Video Trailer: I Want Your Money (2010)

Excellent video. I love the comparisons between Reagan and Obama. I also love the part where Nancy Pelosi is promising no legislation or spending that adds to the deficit.

Where Are The Jobs? Why Are So Few Hiring?

I've seen alot of squawking on the Internet about how corporations and businesses are sitting on $8 trillion in assets but won't hire new workers. As the husband of a woman who owns a small business, I have yet to see any of that $8 trillion in my wife's bookkeeping.

But, even if that $8 trillion really existed, the question of so few hirings would have nothing to do with that money and have everything to do with government constantly intervening in economic matters, usually at the expense of the economy in general.

John Stossel has this to say about why there are so few new hires right now:

The problem today is that the economy is not being left alone. Instead, it is haunted by uncertainty on a hundred fronts. When rules are unintelligible and unpredictable, when new workers are potential threats because of Labor Department regulations, businesses have little confidence to hire. President Obama's vaunted legislative record not only left entrepreneurs with the burden of bigger government, it also makes it impossible for them to accurately estimate the new burden. In at least three big areas — health insurance, financial regulation, and taxes — no one can know what will happen. New intrusive rules for health insurance are yet to be written, and those rules will affect hiring, since most health insurance is provided by employers. Thanks to the new 2,300 page Dodd-Frank finance regulatory act, The Wall Street Journal reports, there will be "no fewer than 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies." These as-yet unknown rules will govern lending to business and other key financial activity. The George W. Bush tax cuts might be allowed to expire. But maybe not. Social Security and Medicare are dangerously shaky. Will Congress raise the payroll tax? A "distinguished" deficit commission is meeting. What will it do? Recommend a value-added tax? Who knows? But few employers will commit to a big investment with those clouds hanging over our heads.

It wouldn't matter if the assets totaled more than $8 quadrillion or $8 quintillion. With uncertainty like this coming out of the Obama White House and the Pelosi-Reid Congress, hiring on the scale we need to boost the economy is not going to happen anytime soon.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Big Government Policies Aren't Creating New Jobs
John Stossel
NewsMax.com
August 24, 2010

20 Ways Obamacare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

So, Obama, Pelosi and Reid said that Congress needs to pass the Health Care Bill so that America can see what's really in it? Well, let's get started! Below are 20 items in HR3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee. You will also read how it affects us Americans.

From Investor's Business Daily:

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501) 2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701). 3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711). 4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712). 5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714). 6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care. You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302). 7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A)) 8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A). 9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513). 10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)). 11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i)) 12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A)) 13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)). 14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003) 15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)). 16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)). The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405). 17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).) 18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014). 19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015). That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402). 20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

Now, who are those idiots claiming that this isn't socialized medicine?

There's more in this bill that gives the government more power to regulate your lives and spending. But items #2 and #6 are particularly galling since they essentially amount to a welfare system for people who live unhealthy lifestyles. Items #12 and #13 will eventually lead to the same shortage of services that are being experienced in Canada and Great Britain.

And here's a real kicker: Item 14# is designed only to put insurance companies out of business thereby giving the Socialists in the Democrat Party an excuse to go to the disastrous "single payer system."

This bill needs to get tossed out by the courts or repealed by Congress after we toss the Socialist bums out in 2010 and elect a Constitutional Conservative in 2012.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

20 Ways Obamacare Will Take Away Our Freedoms
David Hogberg
Investor's Business Daily
March 21, 2010

Pelosi, Slaughter Went To Court Against Self-Executing Rule In 2005

This is basically an extension of my post from yesterday:

Democrats Change The Rules, Set To Trash The Constitution
84rules
March 15, 2010

Not only is Pelosi & Company set to usurp the Constitution in order to ram a Socialized Health Care bill that a majority of Americans do not want down our collective throats, but they were also "friends of the court" in a case back in 2005 when they challenged a piece of GOP legislation that focused on raising the debt limit.

From Mark Tapscott at the Washington Examiner:

Dial the date selector back to 2005 when the Republican majority in Congress approved a national debt limit increase using a self-executing rule similar to the Slaughter Solution. Guess who went to Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the move? The Ralph Nader-backed Public Citizen legal activists.

