correct, it could mean a scarcity of 91,500 doctors nationwide.
A recent report from the Heritage Foundation says Obama Care will "accelerate the decline in doctor-owned private practices because more physicians will only accept patients who can pay cash." The reason is Obama Care significantly reduces reimbursements to doctors for many patient services.
Chances are good that your doctor will not accept the lower reimbursements. Many physicians only will cater to people who can afford to pay for their own care or they will leave medicine.
"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase."
Of all the preposterous claims, this one earns the booby prize for crass dishonesty.
To fund health care, the new law creates 19 new types of taxes and fees over the next decade to raise $500 billion. The billions will be paid by businesses and individuals. According to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, about 73 million taxpayers earning less than $200,000 annually will be saddled with tax increases.
This month the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that nearly six million Americans, mostly middle class, will face tax penalties for failing to carry health insurance coverage once the individual mandate takes effect in 2014.
Even these new taxes will likely fall short of the funding requirements. The original price tag for Obama Care was $944 billion over ten years. In May, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the cost over the next ten years at $1.856 trillion, about $912 billion more than the original forecast.
Obama Care cannot be paid for without taxing Americans of every economic level.
How could the president of the United States think Americans are so gullible?
For Barrack Obama, the answer to that question is obvious. When you have a self-inflated view of your own intelligence, you are convinced everyone else can be easily duped.
Left unchallenged, the misinformation has become accepted fact. Even well-informed people refuse to believe the convincing evidence about the falsehoods perpetuated by the administration. The blame rests with the media, which has failed its duty to fact-check the president.
Americans will soon learn the hard way about the president's deception. Once the law's health insurance mandate goes into affect in 2014, most people will be shocked by the reality of Obama Care. The president hopes Americans have short memories about his promises.
Here are the president's three biggest whoppers about the Affordable Care Act signed into law in 2010:
"If you like your (current health care) plan, you can keep it."
There is absolutely no guarantee and it depends entirely on what your employer does. Companies will have a disincentive to offer health insurance. Employers who decide to forgo offering health insurance will have to pay a tax of $2,000, which is far less than what it costs most major firms to provide health care benefits to each employee.
Take the example of Southwest Airlines. Under Obama Care, the company would expect to pay $414 million annually to provide health care to its employees or it could drop coverage and fork over $111 million in taxes. The financial discrepancy will encourage firms to end employee plans.
House Republicans released a study in May that found 71 of the 100 Fortune companies it surveyed could save $28.6 billion by eliminating health care plans and paying the $2,000 government tax.
No wonder a recent McKinsey and Co. report found 30 to 50 percent of current employers would dump company-sponsored health plans by 2014 when the mandate goes into effect.
The Congressional Budget Office had even worse news. It found as many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-provided coverage under what it calls a "worse case scenario."
Even that scenario may be too rosy. Starting in 2018, a 40 percent excise tax will be slapped on taxpayers who are covered by a high-cost health insurance plan, the so called "Cadillac"coverage offered by many large companies.
Under any scenario, your current health care coverage will not be the same that it is today. That is a guarantee.
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
That assumes your doctor will not opt out of Obama Care. A survey conducted by the non-partisan Doctor Patient Medical Association reported that 83 percent of doctors have considered leaving their current practice over the new health care law.
The disturbing finding comes at a time when the medical profession is forecasting severe shortages of doctors to meet the new demands for health care. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates the deficit could be 50 percent worse in 2015 than originally forecast.
A new study published in the journal Health Affairs predicts 16 million people will be added to the rolls of Medicaid in 2014. Medicaid, funded jointly by the federal government and states, serves low-income families. Under Obama Care, millions without insurance today will wind up on Medicaid.
However, the study documents that nearly one-third of doctors today are not accepting new Medicaid patients. This will exacerbate the looming issue of doctor shortages. If the AAMC estimates prove correct, it could mean a scarcity of 91,500 doctors nationwide.
