Twenty-one New Obamataxes--Count em

We have already considered the 0.9% payroll tax that will be implemented to fund Obamacare.  And the additional 3.8% tax on dividends, capital gains and investment income for those Americans earning over $200,000 (single)/250,000 (married)--the selfish rich as the president and Nancy Pelosi refer to them.  We also reviewed the cadillac tax on high cost health care plans.  The cadillac tax that the unions have been exempted from but the average American will pay to obtain good health care.  It apparently pays to cozy up to bureaucrats in this Administration.  

These taxes are just the tip of Obamatax iceberg.  The excise tax on medical  device manufacturers means that anyone needing a medical device of any sort (and the definition is sweepingly broad as only the government can sweep)  will pay an additional 2.3%--at the very least--to obtain the device.  Projected to raise $20B in 2010, the current estimate from the House Ways and Means Committee is $34.2B.  If there is one thing we know about government estimates, they are usually low and routinely revised upward.  Look no further than the weekly jobs/unemployment report which is revised upward week after week.    

In addition to the annual tax on health insurance providers (this is in addition to the cadillac tax)--estimated at over $100B--which will undoubtedly raise the premiums dramatically for all those who remain in private plans, the most ridiculous Obamatax is the 10 percent tax on tanning services.  True to Washington form: find the group with the weakest lobbyist presence and tax it.

 The House currently estimates that gross tax increase from Obamacare will exceed $800 billion over the next decade. My humble assumption is that the total will be revised dramatically upward just as the cost for Obamacare has been revised up from the original estimate of $900B to close to $3 trillion by the CBO.  

You can check out the numbers yourself by copying the link below.  The Ways and Means Committee has produced a handy table of the 21 Obamataxes.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=301425

The Taxorama is Just Getting Started

Undoubtedly you will recall when former Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (who was second in the presidential line of succession) so famously and embarrassingly said: We have to pass the (health-care) bill so we can find out what's in it.  Incomprehensible from the get-go, Ms. Pelosi was merely telegraphing to the entire country that we were not alone.  She, the chief lawmaker in the House,  had no idea what was in it either.   In fact, Justice Scalia quipped during oral arguments that reading the entire 2,700 page law was akin to "cruel and unusual punishment."

Clever line.  But I, for one, am not laughing.

One thing is clear: taxes will skyrocket and service will decline. We have no further to look than Canada or the UK to understand the way the Act will eventually play out.  But,  let's take a look at a few of the TWENTY-ONE NEW TAXES that are associated with the "Affordable Care Act".

From today's The Washington Times we learn that the so-called "Cadillac tax" on high-end health-care plans was originally estimated to raise $32 billion when the bill was first being marketed to the American people in 2010.  The June 2012 estimate from the House Ways and Means Committee is now $111 billion.  This tax is designed to penalize fortunate American's whose employer or union (although many of the unions have been exempted from the tax) provides a robust health care package by assessing a hefty tax on the benefit.

Or take the new payroll tax of 0.9% on wages and the new 3.8% tax on dividends, capital gains and other investment income for taxpayers making over $200,000 (individuals) and $250,000 (married).  The original estimate is that the two taxes would raise $210.2 billion, yet, the current estimate is now $317.7 billion.  In other words, in addition to the Bush tax cuts that will sunset on December 31st of 2012, the "Affordable Care Act" will add another nearly 5% in taxes on wages and investments.

And we're just getting started.  Perhaps, Justice Scalia would have been more accurate had he suggested that American's living under the 2700 page "Affordable Care Act" will be subjected to  "cruel and unusual punishment."  

At Least We Know He Cares...

Mr. Bloomberg is a man of many talents.  He's a billionaire after all. And although we aren't supposed to like rich people anymore we can certainly infer from his wealth that he is smart, right?  Plus, he was clever enough to secure a third term as mayor in a city with a two term limit.  Wow.

So when he added Gothem's top nanny to his notable achievements I took notice.  His most recent ban on sixteen ounce sugary soft drinks and coffee was declared, Mr. Bloomberg assures us, because he is very concerned about obesity and its growing affects on New Yorkers.  (That the ban was announced the day before the mayor celebrated National Donut Day was a rich irony not lost on those of us who reside outside the Big Apple.)  This on the heels of Mr. Bloomberg's salt and trans fat bans which led to a ban on food donations to homeless shelters because the salt and trans fat levels of donated food couldn't be measured.  Talk about unintended consequences.

Now the good Nanny has endorsed a proposal to decriminalize the open possession of marijuana.  In small amounts, of course.  This presumably will free up law enforcement to monitor those New Yorkers who try to skirt the sugary drink ban by buying two eight ounce cups.  And it will silence the critics who declare the marijuana arrests made by New York's finest are racially biased because "most of those stopped are black or Hispanic"  (New York Times).

I like this upside down world.  It's like a daily romp with Alice and the Mad Hatter.  I never know quite where I am but I'm always happy to discover that I'm not there.  And that's something isn't it?  

Flying by the Seat of Our Pants

Most of us attribute our values to others whether we realize it or not.  By that I mean that we believe those we come in contact with share similar values and morals.

If, for example, you are the kind of person who believes in personal liberty you might find yourself saying something like: "Well I don't believe smoking is good for you but it's a free country and it's your life."  If, on the other hand, you believe that the collective mind (the government) is wiser than the individual then you most likely support the passage of strict no-smoking laws, aggressive anti-smoking ad campaigns, punitive cigarette taxes and a culture which ostracizes smokers-- all in an effort to assert your belief that smoking is bad and should be stopped.  No matter what the individual thinks.

