Bernie Sanders' Dishonest "Medicare for All" Ploy

One of the most important big-ticket items on Bernie Sanders' socialist agenda is to ditch all other forms of health care insurance and put every American on Medicare.  Even though this would represent a $2 Trillion increase for health care spending over the current $4 trillion in current federal spending, not to worry.  The rich and Wall Street will pay for it.  Probably tanking our economy and making us as screwed up as Greece; economically.  But, let's put that aside.

A lot of people like Bernie's plan because most people think Medicare works; providing 55 million elder Americans with the kind of health care they need at the time the need it most.

However, for millions of Medicare beneficiaries, the system is broken.  In a 2008 study by the Independent Payment Advisory Commission for Medicare that reports to Congress, 29% of Medicare enrollees were unable to find a primary care doctor that would accept the insurance because, simply, Medicare substantially underpays doctors and hospitals for their services.  In fact, the American Hospital Association (AHA) found that, on average, hospitals received only 86 cents on the dollar for the care they provided in 2012; substantially less than those cities and states that have higher costs of living.  The only reason that a doctor or  hospital accepts Medicare patients is that they can offset that deficit by charging the privately insured at a high rate, and if unable to do so, they stop treating Medicare patients.

The reality is that if private insurance didn't exist, few if any doctors or hospitals would be able to survive on what Medicare pays.  Our whole system of health care would collapse.  That would be the legacy of Bernie's "Medicare for all" plan.

One last thing. When trying to justify his plan, Sanders continually repeats the lie, that as a country, we pay the most for our health care and get little in return.  While it is true that we do pay more, we also have the highest disposable income of almost every other country.  For example, the average American had an annual personal purchasing power of $54,582 in 2012.  When comparing that to the United Kingdom, where they have universal free health care, the number is $30,064.  So, it is only logical that our standard of living would result in higher health care costs.  Also, the costs are lower in other countries because they cap damages for medical malpractice.  Not so here, where malpractice litigation can result in payouts in the multi-millions, forcing doctors and hospitals to practice defensive medicine by increasing the number of referrals to expensive specialists and pushing them to order a greater number of tests to insure that he/she doesn't miss something.

More importantly, contrary to the Democrat's claim that we don't have the best healthcare system in the world, just look a this table from a Forbes article:

This is why so many people who have universal health care in their own countries, elect to fly here (if they can afford it) to get treated for serious diseases.  Again, this shows Bernie's dishonesty by making it sound as if we don't have the best health system in the world. Enough already with the socialist crap!

References:

Bernie 2016: On the Issues: Medicare for All: Leaving No One Behind: https://berniesanders.com/issues/medicare-for-all/

New York Times: Finding a Doctor Who Accepts Medicare Isn't Easy:  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html

AHA: Medicare, Medicaid Underpaid Hospitals by $56B: http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/aha-medicare-medicaid-underpaid-hospitals-by-56b.html

U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One

U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One

U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One

The Myth of Americans' Poor Life Expectancy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/#2be5abb13b35

How Other Countries Judge Malpractice The health-care systems Democrats want to emulate don't allow contingency fees or large jury awards: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124631652544770707

Lists of countries by average wage and disposable incomes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage

pb

Obama's Attempts to Turn the U.S. Into a European-Style Welfare State

For decades, western European countries have increasingly become what are known as welfare states.  By that, I mean that most of them use wealth redistribution (taxing the rich) in order to provide hefty and numerous social welfare programs such as universal free healthcare, social security, and welfare pay to those in poverty.  Some countries even provide free tuition for higher education.  Also, there are heavy mandates placed on businesses such as the promotion of collective bargaining and a guaranteed minimum wage.

Now, if all this sounds familiar, it is Barack Obama's philosophy in a nutshell.  Mr. "free" for some but not all.  What he wants is the Europeanisation of the United States.  But, while the President is trying to spend this country in to more and more debt for social programs such as free community college, Europe is trying to extricate itself from the massive debt that these programs have caused.  So, as a result, many European countries are reversing the existence of wide-spread social programs through something they refer to as "austerity".

Lots of social programs are fine until a recession hits. When the Great Recession in the U.S. spread to Europe, it sent its heaviest socialized countries reeling.   Countries, who today, are still in trouble since the recession ended years ago.  Probably, the best indicator of how troubled some of them are is their youth (15-24 years of age) unemployment rates.  After all, they are supposed to be the future of any country.  In Greece, the youth unemployment rate is an astounding 58.4%.  Spain isn't far behind that at 57.3%.  Then, there's Italy at 39.7%;  Portugal 37.8%;  Ireland 26.7%; and, France at 23.7%.  Only Germany is doing well at 7.8%.  In the U.S., youth unemployment is still historically high at 15.8%; though nothing like most of our socialized friends in Europe.

Poverty, too, is high throughout the European Union (EU) and its member states.  While the poverty rate in this country is about 14.5%,  the EU has a collective rate of 16.4%.  And, poverty is on the rise as austerity programs kick in.  Simply, too many Europeans were on the government dole through social programs.  Remove or reduce those programs and more and more people fall into poverty.  Thus, there is a rising backlash against the continuation of austerity programs; resulting in the potential of more European countries become leftist.  A fact that will only deepen debt and dependence on the government.  Except for the rich. Of course!

