Posted by
Toddy Littman on Monday, March 09, 2009 4:00:00 AM
First download the wonderful new nugget of $3,600,000,000,000 budget from:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/A_New_Era_of_Responsibility2.pdf
Next, and this is just to get an idea how Obama and his White House look at
funds, do a search for the word "leverage" and note how it is
used throughout the document. In this you'll find the exact means of
the federal reserve system being asserted as a means to achieve
universal health care coverage, the same system that has been
instrumental in causing The Great Depression and every other economic
downturn, including our current one.
After this search
please initiate a new search through this pdf file for "250". Numerous things were found, and this is what I found of interest:
On Page 28 ( reviewed after findings on page 29):
"Financing health Care Reform. The reserve fund is financed by a combination of rebalancing the tax code so that the wealthiest pay more as well as
specific health care savings in three areas: promoting efficiency and
accountability, aligning incentives toward quality, and encouraging shared responsibility (see Table 1).
"Taken together, the health care savings would
total $316 billion over 10 years while improving
the quality and efficiency of health care, without
negatively affecting the care Americans receive."
On Page 29 we find Table 1, I am posting the information of the table and not its formatting:
"Table 1.
Reserve for Health Reform
$ in billions2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010-14 2010-19
Federal Health Savings ............................... -1.8 -5.1 -18.0 -24.5 -34.3 -83.7 -316.0
Aligning incentives toward quality ............................. 0.0 -0.4 -1.3 -1.7 -2.1 -5.4 -20.5
Promoting efficiency/accountability .......................... -1.8 -4.3 -16.2 -22.2 -31.5 -75.9 -287.4
Encouraging shared responsibility ............................ 0.0 -0.4 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8 -2.4 -8.1
New
Revenues ............................................................... -11.1 -30.8 -33.5 -35.5 -110.8 -317.8
Subtotal: Reserve for Health Reform .......... -1.8 -16.2 -48.8 -58.0 -69.8 -194.6 -633.8
Additional resources and new benefits, to
be determined with Congress
Net Cost—Reserve Fund .................................. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0"
The italicized portion is what I find intriguing because the primary source is:
"Reducing Itemized Deduction Rate for Families With Incomes Over $250,000.
Lowering health care costs and expanding health insurance coverage will require additional
revenue. In the health reform policy discussions that have taken place over the past
few years, a wide range of revenue options have been discussed—and these options
are all worthy of serious discussion as the Administration works with the Congress to
enact health care reform. The Administration’s Budget includes a proposal to limit
the tax rate at which high-income taxpayers can take itemized deductions to 28 percent —
and the initial reserve fund would be funded in part through this provision. This
provision would raise $318 billion over 10 years."
Okay now let's look at Page 123, "Table S-6 Mandatory and Receipt Proposals" and you'll find the follow verbage
"upper-income tax provisions dedicated to
deficit reduction:
"reinstate
the 36 percent and 39.6 percent rates for those taxpayers
earning over $250,000 (married) and $200,000 (single)
"reinstate the personal exemption phaseout and limitation on itemized deductions for
those taxpayers earning over $250,000 (married) and $200,000 (single)
"Impose 20 percent rate on capital gains and dividends for those taxpayers
earning over $250,000 (married) and $200,000(single)"
And this is the most interesting, which I present in my own manner here (My limited html is about to show):
Column A
Total, upper-income
tax provisions
dedicated to
deficit reduction
2009: 182
2010: –1,102
2011: –28,461
2012: –49,012
2013: –58,153
2014: –67,271
2015: –74,595
2016: –80,559
2017: –86,638
2018: –92,333
2019: –98,600
2010-2014: –203,999
2010-2019: – 636,724
Column B
Total
Tax
Provisions
2009: 28,627
2010: 46,915
2011: -25,784
2012: 13,289
2013: 1,091
2014: -7,912
2015: -10,015
2016: -11,776
2017: -15,058
2018: -18,295
2019: -22,419
2010-2014: 27,599
2010-2019: -49,964
So
now if we take the 2010-2019 total of "-636,824" from Column A,
the above suggests that 50% of the tax increases on the wealthy
(318 billion) will be used solely for health care reform over the next
10 years, at least in regard to starting a "reserve fund" for
health care.