A recent report from the Heritage Foundation says Obama Care will "accelerate the decline in doctor-owned private practices because more physicians will only accept patients who can pay cash." The reason is Obama Care significantly reduces reimbursements to doctors for many patient services.
Chances are good that your doctor will not accept the lower reimbursements. Many physicians only will cater to people who can afford to pay for their own care or they will leave medicine.
"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase."
Of all the preposterous claims, this one earns the booby prize for crass dishonesty.
To fund health care, the new law creates 19 new types of taxes and fees over the next decade to raise $500 billion. The billions will be paid by businesses and individuals. According to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, about 73 million taxpayers earning less than $200,000 annually will be saddled with tax increases.
This month the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that nearly six million Americans, mostly middle class, will face tax penalties for failing to carry health insurance coverage once the individual mandate takes effect in 2014.
Even these new taxes will likely fall short of the funding requirements. The original price tag for Obama Care was $944 billion over ten years. In May, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the cost over the next ten years at $1.856 trillion, about $912 billion more than the original forecast.
Obama Care cannot be paid for without taxing Americans of every economic level.
How could the president of the United States think Americans are so gullible?
For Barrack Obama, the answer to that question is obvious. When you have a self-inflated view of your own intelligence, you are convinced everyone else can be easily duped.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Shabby Treatment of Cancer Icon
Nearly three million breast cancer survivors enjoying active lives today owe a debt of gratitude to Nancy G. Brinker. Her promise to her dying sister, Susan G. Komen, inspired a movement to conquer an ugly disease that will strike more than 226,870 women this year, according to the American Cancer Society.
In 1982 when Komen succumbed to breast cancer at age 36, Brinker took upon her shoulders the burden of raising awareness of the disease. She faced a steep uphill struggle. No one talked openly about breast cancer. In fact, some newspapers even balked at using the words in print.
There were precious few resources to assist women with breast cancer. There were no support groups. Mammograms were not considered a mandatory part of women's health care. Only a handful of breast cancer treatment options were available to women.
All that changed thanks to the courageous efforts of Brinker.
Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure was launched in 1982. Under Brinker's tireless leadership, the organization broke the silence surrounding breast cancer. The group lifted the profile of breast cancer and energized scientists to tackle a cure.
Brinker also enlisted the help of breast cancer survivors and activists to hike government funding of breast cancer research. She created the Susan F. Komen Race for the Cure, raising billions of dollars for breast cancer research, screening and treatment. She put breast cancer on the nation's agenda.
Her crusade has produced results. After increasing for more than two decades, breast cancer incidences fell by about two percent a year from 1999 to 2005. Death rates also declined sharply, tumbling to three percent of all breast cancer cases. Once breast cancer was a death sentence.
For all her contributions, Brinker has been savaged by the media and the bullies at Planned Parenthood for a single policy move. Earlier this year, the Komen foundation announced it was reconsidering its financial support for Planned Parenthood, incurring the feral rancor of the pro-abortion crowd.
A firestorm ensued that threatened to cripple the foundation's fundraising. Brinker was personally attacked by the same Planned Parenthood activists who had benefited for decades from her foundation's largess. The ungrateful pro-abortion advocates reacted like spoiled brats.
Twenty-six members of the U.S. House and Senate signed a letter pressuring the foundation to renew its grants to Planned Parenthood. After weeks of blistering media coverage, Brinker was forced to apologize publicly and reverse her foundation's stance.
Despite the restoration of the grants, Planned Parenthood's bullies were not mollified. They continue their relentless campaign of intimidation by boycotting the foundation's chief fund raiser, the annual Race for the Cure, in cities across the country.
That led founder Brinker to step down recently from her role as chief executive of the organization after 30 years at the helm. Because Brinker will retain a management role, the media and the pro-abortion brutes remain unimpressed. They are determined to oust her from the organization.
The controversy should sadden every women. Brinker has done more for women's health than Planned Parenthood or any single person. For her unselfish dedication to the cause, she has endured withering attacks for a single policy decision that was later rescinded. Her apology fell on deaf ears.