Basically, Europe is telling us what "not" to do and, Obama and his Democrats aren't listening.  Taxing the rich and giving people a lot of free stuff is putting us at the kind of risk that Europe, now, finds itself in.  In 2014, our top 1% will paid 37% of all taxes; while only earning 19% of this nations wages/incomes.  The top 10% pay 71% of all the taxes.

When recessions hit, rich people also take a hit on their incomes from their investments or companies they may own.   They, also, can lose their jobs as companies go under. As a result, taxes fall and debt increases.  That is what happened in Europe and that is what the President is setting this country up for in the future by making us too dependent on too few rich incomes.  In light of all this, there is an old saying that definitely bears repeating:  "Social programs are a lot like a big red [communist/socialist] wagon.  At some point, you get to a place where there's too many people riding in that wagon and not enough people left behind to pull it."

References:

European social model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_social_model

Welfare State:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

The European Welfare State and Its Lessons for America:  http://www.cato.org/policy-report/julyaugust-2013/european-welfare-state-its-lessons-america

Youth Unemployment by Country: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.1524.ZS

Discussion:  Why do Europeans come to the US when college is free over there: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/international-students/1129831-why-do-europeans-come-to-the-us-when-college-is-free-over-their.html

Up to 25 million more Europeans at risk of poverty by 2025 if austerity drags on:  http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2013-09-12/25-million-more-europeans-risk-poverty-2025-if-austerity-drags

Europeanisation - Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europeanisation

Enough With European Austerity, Bring on the Stimulus: https://www.google.com/search?q=Enough+With+European+Austerity%2C+Bring+on+the+Stimulus&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

A radical left-wing party that is demanding an end to Greece's painful austerity measures won Sunday's parliamentary elections: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_GREECE_ELECTION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-01-25-12-09-15

Poverty in Europe: the Current Situation: http://www.inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article99

2014 Tax Day Chart: Who Pays the Most?: http://dailysignal.com/2014/04/15/2014-tax-day-chart-pays/

The Rich Are No Longer Recession-Proof - Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/rich-are-no-longer-recession-proof-81901

Thomas Piketty: Another Socialist Solution To Income Inequality

For years, the rock star economist for the political left was Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman.  His endorsement of taxing wealth and encouraging massive government spending -- as a means of driving the economy -- has been music to the ears of all those who love and worship big government.  Now, the left has found a new leader to follow.  He is a French economist by the name of Thomas Piketty.  The recently released English language version of his book -- Capital in the Twenty-First Century -- has every socialist-minded politician and media type going gaga over his proposed solution to income inequality.

Essentially, Piketty believes that capitalism -- and democracy -- is doomed to collapse because it creates an ever increasing disparity between the rich and the poor.   It does this because, over time, capitalism spawns a faster growth rate in the return on capital investment versus any real growth in wages. Thus, the rich, by using their wealth as investment, are able to grow their status much quicker than the majority of citizens.  So, Piketty's solution to this fatal flaw of capitalism is to force the rich out of existence by imposing an 80% tax on incomes above $500,000 and a 50-60% tax on those with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000. This way there will be no rich and our democracy will be saved.

But, then there's this:  What if society is actually able to eliminate all of that rich class? What then?

Well, first of all, all those people who had careers that support  the rich would lose their jobs.  Jobs such as the staff of upscale restauranteurs, landscapers, caterers, housekeepers, expensive fine artists and craftsmen, boat and private airplane builders, and so many others.  Then, too, high taxation of the so-called "rich" will only reduce overall spending. Since our economy is 70% driven by consumer spending, we would be sure to fall into a recession.  Additionally, the $200,000-and-above crowd are givers.  Not necessarily in direct charitable giving, but as the primary supporters of the arts and culture in America. They are a dominant source of non-Pell grant college scholarships and fellowships.  Most private colleges and hospital expansions would not happen if it weren't because of their generosity. Without outside donations, does anyone think that a religious college or university would receive a grant from the federal government? Not with the ALCU jumping in to cite the separation of Church and State.

More importantly, the rich provide an essential economic benefit to society by providing the seed money to promote the development of inventions, new products and new businesses; all of which create new jobs.  Under Piketty's flawed beliefs, the concept of wealth investment would simply cease to exist. And, don't think for one minute that the government, with all that new found money is going to pick up the torch and act as America's new Venture Capitalists.  All it would do is fuel more crony capitalism so that we wind up with endless failed ventures like Solyndra.

The problem I have will people like Piketty is that they never once have a solution that elevates people  out of poverty.  Their answer is to always attack the rich; as if they are somehow the wealth takers and not the wealth creators.  Economists aren't sociologists; but, they should be. Only then would they understand what the real reasons are for income inequality.  Totally missing in most left-wing proposals is the concept of income mobility where 80% of the of the rich, today, are first generation millionaires; and, in as little two generations, much of that wealth (60%) will be gone.  At the same time, nearly 85% of all Americans have wealth greater than their parents.  Studies have also shown that between 86% and 95% of all those who were once living in poverty would shed that condition in as little as 15 years.  The bottom line is that people, whether they be rich or poor, are likely to reverse that status, through their own initiative, in just a few years.  Because of capitalism, poverty is not necessarily a permanent condition.


