Obama's Next Conquest: Media

According to The Hill in a September 20th article, Obama claims he "would be happy to look at" two present bills to "bail out" newspapers.

Below is the text of Senate Bill 673:

S 673 IS

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 673

To allow certain newspapers to be treated as described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 24, 2009

Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Ms. MIKULSKI) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To allow certain newspapers to be treated as described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN NEWSPAPERS AS EXEMPT FROM TAX UNDER SECTION 501.

(a) In General- Paragraph (3) of section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘(including a qualified newspaper corporation)’ after ‘educational purposes’.

(b) Qualified Newspaper Corporation- Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--

(1) by redesignating subsection (r) as subsection (s), and

(2) by inserting after subsection (q) the following new subsection:

‘(r) Qualified Newspaper Corporation- For purposes of this title, a corporation or organization shall be treated as a qualified newspaper corporation if--

‘(1) the trade or business of such corporation or organization consists of publishing on a regular basis a newspaper for general circulation,

‘(2) the newspaper published by such corporation or organization contains local, national, and international news stories of interest to the general public and the distribution of such newspaper is necessary or valuable in achieving an educational purpose, and

‘(3) the preparation of the material contained in such newspaper follows methods generally accepted as educational in character.’.

(c) Unrelated Business Income of a Qualified Newspaper Corporation- Section 513 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘(k) Advertising Income of Qualified Newspaper Corporations- The term ‘unrelated trade or business’ does not include the sale by a qualified newspaper corporation (as defined in section 501(r)) of any space for commercial advertisement to be published in a newspaper, to the extent that the space allotted to all such advertisements in such newspaper does not exceed the space allotted to fulfilling the educational purpose of such qualified newspaper corporation.’.

(d) Deduction for Charitable Contributions- Subparagraph (B) of section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘(including a qualified newspaper corporation as defined in section 501(r))’ after ‘educational purposes’.

(e) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

My favorite local talk radio host spoke of the irony in which Obama ran on the promise of "Hope and Change," but providing these numerous financial bail-outs are not changing anything. While this is a valid point, need I say lost on Obama supporters, I see another aspect in this newspaper aid.

Placing tax-exempt status on newspapers, in this bill, would happen when newspapers fall into line which meet the government's guidelines. The government would be in the position to deem if a certain newspaper meets "educational" minimums and maximum advertisement in proportion to its content - which would also have to meet certain amounts of local, regional and national stories. Worst of all, the government would determine the term 'Qualified Newspaper Corporation.'

Not only does this particular bill likely fly in the face of the First Amendment, it uses an often disputed designation of 501(c)(3) to label newspapers. In the past, political contributors and interests have lost their tax-exempt status to quiet their voices. You can view the 29 page IRS application here. Wikipedia lists the application cost either $350 or $750 based on gross income (costs rising in 2010).

As the bill specifies, it would "allow certain newspapers" to be eligible. Does this signify the end to papers such as the Wall Street Journal? How about neighborhood weeklies? Senator Cardin chose to write newspapers are expected to carry "stories of interest to the general public." Economic and political coverage in the Wall Street Journal should be "of interest to everyone," but could easily be construed as a trade journal. Likewise, small and limited publications which serve localized areas don't normally print reprints of stories from the New York Times or LA Times, and probably could not afford to. While stronger, papers viewed to be conservative and/or critical of the current Administration, not obtaining a 501(c)(3) tax savings, may not be a death-blow, but to the minimum circulation papers which cover local events - like city council events which impact local politics - may not survive. Not only could respected, responsible journalism be fading from the game on a national level, but front-line reporting of local importance disappear.

For a President who has proclaimed his love of competition when defending healthcare reform, nothing he supports in supplying financial assistance lends to competition. The strongest papers will survive; the strongest will be those who earn tax-exempt status. The strongest papers will be the ones to conform to government constraints and not be so controversial as to protect their 501(c)(3) protection.

So long to a free and independent press!

The Most Childish Argument in the Healthcare Debate

Obama takes the stand on healthcare -- chicagotribune.com

Posted using ShareThis

Yes, according to the article, Obama repeats a counter to public option foes:

Obama went on to note concerns that healthcare changes would mean rationed care. Already, the president argued, "insurance companies are rationing care. They are basically telling you what's covered and what's not."

This is supposed to end the debate and public option proponents expect us who oppose Government's take-over to fall in line? This is a junior high level rebuttal that does not fix nor change a perceived problem.

Americans used to believe in not giving Government too much power, especially over personal choices. When did this change? I figure it was a step-by-step evolution as each Progressive used Europe to provide examples of how something could be better.

How many contradictions can one cram into a single article?

From a recent Yahoo! News/AP article¹, I have collected a barrage of quotes from Lawmakers and aides in this article. The Associated Press attempted to "cover" fall out regarding illegal aliens and the Healthcare Bill as prompted from Rep. Joe Wilson's [R-S.C.] peanut gallery outburst during President Obama's speech to a joint session.

"What we are trying to prevent is anyone who is here illegally from getting any federal benefit," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D...."

"The White House says that Obama does not want illegal immigrants to be able to buy insurance through the new purchasing exchange as they would be allowed to do under Democratic legislation in the House."

"... although the Finance Committee bill is also expected to let illegal immigrants shop in the exchange..."

"'Illegal immigrants would not be allowed to access the exchange that is set up,' Gibbs said Friday. Verification requirements are 'something we'd work out with Congress,' he said."

"Republicans' contention that illegal immigrants would be able to get federally funded health coverage under the House health bill — even though the bill expressly prohibits federal subsidies for illegals.Critics note that there are no enforcement mechanisms, or language on how to verify whether or not someone is in this country legally."