Women concerned about cancer cannot remain silent. Nancy G. Brinker gave voice to a movement that changed the course of women's health care. In return, she deserves every women's vocal support, not the verbal mugging administered by Planned Parenthood.
In 1982 when Komen succumbed to breast cancer at age 36, Brinker took upon her shoulders the burden of raising awareness of the disease. She faced a steep uphill struggle. No one talked openly about breast cancer. In fact, some newspapers even balked at using the words in print.
There were precious few resources to assist women with breast cancer. There were no support groups. Mammograms were not considered a mandatory part of women's health care. Only a handful of breast cancer treatment options were available to women.
All that changed thanks to the courageous efforts of Brinker.
Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure was launched in 1982. Under Brinker's tireless leadership, the organization broke the silence surrounding breast cancer. The group lifted the profile of breast cancer and energized scientists to tackle a cure.
Brinker also enlisted the help of breast cancer survivors and activists to hike government funding of breast cancer research. She created the Susan F. Komen Race for the Cure, raising billions of dollars for breast cancer research, screening and treatment. She put breast cancer on the nation's agenda.
Her crusade has produced results. After increasing for more than two decades, breast cancer incidences fell by about two percent a year from 1999 to 2005. Death rates also declined sharply, tumbling to three percent of all breast cancer cases. Once breast cancer was a death sentence.
For all her contributions, Brinker has been savaged by the media and the bullies at Planned Parenthood for a single policy move. Earlier this year, the Komen foundation announced it was reconsidering its financial support for Planned Parenthood, incurring the feral rancor of the pro-abortion crowd.
A firestorm ensued that threatened to cripple the foundation's fundraising. Brinker was personally attacked by the same Planned Parenthood activists who had benefited for decades from her foundation's largess. The ungrateful pro-abortion advocates reacted like spoiled brats.
Twenty-six members of the U.S. House and Senate signed a letter pressuring the foundation to renew its grants to Planned Parenthood. After weeks of blistering media coverage, Brinker was forced to apologize publicly and reverse her foundation's stance.
Despite the restoration of the grants, Planned Parenthood's bullies were not mollified. They continue their relentless campaign of intimidation by boycotting the foundation's chief fund raiser, the annual Race for the Cure, in cities across the country.
That led founder Brinker to step down recently from her role as chief executive of the organization after 30 years at the helm. Because Brinker will retain a management role, the media and the pro-abortion brutes remain unimpressed. They are determined to oust her from the organization.
The controversy should sadden every women. Brinker has done more for women's health than Planned Parenthood or any single person. For her unselfish dedication to the cause, she has endured withering attacks for a single policy decision that was later rescinded. Her apology fell on deaf ears.
Women concerned about cancer cannot remain silent. Nancy G. Brinker gave voice to a movement that changed the course of women's health care. In return, she deserves every women's vocal support, not the verbal mugging administered by Planned Parenthood.
Monday, September 10, 2012
How Obama Can Win In November
Psssst. Press your ear to the computer. Here's a secret no Republican wants to share. It will help Barrack Obama secure a second term. Lean closer. Don't let any Democrats listen in. This is how the president can win the election. Scare the hell out of those receiving government assistance.
Of course, this is not a new strategy for the Democratic Party. Every election cycle the party of donkeys accuses Republicans of trying to shove granny off the cliff or push the poor into a ditch or strip women of their health care benefits. It's what desperate Democrats do.
However, in this election year with dependence on the government at record levels, expect the rhetoric to ratchet up. Nearly one in five Americans receives some form of government financial support. And their numbers are mushrooming under the Obama Administration. That's no coincidence.
When John F. Kennedy was president, 21.7 million Americans were dependent on Uncle Sam. Today, the number of people getting some form of federal aid has nearly quintupled to 100 million recipients, excluding those on Social Security or Medicare.
Figures released by the Democratic-controlled Senate Budget Committee in August calculated there were 80 different means-tested welfare programs administered by the federal government. The roles of food stamp and Medicaid recipients have swollen under President Obama, according to the report.