If Mr. Piketty is so sure of his beliefs, he should implement them in his home country of France and then we'll see what that country looks like in, say, 5 or 10 years.  Lastly, Picketty's book is so hot that 80,000 copies were sold in just two months and it is now back-ordered.  Apparently, it is a must read among all socialist Democrats. At a list price of $39.95, it's pretty pricey.  So, I guess it's Mr. Piketty's goal to get rich before anyone can impose that 80% tax on his rich-guy income.

References:

Thomas Piketty Revives Marx for the 21st Century: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303825604579515452952131592

Piketty's 'Capital': A Hit That Was, Wasn't, Then Was Again How the French tome has rocked the tiny Harvard University Press : http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117498/pikettys-capital-sold-out-harvard-press-scrambling

The Facts About Income Mobility: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vDhcqua3_W8

29 Valuable Facts About Millionaires and Billionaires: http://facts.randomhistory.com/millionaires-facts.html

So Much For A Balanced Approach To Debt and Spending: Obama Want's a Blank Check

Throughout his reelection campaign, Obama spoke of having a balanced approach -- spending cuts and tax increases -- to solve the nation's debt problem.  Now that the election is over and Obama won: "Forget about it!"

Instead, Obama's approach is taxing the rich by twice the amount that he ran on before the election.  Then, too, he now wants a new stimulus program; extended unemployment benefits; a renewal of the Make Work Pay payroll tax cut; another shot at mortgage relief; and, billions more to insure doctors get paid under Medicare.  Not one spending cut.

But, the big signal that the "balanced approach" is being thrown under the bus came when his representative, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, told the GOP leaders that he wants an abandonment of the federal debt ceiling.  In other words, he wants a blank check to spend without Congress' approval.  Does that sound like someone who is even interested in cutting any spending?

The U.S. has already seen its credit-rating-downgraded when the debt ceiling limit was raised the last time around.  What do you think will happen when the debt ceiling is completely eliminated?  You can just kiss the value of the U.S. dollar goodbye!

--- CNBC.com: Tim Geithner’s Bad Idea on the Debt Ceiling: http://www.cnbc.com/id/50027858

California Dreaming Turns To California Fleeing

On Tuesday night, 54% of California's voters approved Proposition 30 which would raise both sales and income taxes in a supposed attempt to "fix" the not-so-Golden State's debt problems.   The state sales tax will be raised by 1/2 percent and, of course, that cost will be borne by everyone in the state who buys anything.

Then there's an increase in income taxes; retroactive to include all of 2012.  Apparently, having taken a lead from Obama, the Democratic-supported Prop 30 will "only" raise taxes on "millionaires and billionaires".   You know, that same old song:  Individuals making more than $200,000 and families making $250,000 and above.  The surtax will be progressive; starting at 1 percent on the low end and  incremented upwards to 3 percent for true millionaires.

Now, if Obama is also able to raise the federal tax on those same $200,000/$250,000 wage earners to 39.6% from 35%, it means that that those "rich" in California will see an "additional" increase of 4.6%. Then, add to that the 2013 0.9% tax increase for ObamaCare and the plus $200,000 crowd will see a rate increases of  ranging from 5.5% to 8.5%.  But, here's the thing.  California already has one of the highest income tax rates on high end wage earners at 9.3%; and, 10.3% for those making more than a million dollars.  So, overall, rich Californian's -- at the very minimum -- will ultimately have to pay a combined minimum tax rate of 50.8%.  53.8% for those truly making a million dollars or more.   Of course, both these rates assume that Obama will get his tax increases on the rich. So, if you do make $200,000, you will only get to keep  a little more than $98,000 of it.  For someone making a million dollars, their minimum tax bill will be $538,000.  Of course, this doesn't even include the sales taxes and real estate tax burdens and all the other taxes imposed on these very same people.  This, then, means that these income earners are no longer "unfairly" working for themselves.  Instead, they are primarily working in support of the state and federal governments and all their waste, corruption, and multitude of giveaways.

The problem with these high taxes is that it "will" force many talented and wealthy Californians to flee the state in seeking lower taxes.  Some amount of businesses will also leave. Those who are independently wealthy and not tied down to California by job, may actually move to places like Bermuda or Canada or some other country.  Besides being a brain-drain, ultimately, this will shrink the tax base by lowering the mean income; and, that means a lowering of tax revenues. In fact, all these new tax increases may actually result in less tax revenues than California is currently taking in.  Already, because of high taxes and over regulation, an estimated 3.4 million residents have fled the state since 1990.  I know this well; being a Nevada resident with no state income tax.  Many of the people in our particular neighborhood have moved here from California.

One last comment.  Despite the state's high deficits and debt, the Democrats who are in control of the State legislature have found it  impossible to lower any of the State's spending. This fact alone must infuriate those making high incomes and give them another incentive leave.  States that raise taxes and don't cut spending are just whistling past the graveyard; as was noted in my previous blog post, Obama Should Learn A Lesson From His Home State, where Illinois implemented a 67% across-the-board tax increase and their debt just continued to increase.