And their argument went thus:

"Article I of the United States Constitution requires that before proposed legislation may "become[] a Law," U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7, cl. 2, "(1) a bill containing its exact text [must be] approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate [must] approve[] precisely the same text; and (3) that text [must be] signed into law by the President," Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998). "Public Citizen, a not-for-profit consumer advocacy organization, filed suit in District Court claiming that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) ("DRA" or "Act"), is invalid because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form. In particular, Public Citizen contends that the statute's enactment did not comport with the bicameral passage requirement of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, because the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk's error with respect to one term, so the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill and the President signed the version passed by the Senate. "Public Citizen asserts that it is irrelevant that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate both signed a version of the proposed legislation identical to the version signed by the President. Nor does it matter, Public Citizen argues, that the congressional leaders' signatures attest that indistinguishable legislative text passed both houses."

Note the words in italics. That is the issue here. According to the above argument, it is not constitutional for the House and Senate to pass two different versions of the same legislation and then just arbitrarily choose which version shall become law.

Oh, and who also filed amicus briefs on this case? Read on:

• Nancy Pelosi
  
• Henry Waxman
  
• Louise Slaughter
  

Also note that the Dems were against raising the debt limit 5 years ago while today they are spending our great-grand-children's future.

Democrat, thy name is Chutzpuh!

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Pelosi, Slaughter Went To Court Against GOP's Self-Executing Rule In 2005
Mark Tapscott
Washington Examiner
March 16, 2010

The New Tax Rebellion Has Begun

So, how have you benefitted from the 67,500 word document known as the U.S. Tax Code? Probably not at all. In fact, just having a job and living here in the U.S. means that it has touched you in multiple negative ways although you may not have realized it. Do you think that the prices you pay for goods and services are not artificially inflated by that tax code? If so, you think wrong.

But there is good news coming from middle America. People everywhere are starting to wake up to the fact that our tax code is destructive to everyday taxpayers while only being beneficial to Congress and a few wealthy people who have enough money to make Congress listen to them. That's why the current rebellion is underway. If you wish to become one of the rebels, just go to the following website:

On-Line Tax Revolt

Here is what Micheal Reagan has to say:

Tea Party patriots, FairTaxers, Flat Taxers, and most Americans of every political persuasion understand that the federal tax system fuels unchecked government spending, hides the cost of government from the American taxpayer and has become corrupted into indecipherability by Congressional profits and power. Citizens are coming together from across the political spectrum and across the nation to wake Washington up to the voice of the American people. Citizens are rejecting the idea that huge government borrowing and debt has been secured by pledging the future earnings of generations of Americans not yet born.

That is where Obama, Pelosi and Reid made their mistake and where charlatans like Jim Webb and Mark Warner exposed themselves for what they really are: Socialists who think nothing of stealing the futures of our children and grandchildren.

I do not recall one single person during the last election cycle who said that they wanted to pass along trillions of dollars worth of debt to succeeding generations. But somewhere in there, the Dems have convinced themselves that this is what they heard.

This November, we need to send a message back to D.C. that our children and granchildren are worht fighting for, and if Congress won't fight for them, then we will replace our Representatives and Senators with people who will.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The Next American Tax Rebbellion Has Begun
Michael Reagan
TownHall.com
March 1, 2010

As The Cap And Trade Energy Tax Heads To The Senate, We Must Look At Who Will Profit From It

One of the principles of ethics that should govern politicians and their dealings with the private sector is that politicians should not be voting on legislation that directly involves their own personal investments. Ideally, politicians shouldn't be investing in the market at all since they can vote to influence the market in their favor. If they do have investments in the private sector, then they should recuse themsleves from voting on any legislation that would influence the profitability of those investments.

The Cap and Trace Energy Tax recently passed by the House of Representatives is a good case in point. Several lawmakers will enjoy direct financial benefits from the legislation should it become law. Among these are Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

From Mark Tapscott at the Washington Examiner:

How much money will Pelosi make if the measure (Obama-Waxman-Markey (OWM)) becomes law, as seems quite likely? Pelosi, of course, is not the only member of Congress to own significant shares of energy companies. Senators and representatives from all over the country do, not just the "oilies" from energy states like Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. But as House Speaker, Pelosi's ownership of an unknown number of shares in the Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE) valued at between $15,000 and $50,000, may deserve particular attention. ... Pelosi will profit because OWM will boost the price of natural gas on the market. This is because natural gas burns with significantly less carbon emissions than other fossil fuels. For companies trying to get under OWM limits for greenhouse gases emissions, burning more natural gas instead of, say coal, will be a no-brainer. That will drive up demand for natural gas, which in turn will create upward price pressures.

