Wednesday, November 11, 2009

President Endorses 'Health Care' Bill and Violates Tax Pledge

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911127266/politics-and-economics/president-endorses-health-care-bill-and-violates-tax-pledge.html



Written by Julia A. Seymour
Wednesday, 11 November 2009 19:15

House bill includes tax hikes on people making less than $250,000 Networks say NOTHING...

Business & Media Institute

The media gave President Obama credit during the campaign for promising not to raise taxes on the middle class. He was on the trail in New Hampshire when he made a "firm pledge" not to raise taxes on any family "making less than $250,000 a year."

Obama is doing his best to break that promise, but the network news media haven't bothered to report it. On Nov. 6 when he endorsed the tax increase-laden health care reform bill that the House of Representatives passed on Nov. 7, Obama violated his pledge.

While Obama had offered broad generalities supporting various health care reform bills under consideration in the House and Senate, the Nov. 6 statement was the first time he threw his weight fully behind one piece of legislation.


In that statement, Obama said the bill "meets the President's criteria for health insurance reform: it assures that all Americans have access to quality, affordable health care that is there when they need it and does so without adding a dime to the deficit." But it didn't meet the requirements of his own tax pledge.

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase," Obama had said Sept. 12, 2008. "Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes"

He and administration officials reaffirmed his commitment to not raising taxes on the middle class throughout 2009. Even White House spokesman Robert Gibbs declared on April 15, 2009, that "The statement didn't come with caveats," when asked if the tax pledge applied to health care reform bills.

But according to conservative tax policy group Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), the House bill (H.R. 3962) is "loaded with tax hikes on families making less than $250,000 per year," including the individual mandate excise tax, employer mandate payroll tax, and tax increases on health savings accounts. On its Web site, ATR explained 6 specific provisions that would result in higher taxes for the middle class.

The Associated Press reported the breach of promise on Nov. 2, explaining that the individual insurance mandate would "impose new taxes on people who don't buy qualified health insurance, including those making less than $250,000 a year."

Yet, not a single network report between Nov. 6 and 9 called Obama out for breaking his pledge to the middle class. In fact, out of 38 health care stories or briefs on the three networks only 29 percent (11 stories) even mentioned taxes related to the health care bill.

Another tax policy expert, Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union said "unequivocally" "there's no doubt that the President's pledge not to tax the middle class would be broken in either the House or the Senate bill. It's terribly shoddy for the mainstream media to not examine the IRS's own statistics about how this would affect people in different income brackets."

Instead of talking about the tax increases that many Americans would face under this legislation, many of the reports continued to focus on the politics.

Nets emphasize political squabbles, fail to explain who would pay.

Rather that digging into the nitty-gritty of the bills provisions and consequences, the network media kept the focus on politics - shifting from proponent sound bites to opponent sound bites, but rarely providing substance.

That's exactly what Chuck Todd did on his Nov. 9 NBC "Today" report. In that report, he actually said "the politics, rather than the policy, seemed to dominate the debate" over health care. Instead of going deeper, Todd's story did the same thing. He even left out an explanation of how the "trillion-dollar price tag" would be paid for.

Rachel Martin also kept it political on Nov. 8 "Good Morning America," when she emphasized the votes for and against, the Republicans fight to "kill the bill," and Obama's "last personal push" to pass the bill. But she said nothing about what the bill would cost.

Sepp told the Business & Media Institute, "It's possible that there are political motives involved [with the networks ignoring the story], but I think some of it has to do with a failure to follow up. Perhaps a reluctance to take sides on a statistical basis. Maybe the mainstream media is so accustomed to the he said/she said debate that they don't think there is a discoverable truth here. But there is."

Even when network reporters and commentators acknowledged that the House bill would include tax increases they didn't get it quite right.

Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne was discussing the health care bill on "Meet the Press" Nov. 8 when he claimed that "98 percent of small businesses are exempt from the taxes in this bill. This is a millionaire's tax, basically, the biggest tax in this bill."

But ATR's Tax Policy Director Ryan Ellis told the Business & Media Institute that he "totally ignores the much bigger tax on small businesses, the surtax."

Ellis was referring to the tax of 5.4 percent on households making more than $1 million and individuals making $500,000 which he said will actually hit many small businesses.

ABC's George Stephanopoulos also mischaracterized that surtax as "a tax increase on the rich." Ellis took issue with his phrasing saying:

"[T]the surtax is not on 'rich guys.' The JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation] has said that $1 out of every $3 in tax revenue collected from this surtax will come from small businesses. Our research shows that 57 percent of S-corporation and partnership profits will face this surtax. The rich will hire accountants and lawyers to shelter their income from this tax."

Michelle Obama "Distributing the Wealth"

Article Submitted by: MYMOM
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652

"In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much,"

she said. "See, that's why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, "... Michelle Obama.

No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesn't perform any official duties.

But this hasn't deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to

satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just think, Mary Lincoln was taken to task for

purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary

for her personal secretary from her husband's salary.

Total Personal Staff members for other first ladies paid by taxpayers:

Mamie Eisenhower: 1 paid for personally out of President's salary
Jackie Kennedy: 1
Roseline Carter: 1
Barbara Bush: 1
Hilary Clinton: 3
Laura Bush: 1


Michele Obama: 22!!!

How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution,

earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal - Mart or serving up McDonald

cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants

of Ms Michelle are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill

for these assorted lackeys is paid by YOU, John Q. Public:

Michele Obama's personal staff:


1. $172,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Dep Asst to President and Dir of Policy And Projects for First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Spec Asst to the President and WH S ocial Sec for Mrs. Obama)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Spec Asst to President and Dir of Communications for First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Spec Asst to President and Dep Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $ 90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $ 84,000 - Lel yveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $ 75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $ 70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Dep Director of Scheduling & Events Coord For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Assoc Dir and Dep Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Spec Asst for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samanth a (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Dep Assoc Dir of Correspondence for the First Lady)
(total = $1,591,200 in annual salaries)


There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense!

Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe .


OK, OK , Yes I know, The Canadian Free Press had to publish this perhaps because America no longer has a free press and the USA media is too scared that they might be considered racist or suffer at the hands of Obama.

Sorry America.. !

SICKENING......... ISN'T IT?



CLICK HERE TO GO BACK TO MAIN PAGE................or HERE TO GO HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Buy a $15,000 Govt. Healthcare Policy or Go to Jail

JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail
Friday, November 06, 2009

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”

Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:

H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.”

If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…

Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”

When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.

“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.



CLICK HERE TO GO BACK TO MAIN PAGE................or HERE TO GO HOME

Monday, November 2, 2009

We Now Have A Total Gangster Government

Rep. Michele Bachmann (THE Second most hated Republican Woman in the Country by the frothing liberals (R-Minn.) speaking on the House floor: Now weve moved into the realm of a gangster government. We have a gangster government when the Federal Government has set up a new cartel and private businesses now have to go begging with their hand out to their localhopefully well politically connectedCongressman or their Senator so they can buy a peace offering for that local business. Is that the kind of country we are going to have in the future?



The Ganster government is indeed here, a chicago style ganster government. It's time to wakey-wakey people and fight, it's the only way to take back our country and resist this tyranny like our forefathers did! When words fail you, and you find that you cannot accomplish the goal of preserving the countries core values and founding principles through the rule of law because those who make the law have made it that way and have stacked the deck against you, what recourse have you left but to take up arms and defend liberty?

Mrs Bachmann, to her credit, has also gone on the record as stating that she refuses to participate in the 2010 census and said her family would not be vaccinated!


CLICK HERE TO GO BACK TO MAIN PAGE................or HERE TO GO HOME