References:

--- Wall Street Journal: California Voters Approve Higher Taxes: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324439804578104854095658918.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

--- Federation Of Tax Administrators: State Tax Comparisons: http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/tax_stru.html

--- Fox and Hounds: The Great California Exodus: A Closer Look: http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2012/09/the-great-california-exodus-a-closer-look/

--- CNBC: Two Days After The Election:  Boeing Announces Big Layoffs in Defense Division: "Boeing announced a major restructuring of its defense division on Wednesday that will cut 30 percent of management jobs from 2010 levels, close facilities in California and consolidate several business units to cut costs.": http://www.cnbc.com/id/49729998

Obama's Lie: Returning The Rich To The Tax Rates Under Clinton

Over and over, again, Obama calls for the "rich" to pay their fair share and simply pay the tax rates that existed under Bill Clinton.  But, that claim is so false, in so many ways, that it is just laughable.

First, there's this outright lie. When Clinton left office in 2001, the top tax rate was 39.6%.  That's the same rate that Obama wants to return to.  However, that rate was only being applied to those taxpayers making $297,350 and above; adjusted upwards from $288,350 in the previous year (see tax table link below).  You see, under Clinton the threshold for paying that top rate was being adjusted, annually, to account for inflation.  That's why, in 2002, the number was upped again to $307,050; and, that is also why, by 2011, the income threshold had been adjusted to $379,150.  But, what Obama wants to do is to take that threshold back to $250,000 for marrieds and even lower for singles making $200,000 or more.

The other distortion -- if not an outright lie -- has to do with tax increases associated with ObamaCare.  Under that law, those making in excess of $200,000 will be hit with a 0.9% with a payroll tax increase. Automatically, this means that the former-Clinton tax rate of 39.6% will be increased to a 40.5% tax rate if Obama gets his way.  Further, ObamaCare adds a new tax to be born only by people making over $200,000.  That tax is the 3.8% surcharge on any capital investment profits; including any profit from the sale of a home.  Additionally, many of those in the $200,000/$250,000 tax bracket are the ones who have purchased "Cadillac" heath insurance policies.   ObamaCare imposes a 40% against any policy under the "Cadillac" criteria.

Lastly,  the rich are getting beaten around the head by new and higher taxes at the state level.  In Illinois, taxes were raised by 57%.  A new tax on the rich is on Tuesday's ballot in California.  Put all together, the rich are being massively targeted by taxes.  But, more importantly, these taxes are draining funds from the very people who create more tax paying jobs in America.  Increasing taxes on the rich to solely maintain and grow economy-sucking governments is just idiocy.  Just look at Greece and Spain at near financial collapse and their near 25% unemployment rates.

--- National Taxpayers Union: Historical Tax Rate Tables For Top And Bottom Rates:  http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

Obama Should Learn A Lesson From His Home State

Moving into 2011, the Democrats of the Illinois State legislature and a Democrat Governor rammed through a 67% across-the-board tax increase in an effort to stop the accumulating red ink in that state.  Now, nearly 2-years later, the bleeding continues and is picking up steam.  It's as if that $7 billion a year in tax increases did nothing.  You see, like our Federal government, Illinois didn't have a revenue problem.  It had, and still has, a spending problem.

What Illinois is finding out is that government spending has a life of its own unless curtailed.  Pensions are rising fast as the base of retired Illinois State workers continues to broaden.  Healthcare costs are increasing because costs are rising faster than inflation and because more people, without jobs, are applying for Medicaid.  The over 9% unemployment rate is stressing all of the state's social support programs.

Like the Illinois Democrats, Obama and the D.C. Democrats want to increase taxes to cure our deficit problems; but only for the so-called rich. They seem to think we have a revenue problem. But, letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the so-called rich will only increase revenues by, at best, $85 billion a year; while, at the same time, the federal government is overspending by more than a trillion dollars a year.  So, mathematically, there is no way that simply increasing taxes on the rich is going to solve our deficit spending problems.  If anything, the increase in taxes on the rich might actually result in less revenues because the rich will naturally take whatever measures are necessary to legally use holes in our tax codes to reduce their tax burden.  Then, too, some individuals and their businesses may actually leave the country to move to a more tax favorable country; like Canada.

Obama created most of our massive debt problem over the last four years; despite promising to cut the deficit in half in that same amount of time.   Now, we're supposed to believe that he can fix it by simply taxing the rich.  Obama has an Illinois mentality that matches that state's inability to fix its own deficit problems.  This is why we seriously need to change management at the top and in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate.

--- Chicago Tribune: Record tax hike isn't fixing Illinois' problems:  http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-28/news/ct-met-illinois-budget-20120528_1_pension-payments-income-tax-tax-hike

The Democrats Still Haven't Learned From Their 1990 Tax-The-Rich Fiasco

In 1990, the Democrats in Congress convinced President, read-my-lips, no-new-taxes, George H.W. Bush to sign into law a luxury tax on expensive boats, furs, aircraft, and automobiles.  You know, all those things that the envious Democrats find to be disgusting toys and symbols of the rich and famous.  Blinded by their ideological zeal to punish the wealthy,  they truly thought this tax would help line the coffers of the federal government and reduce the deficit.  But, the tax backfired.  The revenues from it failed to materialize because the "rich" just stopped buying all those new toys; especially from U.S. manufacturers and suppliers.  Many went overseas or north to Canada and south to Mexico to buy them.  Then, too, they also bought used.  After all, a 10-year old Ferrari is still a Ferrari and still quite the status symbol; maybe even worth more than a new one.