"Democrats in two House committees defeated amendments that would have required verification of legal status."

All of these quotes are from the news piece. These quotes clearly illustrate that there is nothing in the bill which would back up Obama's guarantee that illegal aliens would use my families healthcare dollars!

What happened to 'truth to power'?

The tactic of placing anger (and unashamed claims of racism) towards a Representative who chose to speak up only direct our attention away from the content and promises Obama made in his speech.  Another aspect leads me to inquire: what has changed in the last few weeks?  During Obama's August push to reform healthcare, he refused to counter "death panel" concerns, siting that the bill had not been finalized.  Yet he promises things which cannot be guaranteed, because portions are still being resolved in committees? In essence, President Obama is contradicting himself, but very few are catching on.

1. Health care talks focus on illegal immigrants

Pelosi Chokes Up Amid Fears of Political Violence

Pelosi Chokes Up Amid Fears of Political Violence

Shared via AddThis

Apparently the push to label all Obama "disagree'ers" (every group needs a label: truther, birther, teabagger) as racist malcontents wasn't working. There might have been too much hurt feelings from this political friendly-fire.

Yes, not all the attendees at Healthcare Town Halls or the recent 9/12 protest were vicious, right-wingers out to destroy the country! No one can publish a reliable count of how many people attended. So, putting a number on the percentage of Democrats and the ever-needed swing voting Independents is impossible.

Nancy Pelosi attempts an award winning performance, but her method acting falls short. 

Please elaborate!  What language has been used?  Can you describe this "frightening rhetoric?"  I was born in the 70s, and not in San Francisco.  What happened?  I know about the Civil Rights work in the 50s and 60s; the Haight-Ashbury Revolution in the late 60s, but what could bring you to crocodile tears at the podium today?

She is now making such broad statements, that it is difficult to know whom she is talking about or what she is hearing that is inciting violence.  Like beating up a wheelchair-bound black man?  Or nearly biting off the pinky of an elderly man?  Of course not, those were Obama "disagree'ers." 

Yes, let us have more personal responsibilities about what we say!  Mrs. CIA-Lied-To-Me.  Please give an example or show us a photo of the swastikas you saw a one town hall meeting!  Please make a clear analogy between 1970s San Francisco and peaceful outrage towards Obama's plans, for those of us who have no clue what you are talking about.

Who are the "unbalanced" that you speak of?  Regular American's who hear how more and more sectors of our economy are becoming Government run?  The men and women, who thought they were getting "Hope and Change," only to find out they hope things don't change? 

It is typically those on the left who "want to teach business a lesson" when the WTO comes to town or Republicans have their convention.  I understand there were zero arrests during the 9/12 march on Washington D.C..  How many police cars were torched?  Was there a garbage can tossed through a store's window anywhere in the city related to American's converging on our Capital? 

In one sentence you speak of "incitement" and being held accountable for inciting 70s-style violence.  I don't know on anyone who would disagree - aside from maybe the ACLU.  I am confused, wouldn't someone making inciteful statements or requests not be balanced?  Obviously, those who would act out at the request are clearly unbalanced.  But, you begin to blur the line between rhetoric and stating one's belief with inciting violence. 

What is now considered incitement?  Merely stating your dissatisfaction with ObamaCare or fear that Obama's call to "fundamentally change America", is this incitement should  it fall on some ears of an imbalanced person who would become violent?  Please, Mrs. Lawmaker, be more clear.
From this video, I see the Speaker has learned her lesson about returning to the podium to answer lingering questions from the press.

Illegal Aliens and Obama Untruths

A recent Yahoo! News/AP piece¹, reveals how the White House takes a stand against the Dems in an attempt to pacify the Right Wing claims that illegal aliens will be covered under the pending Healthcare Bill.

By recent estimates, there are 11-12 million illegal aliens² in this country; according to this article that means 4-5 million people within our borders illegally, have health insurance?

Do 4 or 5 million illegal immigrants obtain insurance? From the article:

"In explaining its new position, the White House said that ...illegal immigrants could continue to buy insurance in the private insurance market outside the exchange..."

I guess so.

According to the White House, these aliens are currently able to buy health insurance, and would, in some aspects of the new healthcare bill, be able to buy coverage with their own money. But some 35 million Americans can't afford it now? What is wrong with this picture?

This quote places a new light on boilerplate claims from the Left.

While slightly off topic, it ties into affordable health insurance. Illegal immigrants purchasing health insurance? This could be taken to mean there are "living wages" in America!

Despite the picture painted by poor/labor/immigration activists, immigrants working for less than minimum wage, those working for cash, often under-the-table (and tax-free!), can shell out for a private medical insuarnce policy. I can't imagine too many illegals are pulling down $300K a year.

As the popular arguement goes, illegals are taking jobs Americans won't; are they also taking insurance policies Americans won't?

But, the wider point is, Obama has vigorously defended his claim that "the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

• Where is "his" bill? He is no longer a Senator.
• The bill is not out of numerous committees, but Obama refers to the bill as if it is ready to pass by a vote.
• How much sway does he think he has? Several attempts to add language which bar illegal aliens, have been stricken by Obama's party.

Why would Obama be working so hard to advertise barring illegals from the public health exchange? A stated goal of his is to cover everyone. Primarily, using the Left's logic, is because those who don't have insurance create a burden on those who pay their bills.

It doesn't make much sense. Yet, when your main goal is not insuring everyone in the country, but fundamentally changing the Land of Liberty, little details like illegal immigrants are expendable.

1. White House stiffens against illegal immigrants
2. Center for Immigration Studies