Don't get me wrong.  I grew up with parents who smoked and remember vividly the suffocating cloud filling the car and the dirty job of having to clean the ashtray.  As an adult I remember the stench permeating my clothes after a cross country flight just one row away from the smoking section.  I am not a fan.  But my view of the world celebrates personal choice.  If you want to smoke, by all means,  go ahead.

So when those on the left equate border security with racism many who support secure borders stop to examine their own motives.  No American wants to be accused of racism after all.  It is a tried and true weapon the left employs.  Accuse.  Change the subject.  Take a herculean leap of logic:   If you don't support gay marriage you hate all gays.  If you don't think the government should pay for abortions you hate women.  If you want a secure border you are the denying rights of illegal aliens and are committing an act of racism.  If you don't agree with President Obama...well you get the idea.

The problem with the name-calling is that it diverts us from an important public debate on national security.  Countries have borders for a reason.  To protect their citizens.  And for me the border issue is a matter of national security.  Last year alone, Border Patrol arrested 800 Middle Easterners illegally crossing the Arizona border.  According to the Department of Homeland Security's own statistics the arrest of 800 illegal Middle Easterner immigrants means that 2400 successfully crossed the border into the United States.  Free to take pilot's lessons if they want, without scrutiny, under the radar so to speak.

Now that is the debate we should be having.  

FDR, Obama and the Supreme Court

Amity Shlaes should be awarded the Nobel Prize for literature for her epic history of the Great Depression: The Forgotten Man. But, she won't. She won't because she portrays an historical and economically sound assessment of the facts of the Great Depression rather than the whitewashed history taught in our schools.

Much like the Obama Administration's profligate spending and castigation of the court, FDR greatly expanded government spending during his first term and used the Commerce Clause to attempt to regulate private businesses.

The Schechter brothers were butchers, the middle-men between the farmer who raised chickens and the retail stores who sold them. FDR's Justice Department sued the brothers for violating the National Recovery Administration's code of " fair practices." The NRA was an agency with dubious and unprecedented authority over private business which was later unanimously ruled un-constitutional by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, however, the small-business Schechter brothers were sued by Justice for violating an NRA code.

The case centered around a section of code which prohibited the selling of unfit produce. "Straight killing" a practice employed by the kosher Schechter brothers according to the Kasruth allowed clients to select their chicken (to ensure the good health of the bird) and the brothers would then slaughter it. The NRA did not approve of this kosher practice and that is how the Schechter's ended up in court. The case ultimately went all the way to the Supreme Court and was argued under the Commerce Clause. The court unanimously ruled in favor of the Schechter's against the government. The ruling argued--among other things--that "Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power." The Justices argued that the NRA had "abused the Schecters...through unconstituional "coercive exercise of the law-making power."" (242)

Shlaes records a comment made by Justice Brandeis after the ruling to one of FDR's New Deal advisers: "This is the end of this business of centralization, and I want you to back and tell the president that we're not going to let this government centralize everything. It's come to an end." (243)

After this loss (and others) at the hand of the Supreme Court Justices, FDR acted. In an amazing act of hubris he determined he would "skip state ratification and simply send over to Congress legislation that would increase the number of justices from nine to a figure that could range as far as fifteen. For each justice who stayed past the age of seventy, a new one could be added." (302) FDR's stunning court-packing proposal to amend the Constitution without state ratification and to alter the Supreme Court's make-up was a step over the line that even the Democratic Congress could not stomach. But it was the public outrage that surprised many in Washington.

President Obama has employed many strategies out of FDR's playbook--most notably his attacks against the wealthy. But his recent politicalization and castigation of the Supreme Court is one move that, perhaps, should have been more carefully considered. His recent comments were a thinly veiled threat. An empty one, it would seem, given the Court's robust history of considering the Constitution first and foremost.

And given the American citizen's affinity for separation of powers to protect individual liberty.

Student Loan Default--A Question of Character

A few weeks ago I clipped a small article from Barron's which revealed some statistics on outstanding student loans. The numbers shake out like this: During the third quarter of 2011, a startling $85 billion of student debt was delinquent. There are 37 million borrowers with loan balances.

Last week I attended a presentation by Hillsdale College. They cited the student loan default rate at 28%. The percentage of Hillsdale students who defaulted? Less than .5%. And, sadly, both of those students died.

If you haven't acquainted yourself with Hillsdale. You should.

Federal Budget Explosion--Part 2

The New York Times reports on President Obama's proposed $3.7 trillion budget for 2013 with a viewer-friendly series of interactive graphics.

The president's budget projects a $901 billion deficit in 2013. The deficit represents spending in excess of revenues during the year. The deficit does not represent the national debt which, according to the U.S. National Debt Clock in real time, is $15,391,190,000 give or take. Call it $15.4 TRILLION dollars or $49,041 per citizen, $135,797 per taxpayer. Add in this year's deficit and the proposed deficit for 2013 plus interest and it is not a stretch to conjure up the kind of third world disaster currently stewing in Greece. All of this spending is before we begin gearing up for ObamaCare's $1 trillion spend-a-thon.

Especially noteworthy, Obama's budget calls for $2.5 trillion in "Mandatory Spending." This represents 70% of overall spending and includes "entitlements like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security" and interest on the "public debt." The remaining $1.1 Trillion includes "Discretionary Spending." This is where defense spending is accounted for among other governmental agencies.

The big loser in the president's budget? Defense. The big winner? Entitlements which now dwarf all other spending in the federal budget.

The other big loser? The American taxpayer who is now on the hook for $135,797.00 of the national debt. And based on the president's proposed budget it looks the governmental spending machine is just getting warmed up.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/13/us/politics/2013-budget-proposal-graphic.html?src=tp