In the boat building industry, alone, more than 16,000 highly paid  craftsman and workers lost their jobs.  Others, too, not directly involved in the actual boat building, like mechanics and sales personnel, lost their jobs.  Decades old, custom boat builders shuttered their doors, and some communities, who were primarily dependent on that industry, saw people move away to greener pastures; leaving it with barely any tax base to survive on.  States lost sales tax and income tax revenues.  And, the federal government lost income tax revenues from all those previously healthy boat builders and from the incomes of their workers.

Just, three years later, the Democrats and Bill Clinton quietly repealed the luxury tax.

So, here we are, again, with the Democrats and Obama wanting to sock it to the rich by extending the Bush tax cuts on everyone but the rich.  Obama says that it will bring in a much-needed $85 billion a year in increased tax revenues to reduce the deficit.  But, the rich are likely to respond, as they did in 1990, by avoiding those taxes.  Further,  that $85 billion is money that the rich won't have to spend; and, just like 1990, you can expect that some of the non-rich will pay, big-time, by losing their jobs.  That will result in higher government spending to pay for the increased unemployment claims.  In addition, the states will lose income tax revenues since state income taxes aren't calculated until after Uncle Sam takes his share; so those revenues are sure to proportionately decline.  That, in turn, will force some states to raise their own taxes to make up for the shortfalls.  And, as always: "He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it!"

A Socialist President? What Are The French Thinking?

Well, if you don't know by now, Nicolas Sarkozy lost the top job in French politics.  In his place will be an avowed socialist: François Hollande.  Now, if this newly minted socialist President gets his way, my guess is that it won't be long before France wishes they had Sarkozy back, because every economic plan that Hollande has for France is an economy killer.

For one, Hollande plans not to just raise the taxes on the rich, but, instead, he's clearly stated that he wants to "soak the rich".  If you make a million euros or more a year, he plans a 75% tax.  For those making 150,000 euros or more, the tax will be 45%.  Executive pay will be mandatorily limited to 20 times that of the pay of the average worker.  He will increase the Value Added Tax (VAT) on everything people buy to help pay for his new social programs.  He also plans to arbitrarily hire 60,000 additional teachers.  And, the retirement age with full pension benefits will be lowered from 62 to 60 years of age for those working at least 41 years.

Sarkozy lost because the French economy was floundering.  But, there is nothing in the Hollande plan for  that will make the French economy any better. Just more taxes and more spending.  Socialism doesn't work.  It hasn't worked in Venezuela and it won't work in France.  All that will happen is that the wealthy and some businesses will leave the country.  With earlier retirements, pension expenses will eat the country alive. With higher VAT's, consumer spending will be slowed and the economy along with it.  France is already in recession. Hollande will only exacerbate that harsh economic reality.

The Buffett Rule Is All Politics

This week's reelection campaign agenda for Barack Obama is to push the Buffett Rule.  In another we-versus-them, socialist offensive, Obama hopes to convince Americans that, by increasing  taxes on the rich, America will be a better place and, the 99% of us who aren't rich will all benefit.  In reality, Obama's pushing of the Buffett Rule is like someone digging around in the sofa for some loose change in a futile attempt to retire $10,000 in credit card debt.  In a report released days ago, the U.S. Treasury Department stated that the Buffett Rule will only increase tax revenues by $5 billion per year.  While that may sound like a lot of money, that $5 billion would only cover 4 days of interest payments on our federal debt.

The Buffett Rule is a sham. Barack Obama is using it to rev up his liberal, political base.  A base that hates the rich and who believes that the there can be no limit to the amount of taxes the they should pay.  That hate is founded in the irrational, socialist belief that the rich only got rich off the backs of the poor.  This is why Obama always frames the "Rule" in the context of "social justice" and "fairness".  At the same time, Obama is using it to avoid the real issues of spending and debt that are killing this country.

The reality is that the Buffett Rule won't make anyone, except liberals, feel more "fairly" or "justly" treated. It will hardly reduce the debt or deficits. In fact, Obama will probably use that increase in taxes as an excuse to spend  and waste even more money.  For sure, no one is going to see their taxes go down because of it.  That is especially true for Buffett's s well-paid secretary. This, the very person that Warren Buffett used as an excuse to create the tax plan that now bears his name.

Maybe the Buffett Rule should be that Warren Buffett coughs up the billion dollars in back taxes that he owes this country; something the rest of us could never get away with.  Or, that rich, environmentalist liberals who buy $41,000 Chevy Volts "shouldn't" get a $7500 tax break.  Or, that there should be consequences for a President and his Energy Secretary blowing away billions of taxpayer dollars on  green technology companies who were obviously doomed to fail; like Solyndra.  Obviously, there's a lot of unfairness and social injustice around that's being ignored by this President.

Harry Reid's Teeny, Tiny Tax On The Rich

Just a couple of days ago, Harry Reid took to the after hours podium of the Senate floor to drum up support for what he calls a "teeny, tiny tax" on the rich. But, once again, Reid's words don't match his actions.