The reserve, which will be 50% funded by 50% of the "increase in taxes
on the wealthiest Americans" will
never work, never happen, never appear, for contingencies will
occur, contingencies beyond this budget's numbers, contingencies
made by those who control the purse, Congress. Imagine after 663
billion dollars, or any portion thereof, is collected in a health
care reserve what Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will do with that
"leveraged" fund (as though we do not know on the basis of how the
Social Security "Trust" fund is handled). And Obama will be
powerless to stop them, if he wishes to win re-election. That my
friends is what this health care plan and every reserve in this
budget means to Congress, and is setting up in the failure of America.
Preface
The
following section may seem confusing, and is intended for those
who've an idea about bookkeeping, yet I find it necessary to preface. To say that "Federal Health Saving" in a budget is to compare the numbers budgeted at this time to a time previous, and, in this
way savings is merely amounts not spent. Thus there is no accumulation of these funds, they merely are not spent. There is no
appropriation of the amounts from last year to then spend what is
intended on the budget this year and accumulate the year-to-year
balances over the given period, here 10 years. Particularly in
government this just does not happen, especially when the
environment, the economic environment will present its own
contingencies which require any "excess" be spent.
And
this is not to take into considerations that "New Revenues" is that
portion taken in by taxes. These "Federal Health Savings" are
being positioned as an add on to the new revenues to form a reserve
fund, but, they cannot be in light of merely being amounts not
spent. The only money going into a reserve fund according to this
budget will be the increased taxes through lowering the taxable
deductions to 28%, which lowers the amount given to charity. Many
hospitals, their life blood, is charitable giving. Loss of
amounts given due to a lesser amount being subject to tax deduction
shifts the burden of funding the hospital from the hospitals own
ability and responsibility to the government. Note Michelle Obama's
increased salary after her husband became a U.S. Senator (See http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/09/hospital_offici.html),
that, in light of this setting of salaries for those financial
institutions taking government bailout money, General Motors, and
others to salaries far below the worldwide standard for bank
executives, it only stands to reason that shifting the health care
community's source of funds from private to government, should result
in a reduction in the salaries of hospital executives as well (i.e
Michelle and her other 12 Vice Presidents, friends at the hospital
would, receive less than $316,000 a year, less than they do right
now as a non profit organization, or at least they should if they are
getting government money to offset government taxation of the wealthy.
This certainly doesn't appear to be "Aligning incentives toward
quality" as this budget claims it is proposing.)
Ambiguity in Posting Expense Saving + Revenues = Reserve
The
total amount claimed to be raised as "New Revenues" in the health
care portion on page 29 is 318 billion (317.8 in Table 1 above) while
the "Federal Health Savings" claimed is 316 billion. So now how is it
"the initial reserve fund would be
funded in part through this provision" in light of the text stating
"318 billion" after Table 1? Wouldn't this reserve fund be
entirely funded by these assumed government revenues to be gained by
higher taxes? I wouldn't be asking but for the fact this total amount
of new revenues from "taxes on the wealthiest Americans" is later
stated far in excess of the amount claimed for health care, and is in
fact 50% of the total revenues from this new taxation, 636 billion.
Apparently either someone doesn't understand math, this proposal is nothing more than a spin by saying "partial" to
minimize the impact of raising these taxes, or we are just being
outright lied to by Obama once again -- as though he's still
running for office. Does the White House have a clue what they are
doing? I mean the only thing that is transparent here is their
incompetence.
How many people really believe the wealthy are
just going to go along in "business as usual" fashion when their
itemized deductions have been lowered? What I mean is: It seems
Obama and his people believe the wealthy will just sit around, will
just leave their money subject to the new increased taxes. People do
that when taxes go down, but not when they go up. Then the money is
moved, even entirely out of the marketplace. Now that of course
creates a lowering of available credit. Is Obama trying to help
America recover or just bring this country down by destroying its
economic system, capitalism, established by the founding fathers? His
policies appear geared to make America fail, the proverbial "kick in
the ribs" while we and every other nation in the world are
down on the ground already.