Pelosi claims that her husband handles the stocks and that she has no knowledge of what stocks he is purchasing. This is an irrelevent cop-out. Mr. Pelosi knows very well what legislation his wife is working on and whether or not it is likely to be passed. He further knows what effect such legislation would have on the stocks he will be purchasing. That is the same thing as insider trading and that makes it every bit as unethical as it would be if Speaker Pelosi purchased the stocks herself.

Rather than fulfill her 2006 promise of ridding D.C. of the culture of corruption, Pelosi and her fellow Dems simply claimed the cess pool as their own, jumped in and began splashing around.

You can access this story on on-line here:

Pelosi Will Profit From Obama-Waxman-Markey Cap-And-Trade Energy Bill
Mark Tapscott
Washington Examiner
June 24, 2009

And who else stands to make bank from this legislation? Al Gore and Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) for two. Markey holds between $51,000 and $115,000 in investments in Firsthand Technology Value Fund (solar-evergy manufacturers) and Al Gore has $6 million in the Venture Capital Group (CO₂ emmissions tracking software), both of which will make very nice profits under the cap-and-trade tax. Profits that will come from fleecing the American people through higher taxes.

Before this gets voted on in the Senate, we should seriously look into which members of Congress will make a profit off of it and how they voted or intend to vote.

Small Businesses Will Get Hammered Under The Cap And Trade Energy Tax

You know, the Dems try to paint themselves as friends of "the little guy," but since their takeover of Congress in 2006 and the election of Barack Obama to the White House, it is clear that the Democrats are all about big government and controlling the people. There really is no counter-argument to that since is it simply a fact that cannot be denied.

The energy tax that was passed by the House Dems (and 8 back-stabbing Republicans) is a perfect example of how the Dems really want to control "the little guy" through big government intervention rather than do anything to help.

McArthur's Bakery in St. Louis will be facing a very difficult time because of Pelosi's energy tax. The owner, David McArthur explains why.

From Fox News:

David McArthur, vice president of the 52-year-old family operation, a Gateway City institution, is one of a growing number of business owners and taxpayers nationwide who are mobilizing against the so-called cap-and-trade bill, which would levy harsh fines on energy consumption ... ... McArthur told FOXNews.com that every aspect of his business relies on the forms of energy targeted by the American Clean Energy and Security Act, and that his congressman, Carnahan, was supporting "a direct tax increase on small business" by voting for it. "We make (our product) with electricity, we bake it with gas, we refrigerate and freeze it with electricity and we distribute it with gas and oil," said McArthur, who said he worries that high prices could cost his company up to $15,000 a year in an industry with a very tight margin for profit.

Think about all the small businesses that rely on energy. Basically, all of them. If this energy tax passes the Senate, it will hit small businesses like 10 tons of bricks. Beauty salons that require electricity to run dryers and water heaters will begin to close. Delivery companies will have to raise their rates to account for the gasoline and diesel that their trucks use. Farming will become more expensive. In turn, food prices will go up as will the price of any commodity that needs to be transported from producer to market.

Very few small businesses will be able to withstand such an economic onslaught. Most will have to lay off workers in order to make ends meet. That will mean fewer people getting paychecks while prices will be going higher.

This cap and trade energy tax is a disaster waiting to happen and the Dems (and a few short-sighted Republicans) are completely blind to the danger. Instead, they have beholden themsleves to the junk science espoused by Al Gore.

What is even worse is that once again, the House of Representatives voted on a bill that members did not get a chance to read:

"He's killing small business -- he's killing us," McArthur said of Carnahan, who was one of a majority of Democrats who voted for the bill in a closely fought 219-212 vote. McArthur, who penned a scathing letter to Carnahan, is not alone in taking the message directly to his congressman. Dozens of small protests were organized at the end of June at federal buildings and outside the offices of national lawmakers who voted for the bill. Mike Wilson, who led a protest in Cincinnati of about 100 people on June 27 across from the offices of Rep. Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio, said he was appalled by the 1,500-page legislation, which was fast-tracked by House leaders for a vote Friday. A 310-page amendment was slapped onto the bill Friday morning. "It was, quite frankly, criminal passing a bill that you didn't read," said Wilson, founder of the anti-tax group Cincinnati Tea Party.