Under the Senate Democrat's version of the Obama jobs bill, a 5.6% surtax would be levied on all incomes above one million dollars. Certainly, most Americans would see this as a reasonable increase on high end wage earners to solve our debt problem and to theoretically create jobs. But, you see, Harry's assault on the rich doesn't stop there. Harry fully expects the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire in 2013; meaning that millionaires will see their current tax rate of 35% rise to 39.6%. So, when you add in the new surtax rate, millionaires will actually see their income tax rate rise from 35% to 44.6%; a jump of 26%. Not hardly a teeny, tiny bump in their tax rates.

Then, too, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts would increase the capital gains tax from 15% to 20%. This is another 33% rise that will not only hit the rich but anyone else who sells stocks or bonds at a profit. But, the tax rate won't simply stop at the 20% level. When ObamaCare was passed, another 3.8% tax was applied to capital gains activity; meaning that the true capital gains tax will rise to 23.8%. Overall, that's a whopping 58.8% increase in the tax on any capital investment income.

I'm still not done. There's one more teeny, tiny tax increase on the rich. Under ObamaCare, another 0.9% tax would be applied to them as a surcharge to pay for that health care law; bringing their total non-investment income tax rate to 45.5%.

So, Harry's supposed teeny, tiny increase appears to be a 30% jump in income taxes and a near 60% increase on investment income. Combine that with state income taxes, sales taxes, and real estate taxes and most millionaires with be paying more than half their income to taxation while nearly half of this country's wage earners pay nothing. Of course, in the eyes of a socialist Democrat like Harry, it's only fair.

Obama's Buffett Rule Denounced By Buffett

In his tax-the-rich/debt-reduction speech a couple of weeks ago, President Obama introduced what he called the "Buffett Rule" whereby the rich could no longer avoid paying high tax rates. In Obama's own words, he said the rich would have to pay "their fair share." Then, once again, he defined the rich as being those singles making $200,000 a year and any couples making more than $250,000.

In outlining the Buffett Rule, he implied that Warren Buffett, himself, actually authored that rule. But as I had previously indicated in my blog entry titled Obama's Rich and Warren Buffett's Rich Are Two Different Animals, Warren Buffett was only talking about the super rich who were being "coddled" by certain aspects of our tax codes. Yet, Obama continues to invoke Buffett's name in his socialist-minded justification for taxing people who aren't even millionaires or billionaires.

Yesterday morning, in a CNBC interview, Warren Buffett put the so-called Buffett Rule into its proper context. Instead of calling for increasing taxes on all of Obama's supposed rich, he explained that he only wants taxes increased on those 50,000, or so, super rich who pay less taxes than they should. He adamantly included himself in that category. In fact, he specifically said that a ballplayer making $50 million dollars "should not" have their taxes increased. That hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement for raising taxes on a person only making $200,000 or a family with income above $250,000. (Click here to See the Buffett Interview)

Once again, we find another serious "distortion of the facts" by Barack Obama. I just wish that, in that same interview, Buffett would have directly denounced the $200,000/$250,000 tax increase. Instead, he just danced around and avoided answering that direct question. Of course, that was to be expected since Buffett is an ideological supporter of Obama. But, I think, what he did say and how he said it and what he avoided saying was damaging enough.

Obama: Not Class Warfare. Its The Math.

After raising the level of deficit spending by $4 trillion in just 2-1/2 years, Obama claims his "tax-the-rich" plan will reduce the deficit by $3 trillion over the next 10 years. He claims that it's not class warfare, it's the math. (Click here to See the CBS story: "Obama: Plan not class warfare, it's math")

Well, to me, the President's math really stinks. Over the next 10 years, we'll be spending $1.6 trillion more per year than when Obama took office. Then, against that spending level, his plan proposes to save a mere $300 billion per year. That then leaves a continuing spending deficit of $1.3 trillion, every year, over the next 10 years. Obviously, his "taxing-the-rich" scheme is only a pin prick when compared to the massive spending legacy of this Presidency. Therefore, I don't really think it "is" about the math. And, if it's not the math, then what? Class warfare, maybe?

Elizabeth Warren's Socialist Blather

Elizabeth Warren, an attorney and law professor who has worked, primarily, for the Obama Administration over the last 2-1/2 years, is running to unseat Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts. In a town hall-style event yesterday, she made these remarks:

"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody... You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

While everything she said sounds "logically" true, the reality is that her viewpoint totally ignores the fact that "if" we didn't have the superior wealth creators that we have in this country, there would be no massive tax base and the taxable jobs to build the roads or to build the schools and pay for the teachers to educate the people. When she talks of the "rest of us" who "paid for" the "roads", who the hell is she really talking about? The 50% of this country who pays zero taxes; yet, still gets to use those roads? Obviously she's ignoring the fact that the "rich" pay 70% of all the taxes in this country.

She's playing a game of flawed chicken-and-egg political nonsense that sounds more like something a communist would have said in the former bankrupt society of the U.S.S.R. A society that, too, had teachers, police, fireman, and roads but never achieved the economic status that this country has. No wonder Obama originally hired her!

Obama's Rich and Warren Buffett's Rich Are Two Different Animals

For years, the liberal mantra has always been to tax the rich. But, ever since Obama began running for the Presidency in 2007, he and his fellow Democrats have started defining the "rich" as those "millionaires and billionaires" making more than $200,000 a year and those married couples with incomes above $250,000. In support of their liberal "tax the rich" beliefs, the Democrats have always been able to point to Warren Buffett, a true multi-billionaire, who has, over and over again, publicly complained that the rich aren't pulling their true share of the tax load.