Of Course Obama is Prepared
The above misrepresentations and political positioning, to be able to
say "50% of the new taxes pay for universal health care"next
election, is on top of codifying the the? "?Economic Substance
Doctrine," a dangerous doctrine that is itself not judicially
resolved. (See http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-utl/economic_substance_(1_25_05).pdf)
Basically
the government gets to determine if your money was invested in an
investment for an economic purpose, the "economic substance." Up
to this point in time this was used to attack tax shelters. However,
imagine this in your day to day life. For example a family member
asks you to invest in a business with them, it may be a few hundred
dollars to help them get their website up or something similar. Later
your relative contacts you in regard to the IRS contacting them,
notifying them that due to the nature of this transaction, that the
amount invested by you appears to have been made to bring your tax
liability within a lower tax bracket, and:
"Pursuant to the
economic substance doctrine, T26, Section ####, the IRS is
authorized to audit and review your accounts to determine if your
business is viable to be a business in an overall review of your
brother's deduction meeting the economic substance test."
Business
according to government's whim, at their pleasure and determination
of what is the "economic substance" of your acts solely to assure
their revenues do not decrease.
President Obama, in his need to
make every first he can has provided for codification of "The
Economic Substance Doctrine," in this budget proposal on page 122,
"Table S-6. Mandatory and Receipt Proposals."
Again
in the past this doctrine has been used against tax shelters, which,
when you look at his increased taxation of the wealthy, will be the
natural course of the wealthy, to assure they do not use their
principal, and instead, make money from their principal, their
property. As with housing Lawyer Obama did not agree that banks
should lend money on the basis of the loan being paid back (i.e. at
interest, with a down payment, to people who have a job and will
pay it back), so too it appears he feels the wealthy should not
make as much as possible on their capital, that their profit is
public excess to be used at the government's whim. This is very
disconcerting because it trespasses upon equal opportunity. Every
American can be wealthy, why should those who were wealthy before an
up and coming generation of Americans, who worked hard for their
wealth, have had any greater benefit? If anything the greater
benefit should fall to the following generations as even further
incentives for future generations.
Yet for Obama, The Economic
Substance Doctrine appears to be his silver bullet against the Were
Wolf Wealthy, to assure collection of those taxes on the wealthy at
every turn, every corner. Their money is treated as government
property and this my friends will lead to their money stored for no
return on principal and just spent, not invested to produce anything
beyond its own value, to produce inventions, jobs, and a better
life for Americans. No instead it will just be taken out of
circulation, our reward for electing a President whose socialist
policy is punishing them for having played by the American Capitalist
Rules of Freedom. To them it is better that we who worked for the
money, or our heirs, spend it than hand an ever increasing portion
of the residual profit derived from our wealth to government.
Now
of course the wealthy could maybe challenge this codification of a
court doctrine, particularly an unsettled one, but challenging
taxation has always been a sticky mess, our government believes it is
guaranteed an income that is ever increasing, irrespective of everyone else's income falling, but that's how you afford endless government expansion, ask anyone
from an Eastern Block Country who has migrated to America, they'll
explain. In any event, should the wealthy, or anyone else who
needs to, want to challenge this codification of the "Economic
Substance Doctrine," see Title 42, Section 2000bb, The
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, legislating a court doctrine which
later the court strikes as Unconstitutional per The Separation of
Powers, Title 42 Section 2000bb has since been repealed by
Congress.
Maybe all of this is due to Obama financial backer
George Soros, and his claimed belief that consumerism is the engine
of the American economy, and that this engine is dead (see http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10102008/watch.html).
Apparently, the wealth of this nation, whose volume of dollars has
grown along with the number of people they employ, is of no
significance as opposed the number of wealthy in Romania, Russia,
Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba and every other nation in
the world, where a literal handful or less of citizens have "wealth"
and the remainder is in poverty, with a miniscule few
slightly more comfortable so long as they are subject to the whim of
the wealthy alone. This is a true "earmark" of liberalism, the
new brand name of feudal rule after Marxism, communism, socialism, and
fascism didn't work (Why I will occasionally refer to George
Soros as "The new King George.").
By the way, another
good one to search this budget for is "reserve." Which makes sense
when you are designing the entire budget on the basis of leveraging
funds, just like The Federal Reserve System.
Thank you for reading,
Toddy Littman