As a result, the federal government is now spending the most money in the country's history to subsidize Americans. It is the reason 70 percent of the federal budget is dedicated to government assistance programs for housing, health, welfare, food, retirement and student aid.
According to a Heritage Foundation study, it is conceivable that the average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748 annually. That is more than the nation's average disposable personal income of $32,446. Is it any wonder more people prefer the government dole to a job?
The growth in government dependency will continue to explode as more baby boomers retire. In excess of 77 million seniors will begin drawing checks for Social Security in the next 25 years and receiving benefits from Medicare.
But don't blame seniors because they were forced to pay into the bankrupt system. They played by the rules. Sizable numbers will never get back every dime they forked over to a government that borrowed from the Social Security System and left it with nothing but a pile of paper IOU's.
The real moochers are those who contribute zero to fund federal giveaways. About 46 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax, reports the Tax Policy Center. Yet many are receiving government benefits. They are the people President Obama never mentions when he waxes eloquently about taxes and fairness.
In the coming weeks, expect Obama to claim that Romney wants to take away Social Security, force students to pay back government loans, end health care benefits for the sick and dying, jerk food from the mouths of babies and toss the poor out of their government subsidized housing.
If that doesn't tilt the election, the president can always use the ultimate weapon.
Obama can shake his fist and declare: "Under Romney's idea of fairness, nearly every American will have to pay taxes." That will frighten nearly half of all Americans enough to produce a November victory.
To plagiarize President John F. Kennedy, America has too many people who want to know what government can do for them, instead of asking what they can do for their country.
Of course, this is not a new strategy for the Democratic Party. Every election cycle the party of donkeys accuses Republicans of trying to shove granny off the cliff or push the poor into a ditch or strip women of their health care benefits. It's what desperate Democrats do.
However, in this election year with dependence on the government at record levels, expect the rhetoric to ratchet up. Nearly one in five Americans receives some form of government financial support. And their numbers are mushrooming under the Obama Administration. That's no coincidence.
When John F. Kennedy was president, 21.7 million Americans were dependent on Uncle Sam. Today, the number of people getting some form of federal aid has nearly quintupled to 100 million recipients, excluding those on Social Security or Medicare.
Figures released by the Democratic-controlled Senate Budget Committee in August calculated there were 80 different means-tested welfare programs administered by the federal government. The roles of food stamp and Medicaid recipients have swollen under President Obama, according to the report.
As a result, the federal government is now spending the most money in the country's history to subsidize Americans. It is the reason 70 percent of the federal budget is dedicated to government assistance programs for housing, health, welfare, food, retirement and student aid.
According to a Heritage Foundation study, it is conceivable that the average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748 annually. That is more than the nation's average disposable personal income of $32,446. Is it any wonder more people prefer the government dole to a job?
The growth in government dependency will continue to explode as more baby boomers retire. In excess of 77 million seniors will begin drawing checks for Social Security in the next 25 years and receiving benefits from Medicare.
But don't blame seniors because they were forced to pay into the bankrupt system. They played by the rules. Sizable numbers will never get back every dime they forked over to a government that borrowed from the Social Security System and left it with nothing but a pile of paper IOU's.
The real moochers are those who contribute zero to fund federal giveaways. About 46 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax, reports the Tax Policy Center. Yet many are receiving government benefits. They are the people President Obama never mentions when he waxes eloquently about taxes and fairness.
In the coming weeks, expect Obama to claim that Romney wants to take away Social Security, force students to pay back government loans, end health care benefits for the sick and dying, jerk food from the mouths of babies and toss the poor out of their government subsidized housing.
If that doesn't tilt the election, the president can always use the ultimate weapon.
Obama can shake his fist and declare: "Under Romney's idea of fairness, nearly every American will have to pay taxes." That will frighten nearly half of all Americans enough to produce a November victory.
To plagiarize President John F. Kennedy, America has too many people who want to know what government can do for them, instead of asking what they can do for their country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)