However, what everyone seems to miss in the Democrat's "use" of Buffett as an argument in support of raising taxes on the rich, is how different Buffet's definition of the rich is in comparison to theirs. When Buffett talks of raising taxes on the rich, he's talking about the super-rich and the mega-rich; those making a million dollars or more a year. In fact, the title of his last op-ed piece on the subject was: "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich" (Click here to See Story). Warren Buffett isn't at all talking about taxing people who make more than $200,000 a year. If you read that op-ed closely, you would see he complains that the people in his office are being taxed an average of 36 percent; when he only pays 17%. But, to put that 36% tax rate into context, our current tax laws say that you have to make at least $379,150, after all deductions, to even be taxed at a rate of 35%; let alone a 36% rate.

What Buffett is really complaining about is how, he, and the other super-rich can "game" the tax codes through income offsets and deferments, tax deductions, and tax-sheltering techniques. Buffet pays a lower tax rate because he chooses not to take a true salary; but, instead, relies heavily on capital gains as a good chunk of his income. That keeps his tax rate low. What Buffet is simply saying in that op-ed is that, if the tax laws were streamlined without all the benefits for different types of incomes and for incomes from certain types of operations, the system would be fairer and the tax revenues would be higher.

Lastly, if the Democrats simply let the so-called Bush "tax cuts for the rich" expire, all of Buffett's office people would see a tax hike because they would all fall within the Democrat's definition of the "rich". All those "36% tax-bracketed" people would then see their average tax bills rise to 40%. And as for Mr. Buffett? I'll bet anything that his own tax rate would remain the same because many of the tax breaks he now affords himself of would still be in place. So much for the Democrat's B.S. of taxing the rich! After all, they do need Buffett's money whenever elections roll around.

Obama: Your Marxism Is Showing

Karl Marx, the communist and the social economist, often talked of the struggle among the classes. He obsessed about the class of people known as the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie of society were those who placed too much into the value of owning property. Today, if Marx was still alive, he might just call them corporate jet owners. At least that's what Obama referred them as in his speech at his press conference of just last week. In fact, he obsessively mentioned corporate jet owners 6 times in that speech. He also singled out the so-called billionaires and millionaires. Just another bunch of "bourgeoisie" property owners that Obama is obsessed with.

Pitting one class against another is straight out of the Marxist playbook. That's exactly how the Marxist, Hugo Chavez, got elected in Venezuela and, then, managed to literally become president (or dictator) for life. Like Obama, the Marxist Chavez is also about redistribution of wealth. Since being president in Venezuela he has taken land from the rich and given it to the poor and he has nationalized formerly private businesses. All one has to do to understand how Marxism is in Obama's heart is to go back to the 2008 campaign and recall what Obama told "Joe the Plumber": "We need to spread the wealth around.." However, spreading the wealth around takes a serious toll on any economy; usually in the form of inflation. For example, since Chavez has been in office, Venezuelans have suffered from 20+ percent annual inflation and empty grocery shelves. A fate we could see here if Obama isn't stopped in 2012.

If anyone doesn't think this President isn't a socialist/Marxist, they have got their head screwed on wrong or they are just blindly ignoring the truth in what the reporter/writer, Bernie Goldberg, calls a "Slobbering Love Affair". The economy is still in trouble because we have an anti-business President in office. His fixation is to spend and spend while hiding behind Keynesian Economics as the means of promoting wealth redistribution programs like Obamacare that will ultimately sap the economy and that will only further high unemployment. Just look at his handover of GM to the labor unions as a perfect example of Obama's application of Marxist principals. And, as for inflation? We've already seen a doubling of gasoline prices under his rule and many food products are seeing annual double-digit price hikes. Isn't Marxism lovely?

On Health Care & Cap and Trade: We Will All Pay. Not Just the Rich!

The wise poet and philosopher, George Santayana, most notably and aptly said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Once again, the Democrats seem to have forgotten their past. For Cap-and-Trade and Health Care Reform, they have wheeled out their age-old tactic of paying for their outrageous spending habits by taxing the rich. But, as in the past, this will ultimately backfire and it is the middle class and the poor who will suffer the most.

Taxing the "rich" has been tried many times before and it hasn't ever really worked. Usually, the economy suffers and, ultimately, it is you and I who will have to pay for that stupidity in either lost jobs or higher costs for everything we buy. Apparently, the Democrats still haven't learned that the rich are really the "Golden Geese" that we need in order to sustain our standard of living and create new jobs; not the broad evil that they are portrayed to be.

To prove this, we only have to look back to 1990 when the Democrats imposed a 10% luxury tax on boats over $100,000; cars over $30,000; and, furs over $10,000. After all, it is only logical that the rich should pay heavily for their shameful excesses. Forget about the fact that those "excesses" helped to support many, many jobs in each of those "luxury" industries. Instead, the Democrats, once again, thought it was their job to screw the rich and take their money and, theoretically, give it to those who were absolutely less dedicated to improving our society.