One thing is certain though. If this becomes law, the effects will be harsh and far-reaching. And the Dems will not be able to blame this on George W. Bush. Blame will rest solely and squarely on the shoulders of the current party in power.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Small Businesses Irate Over Climate Change Bill
Joseph Abrams
FoxNews.com
July 7, 2009

Some Cartoons

So True

Nancy Pelosi Was Okay With Waterboarding Back In 2002 And Dems Concede Tax Increases

So, the Dems were okay with waterboarding as an interrogation technique back in 2002 but waited until 2007 to come out against it? Why? Due to the secretive cloak that the Dems use to surround their true agenda, we may never know. But Fox News has this:

Four top members of Congress, including now-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, got a close look at CIA overseas detention sites and interrogation techniques in September 2002 and offered no challenge to their legitimacy, according to a news article out Sunday. On the contrary, at least two lawmakers involved in the briefing that day questioned whether the CIA was pushing hard enough, even after hearing the details of the now widely criticized technique known as waterboarding, two U.S. officials told The Washington Post. "The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," one official is quoted saying. ... "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," Porter Goss, a former CIA director and congressman who chaired the House intelligence panel at the time of the briefings, told The Post. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

Perhaps a member of Old Media will go back and ask Pelosi about her reaction during these briefings and then ask to reconcile that reaction to the fact that only one member of the Congressional delegation raised any objection at all: Democrat Jane Harman.

But then, that would require integrity on the part of the Dems and on Old Media.

Not likely.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Report: Top Members Of Congress Were OK With Waterboarding In 2002
FoxNews.com
December 9, 2007

---

And the Dems are quickly knuckling under as it has become apparent that the American people do not want higher taxes nor more government spending.

From the Associated Press:

Cracks are emerging in congressional Democrats' solidarity, as frustrated lawmakers concede their majority status is not enough to overcome Republican resistance on taxes, spending, Iraq and a host of other issues. The fissures, which became obvious this week, are undermining Democrats' hopes for several key achievements this year. They also point to a bruising 2008 election in which Democrats will say Republicans blocked prudent tax and spending plans to score political points on immigration and other hot-button issues. Republicans say they simply want to prevent higher taxes of any kind, even if the targets are not-so-sympathetic groups such as oil companies and hedge fund managers.

And the Dems also think we are stupid enough to buy their criticism. No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity, but many have taxed themselves into poverty. Thus, no tax plan that includes higher taxes can ever be called "prudent." Too bad the Dem leadership just doesn't seem capable of grasping that.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Cry Uncle On Taxes, Spending
Charles Babington
Associated Press via GOPUSA.com
December 7, 2007

Pelosi Proposal Would Send American Economy Into A Depression

Nancy Pelosi seems to be getting desperate. The general view that the American public has of the current Democrat controlled Congress is that it is a do-nothing legislature completely impotent in it's own world. Thus, she came up with H.R. 6, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. This bill is supposed to take us towards greater energy independence and less reliance on fossil fuels. Unfortunately for Ms. Pelosi, she does not understand economics nor does she have a grasp of history.

The National Taxpayers Union breaks down the problems with H.R. 6 here:

Huge Tax Increases -- The House previously passed $14 billion in vengeful tax hikes on so-called "Big Oil." Though billed as a way to move us toward energy independence, similar taxes in the past have simply reduced domestic oil production and increased oil imports. Congress ought not to repeat those mistakes. Renewable Fuels Standard -- Forcing Americans to consume 36 billion gallons of heavily-subsidized ethanol and other alternative fuels will serve to dramatically raise fuel prices, taxes, and food costs for everyone. Renewable Portfolio Standard -- Requiring that 15 percent of all electricity be produced by alternative sources will likewise raise utility bills, causing harm to those Americans who can least afford the additional expense. Higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards -- Though raising CAFE standards may appear productive at first blush, ultimately this policy would have little effect on total fuel consumption while creating vehicles that are more expensive and less safe. Price Gouging Language -- There is no evidence that price gouging has taken place, even after disasters like Hurricane Katrina. Congress ought not to interfere with the delicate balance of energy markets.

These five items are all in H.R. 6. This bill needs to be defeated, or, if passed, vetoed.

You can access the original article on-line here:

An Open Letter to Congress: Taxes, Regulations, And Subsidies Are NOT The Answer For Energy Security!
National Taxpayers Union
December 3, 2007