A Soda Tax To Pay For Obama-Care?
So as described in the news today the same government that stated that Social Security will be insolvent by 2031 and medicare a government run health care will be insolvent by 2017, and not to mention VA hospitals which are among the worst health care in the country also government run, now they want to run the entire health care system? This is like asking GM to run the oil companies too.
Late last year, New York Governor David Paterson proposed a 15% "obesity tax" on non-diet soda to help close the state budget gap. The idea was so unpopular, Paterson had to axe the idea in March. Despite the warning, Democrats in congress, determined to find a way to pay for Barack Obama's ridiculous health care plan, are considering a federal tax on soda and other sugary beverages. Right now the number being thrown out is 3 cents for every 12 fluid ounces of those sinful sugary beverages, but we don't know how big a tax they are considering. Early estimates put the cost of Obama's health care plan at about $1.2 trillion... but such plans always cost more than the estimates, so, expect that number to grow, as well as the size of the proposed soda tax. Just as Governor Paterson had to find another way to close the budget gap, I suspect hat Barack Obama will have to find other ways to pay for his health care plan. A Rasmussen poll from earlier this year showed that 70% of Americans oppose a tax increase on soda. Supporters of the tax argue about the health benefits.
Proponents of the tax cite research showing that consuming sugar-sweetened drinks can lead to obesity, diabetes and other ailments. They say the tax would lower consumption, reduce health problems and save medical costs. At least a dozen states already have some type of taxes on sugary beverages, said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
We've heard similar argument about raising taxes on tobacco products. But, let's not be fooled. the motivation of the tax is to collect more revenue, and consumers who want soda will drink their soda... And guess who will be hit hard with this tax increase? Lower-income Americans. So, while Barack Obama promise tax cuts for 95% of Americans, with proposals like these, most Americans will find the small increase in their pay check will be quickly offset and eclipsed by higher taxes they pay at the supermarket and elsewhere on products Big Brother says isn't good for them. And it doesn't end with soda and other sugary beverages.
Health advocates are floating other so-called sin tax proposals and food regulations as part of the government's health-care overhaul. Mr. Jacobson also plans to propose Tuesday that the government sharply raise taxes on alcohol, move to largely eliminate artificial trans fat from food and move to reduce the sodium content in packaged and restaurant food.
The beverage tax is just one of hundreds of ideas that lawmakers are weighing to finance the health-care plans. They're expected to narrow the list in coming weeks.
Hear than? Hundreds of ideas to raise your taxes. If it's not sugar it is alcohol, trans fat, salt... anything the government says is bad for you they will consider taxing, to pay for Obama's health care plan... which they think will cost only 1.2 trillion now... don't be surprised if that estimates goes up signifcantly, and many of those "hundreds of ideas" to raise your taxes that are being weighed will become a reality... if we don't stop it.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Why Obamacare will NOT work
New Public Plan “Option” Will Not Improve America’s
Health Care
Health care reform is becoming a major topic of discussion in Washington. In particular, there has been a lot of talk about creating a new public plan “option” to compete with private insurance plans. But there is one major problem: there is no such thing as a fair competition when the government is both a competitor, and the referee.
The creation of a public plan would allow the federal government to both compete in the market (by having its own plan), and to regulate that same market (by making the laws that govern it). In the absence of a level playing field, a public plan would increasingly crowd out private health care options, paving the way to a single-payer, or government-controlled, health care system.
Read More:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/upload/bg_2267.pdf
Health Care
Health care reform is becoming a major topic of discussion in Washington. In particular, there has been a lot of talk about creating a new public plan “option” to compete with private insurance plans. But there is one major problem: there is no such thing as a fair competition when the government is both a competitor, and the referee.
The creation of a public plan would allow the federal government to both compete in the market (by having its own plan), and to regulate that same market (by making the laws that govern it). In the absence of a level playing field, a public plan would increasingly crowd out private health care options, paving the way to a single-payer, or government-controlled, health care system.
Read More:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/upload/bg_2267.pdf
Friday, May 8, 2009
Union NON disclosure? Who Obama really works for
Fifty years ago, Congress passed the landmark Landrum-Griffin Act to protect rank-and-file union members from malfeasance by union leaders. Senate hearings had uncovered serious corruption and other unethical practices inside the labor movement, and a bipartisan coalition emerged to shine the light of disclosure on union practices.