In the 3 years that the luxury tax had been imposed, more than 30,000 employees in the boating industry (alone) lost their jobs. Century-old and family boat manufacturing operations, those who each employed dozens and hundreds of skilled workers, went out of business and their workers all lost their good paying jobs. Many little towns in New England suffered high rates of unemployment because high-end, specialty boat manufacturing was all that they did. Many of the large boats that were needed to support jobs in the fishing industry were also targets of that tax, and those people were hardly the "rich" that the Democrats wanted to target. Hundreds of others lost their jobs when marginal furriers and high end auto dealers also went under because of the tax. Worse yet, the luxury tax actually resulted in reduced State sales taxes and produced no significant increases in Federal tax revenues. The rich either stopped buying all those luxury items or they bought used items that weren't subject to the tax. Here's a pertinent article from the New York Times that was written in 1993, on the heals of the repeal of that luxury tax: "Luxury-Tax Repeal Encourages Sellers". The boating industry was literally decimated and many of those old family-owned boat businesses just disappeared forever. Worse yet, the Democrats created the thing they hate the most: Big, dominant corporations. As a result of their actions, the entire boating industry was consolidated under just a few, big, corporate names like Brunswick.

No matter what we are being told by Obama and the Democrats, Cap-and-Trade and Health Care Reform will cost "us" more than the rich. The ideological "tunnel vision" of the Democrats never seems to see the unintended consequences of their actions. Then, years later, in the rubble of their caused destruction, those same Democrats, acting totally blameless, must reverse what they've done. The only problem with what they are doing now is that their actions might not be so easily reversed in the future.

In a similar fashion to the luxury tax, the Welfare System had to be killed off because of its own unintended consequences. It was repealed under Clinton and a Republican Congress in 1996. Welfare was a failed Democratic initiative because it locked people into a lifetime of being on the dole and those in the system were never ever really able to break out of it. It wasn't the safety net that the Democrats thought it would be. Instead, it was a web of entanglement that kept hundreds of thousands of this nation's poor from ever becoming productive citizens.

Right now and in just 6 short months, the Democrats are preparing to repeat the mistakes of that old luxury tax and a failed Welfare system with their new Cap-and-Trade and Health Care Reform and another tax-the-rich scheme. In comparison, that old 10% tax on luxury items was just child's play. What they plan to do, now, could literally destroy the health care system in this country and destroy our economy at the same time with highly punitive charges for Cap-and-trade. It won't just be a few workers in luxury industries who will lose their jobs. I expect entire companies to move off-shore to avoid the hefty penalties associated with Cap-and-Trade. The Health Care system will literally collapse under the weight of being forced to be both ubiquitous and low cost. My guess is that the average lifespan of Americans, which had been rising, will start to fall again. For many, the Democrats proposed changes to our health care system is an early death sentence. And, health care will only get more expensive; not cheaper. Just mark my words.

Joe Biden: The New Adventures of a Robbing Hood

According to Joe Biden, wealthier Americans should pay higher taxes and, in doing so, they would be patriotic (See Full Story). So, in essence, Mr. Biden is saying that wealthy Americans aren't patriotic unless they pay higher taxes. I looked up the word "patriotic" and, for the life of me, I couldn't find anything about taxes being the primary qualifier for someone's patriotism. In fact, this country had no system of taxation until the Civil War. Absurdly, Joe Biden must think that we didn't have any patriots in this country prior to our civil war.

Let's be real. Currently, the top 10 percent of wage earners (which includes businesses and corporations) in America foot the bill for 80 percent of all our government's operations. The top one percent foot the bill for 38% of all governement activities. The rich also help this country by buying up United States Treasury bonds that support our deficit spending and national debt. To say that those people aren't patriotic is just ridiculous. Personally, I believe that someone who shirks their responsibility in even getting a simple high school degree; can't work because of that; and feeds off every government program that the Democrats can hand them, are the real non-patriots in America. They are the leaches that feed off our government and create no jobs and contribute nothing to society. But, those are the people that the Democrats always want to help the most. Not the rich. Not the people who create jobs or the wealth of this country. To me, a patriot is someone who contributes to the health and well being of America and not someone who uses or extorts what they can from it.

Maybe Joe Biden and Barack Obama envision themselves as modern-day Robin Hoods. Most people think of Robin Hood as an outlaw who made a career out of "robbing from the rich to give to the poor." However, a closer look at Robin Hood would reveal a person who fought the big and corrupt government in the form of the King of England and fought his top IRS agent of that day, the noted law enforcer and tax collector, the Sheriff of Nottingham. "Me thinks" that John McCain is the true Robin Hood in this campaign and Barack Obama and Joe Biden are just a couple of "hoods" that would "rob" from the rich.

From my second paragraph (above), you can see clearly that the rich are already keeping this country afloat. But, if you keep taking money from them in the form of taxes, they won't have any money left for business expansion. Additionally, they won't have any excess money available in terms of venture capital to float any new businesses. The economy will just stop growing. If you take that scenario to the extreme (which I always like to use to prove a point), you could take all their money in the form of taxes and this country could ultimately look like North Korea. A country where half the population are starving. China and Russia are now flourishing because they came out of the depths of a purely socialistic environment. Barack Obama and Joe Biden want this country to move in the direction that China and Russia abandoned. Europe has reduced it's corporate and business taxes and even subsidized some businesses like Airbus so their companies can complete in the world economy. Barack Obama and Joe Biden want to penalize our businesses and corporations so they can't compete; and, they can't expand; and, they can't create new jobs.