A few draft-versions of health care reform have been offered since this spring; all of them have had one thing in common. Conservative pundits have done a great job of highlighting a commonality in all of them: 2013. The regulations limiting freedom in choice will begin in 2013. So much for the plea that we need reform now!

Commentators have forwarded the notion that those in leadership now facing re-election in 2012 will be, beating the ill effects of government-controlled healthcare as they are not implemented for another year. I consider this "Plan A."

Politicians like Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other liberal congressman have little to fear. The districts they are elected from will continue to elect them. Voters in these locales have drunk the Kool-Aid. The only thing that matters is that we are one step closer to Universal Healthcare. Any problems with the new will be moot. As President Obama says at every option, "this is not a perfect bill. But it is a step closer..."

Plan A relies on the Democrats being re-elected en masse under the belief that they were successful in causing reform. And it any loss of seats or control would come after 2013. Kind of a drive-by lawmaking. Consequences be damned, the change enacted.

Plan B relies on realization that over the next three years, enough light will be shed on aspects of the bill. "Regular" people will be so upset with the unintended and intended consequences alike that they vote out the Democrats in 2012. Given enough time - a single election cycle is a lifetime - the assumed new Republican majority will pegged with causing any downsides relating to the healthcare regulation. In 2016 another Democratic sweep will take place as the Fourth Estate successfully paints the Republicans responsible.

Don't think it is possible? It worked for No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and W. My wife gets all the Union magazines for educators. Every issue contains how George Bush messed up the law or wasn't funded properly. There is no mention of NCLB's author, Ted Kennedy! Never mind that the president neither writes legislation nor controls the "purse strings."

Plan A is the optimal option, it keeps power going. Plan B, less desirable, is still suitable for the Dems. They have a scapegoat for the complications which will reverberate through America on all levels. 2016 isn't too far away for them.

Where Does It Stop?

The Pitchforks and Torches Are Raised into the Air

In the past day, the Obama Administration released its preliminary findings regarding the compensation of CEOs of companies receiving Troubled Assest Relief Program (TARP). The executives will be, if the plan as proposed remains, will have 90% of their compensation snatched back by the federal government. The "Pay Czar" can arbitrarily set the pay of private businesses - some of which were forced to take TARP money.

Where does the Pay Czars reach end?

No one thought they would go below middle management, but the Fed admonished of the horrible misdeed in giving mail room, file room, and kitchen employees bonuses. The likely non-salaried, lowest on the proverbial totem pole, are being slammed for receiving up to a few thousand dollars.

Sure, Rush Limbaugh questioned will dealings with the government, such as Lockheed-Martin selling jet engines, constitute "taking tax payers money" and therefore, allow the bony fingers of Uncle Scrooge into Lockheed-Martin's day-to-day compensation? This is why Home Depot just a few years ago welcomed government shoppers but required they pay in cash. It was a way to keep the requirements and constraints from hamstringing the "Big Box" retailer.

Where does it government's reach cease?

In Minnesota Legislators could not successfully determine what and how welfare recipients spend our taxpayers money. They willingly - have to seek out - accept said subsidies from the government, but have very little responsibilities with our money.

Then there are corporate subsidies. Taxpayer monies such as Tax Increment Financing (TIF) are doled out for sports teams, retailers and corporations. Can governments at all levels, now determine how employees of Target or the Twins or Honeywell - from the top down - are compensated? Will the Pay Czar determine bonus amounts or even if they are paid out at all?

I Haven't Even Gotten to the Most Frightening Aspect

We do not know how far the government will go. We can only speculate at this time.

Allow me to speculate. Several weeks ago I posted the text of a bill attempting to "save" the printed press. The newpapers would become non-profits. The would also become tax-exempt in some cases. The would be free from tax liability. Would the government stop at determining compensation? As Obama did with his car company, would the Administration install "their" editor?

The class-envy slope can be the slipperiest!

Links

• Home Depot Refuses Sales to Federal Government - Wall St Journal; 06/18/2002 (subscription required)


• Home Depot Changes Tune on Government Business Atlanta Business Chronicle; 06/28/2002

A Very Telling Line

The LA Times article addresses and focuses on the artist's, Shepard Fairey, "fair use" and copyright problems. They also spend considerable time pointing out how he lied, lied to cover-up a mistake, and based a counter lawsuit on his lie. I am not disagreeing with that angle of the article.

What I found so telling is the paragraph:

"The artist expressed his remorse in his statement, saying that he is taking 'full responsibility for my actions which were mine alone. I am taking every step to correct the information and I regret I did not come forward sooner.'"

His admission that he acted alone and take "full responsibility" raises a huge flag, at least to me, that he is the fallguy for someone or some group. Why would he have to say this, as a caveat? A prosecutor may be accusing him of being part of a conspiracy, and if so, his defense is understandable. Please understand, I am not stating that he is taking the hit, but with dealings recently uncovered with the National Endowment for the Arts, it is questionable.

Shepard Fairey admits to wrongdoing in Associated Press lawsuit

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

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