Nevertheless, Democrats in Congress and in the executive branch have often attempted to undercut that law's financial reporting and disclosure requirements. Prior to reforms adopted in the George W. Bush administration, for example, one union could get away with reporting a $62 million expenditure as nothing more than "contributions, gifts, and grants to local affiliates" -- with no further explanation. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is already showing that it wants to return to this nontransparent standard of financial disclosure.
Within days of the inauguration, the new leadership at the Labor Department moved to delay implementing a regulation finalized in January that would have shed much needed light on how union managers compensate themselves with union dues. The regulation required disclosure of receipts for expenditures and for the purchase and sale of union assets -- disclosures that would help deter embezzlement.
The Labor Department's Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS), created to enforce the 1959 law, also recently announced that it would not enforce compliance with the conflict-of-interest disclosure form (the "LM-30" form) that was revised in 2007. Labor's Web site states that "it would not be a good use of resources."
Instead, union managers will be able to file decades-old, less enlightening disclosure forms while the department considers whether to "revise" (i.e., gut) the current disclosure requirements. But what could be a better use of department resources than enforcing the laws under its jurisdiction?
From 2001-2008, the Labor Department secured more than 1,000 union fraud-related indictments and 929 convictions. This enforcement record was accomplished even though the enforcement office accounts for less than 0.1% of the department's budget. OLMS is the lone federal agency with the job of protecting worker interests in how their unions are managed. The last Congress increased President Bush's budget request for the Labor Department by $956 million even as it targeted OLMS for a budget cut.
Union membership peaked in the 1950s, when more than one-third of American workers belonged to a union. Today, just 7.6% of American private-sector workers belong to a union. A Rasmussen Research survey conducted in March found that 81% of nonunion members do not want to belong to a union.
The response by union leaders and their Democratic allies to declining union membership is the Employee Free Choice Act. To increase unionization, it would deprive workers of private balloting in organizing elections, and it would substitute a signature-card process that would expose workers to coercion. The bill would also deny workers the right to ratify, or not ratify, labor contracts drafted by government arbitrators when negotiations in newly unionized workplaces exceed the bill's rigid timetable.
The Obama administration likes to say that it is "pro-worker." But something is amiss when its labor priorities are forcing unionization and labor contracts on American workplaces, and denying union members information on how their dues money is spent.
Nevertheless, Democrats in Congress and in the executive branch have often attempted to undercut that law's financial reporting and disclosure requirements. Prior to reforms adopted in the George W. Bush administration, for example, one union could get away with reporting a $62 million expenditure as nothing more than "contributions, gifts, and grants to local affiliates" -- with no further explanation. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is already showing that it wants to return to this nontransparent standard of financial disclosure.
Within days of the inauguration, the new leadership at the Labor Department moved to delay implementing a regulation finalized in January that would have shed much needed light on how union managers compensate themselves with union dues. The regulation required disclosure of receipts for expenditures and for the purchase and sale of union assets -- disclosures that would help deter embezzlement.
The Labor Department's Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS), created to enforce the 1959 law, also recently announced that it would not enforce compliance with the conflict-of-interest disclosure form (the "LM-30" form) that was revised in 2007. Labor's Web site states that "it would not be a good use of resources."
Instead, union managers will be able to file decades-old, less enlightening disclosure forms while the department considers whether to "revise" (i.e., gut) the current disclosure requirements. But what could be a better use of department resources than enforcing the laws under its jurisdiction?
From 2001-2008, the Labor Department secured more than 1,000 union fraud-related indictments and 929 convictions. This enforcement record was accomplished even though the enforcement office accounts for less than 0.1% of the department's budget. OLMS is the lone federal agency with the job of protecting worker interests in how their unions are managed. The last Congress increased President Bush's budget request for the Labor Department by $956 million even as it targeted OLMS for a budget cut.
Union membership peaked in the 1950s, when more than one-third of American workers belonged to a union. Today, just 7.6% of American private-sector workers belong to a union. A Rasmussen Research survey conducted in March found that 81% of nonunion members do not want to belong to a union.
The response by union leaders and their Democratic allies to declining union membership is the Employee Free Choice Act. To increase unionization, it would deprive workers of private balloting in organizing elections, and it would substitute a signature-card process that would expose workers to coercion. The bill would also deny workers the right to ratify, or not ratify, labor contracts drafted by government arbitrators when negotiations in newly unionized workplaces exceed the bill's rigid timetable.
The Obama administration likes to say that it is "pro-worker." But something is amiss when its labor priorities are forcing unionization and labor contracts on American workplaces, and denying union members information on how their dues money is spent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)