Category Archives: Social Security

Income Tax: Why 70 Million Americans Don’t Pay Uncle Sam a Dime — Politics Daily

By midnight Thursday, about 150 million Americans will have buckled down and filed their annual federal income tax returns, and the IRS will begin collecting nearly $1 trillion in revenue from these individuals.

While you struggle to meet your deadline, consider that although the law requires you to file a tax return, more than 70 million of your fellow filers will not owe a single penny to Uncle Sam. As the latest news from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center shows, a record 47 percent of tax filers will have no federal income tax liability this year.

You may wonder, how is this possible? And, more importantly, how can I join this group?

There are many legal ways to reduce your income tax liability to zero. Of course, there are many illegal ways as well, but there’s no sense in breaking the law. Not filing a tax return can get you into big trouble. Two years ago, the actor Wesley Snipes was sentenced to three years in jail and required to pay up to $17 million in back taxes plus penalties and interest because he didn’t file his tax return for three years.

via Income Tax: Why 70 Million Americans Don’t Pay Uncle Sam a Dime — Politics Daily.

1 Comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Big Government, Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservatives, DEFICIT, Dollar, Economics, Entitlements, Government Spending, Governmental Agencies, Ideology, IRS, Medicaid, Medicare, Progressives, Social Security, Stimulus, Taxation, United States of America

ObamaCare and the Constitution – WSJ.com

The constitutional challenges to ObamaCare have come quickly, and the media are portraying them mostly as hopeless gestures—the political equivalent of Civil War re-enactors. Discussion over: You lost, deal with it.

The press corps never dismissed the legal challenges to the war on terror so easily, but then liberals have long treated property rights and any limits on federal power to regulate commerce as 18th-century anachronisms. In fact, the legal challenges to ObamaCare are serious and carry enormous implications for the future of American liberty.

The most important legal challenge turns on the “individual mandate”—the new requirement that almost every U.S. citizen must buy government-approved health insurance. Failure to comply will be punished by an annual tax penalty that by 2016 will rise to $750 or 2% of income, whichever is higher. President Obama opposed this kind of coercion as a candidate but has become a convert. He even argued in a September interview that “I absolutely reject that notion” that this tax is a tax, because it is supposedly for your own good.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and 13 other state AGs—including Louisiana Democrat Buddy Caldwell—claim this is an unprecedented exercise of state power. Never before has Congress required people to buy a private product to qualify as a law-abiding citizen.

As the Congressional Budget Office noted in 1994, “Federal mandates typically apply to people as parties to economic transactions, rather than as members of society.” The only law in the same league is conscription, though in that case the Constitution gives Congress the explicit power to raise a standing army.

Democrats claim the mandate is justified under the Commerce Clause, because health care and health insurance are a form of interstate commerce. They also claim the mandate is constitutional because it is structured as a tax, which is legal under the 16th Amendment. And it is true that the Supreme Court has ruled as recently as 2005, in the homegrown marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich, that Congress can regulate essentially economic activities that “taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce.”

But even in Raich the High Court did not say that the Commerce Clause can justify any federal regulation, and in other modern cases the Court has rebuked Congress for overreaching. In U.S. v. Lopez(1995), the High Court ruled that carrying a gun near a school zone was not economically significant enough to qualify as interstate commerce, while in Morrison (2000) it overturned a law about violence against women on the same grounds.

All human activity arguably has some economic footprint. So if Congress can force Americans to buy a product, the question is what remains of the government of limited and enumerated powers, as provided in Article I. The only remaining restraint on federal power would be the Bill of Rights, though the Founders considered those 10 amendments to be an affirmation of the rights inherent in the rest of the Constitution, not the only restraint on government. If the insurance mandate stands, then why can’t Congress insist that Americans buy GM cars, or that obese Americans eat their vegetables or pay a fat tax penalty?

The mandate did not pose the same constitutional problems when Mitt Romney succeeded in passing one in Massachusetts, because state governments have police powers and often wider plenary authority under their constitutions than does the federal government. Florida’s constitution also has a privacy clause that underscores the strong state interest in opposing Congress’s health-care intrusion.

As for the assertion that the mandate is really a tax, this is an attempt at legal finesse. The mandate is the legal requirement to buy a certain product, while the tax is the means of enforcement. This is not a true income or even excise tax. Congress cannot, merely by invoking a tax, blow up the Framers’ attempt to restrain government under Article I.


READ THE REST HERE:  ObamaCare and the Constitution – WSJ.com.

1 Comment

Filed under 10th Amendment, Article 1 Section VII, Barack Obama, Capitalism, Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, Courts, Cronyism, DEFICIT, Economics, Entitlements, Government Spending, Healthcare Reform, IRS, Liberals, Medicaid, Medicare, National Debt, Organized Labor, Progressives, Redistribution of wealth, Social Security, Socialism, Sovereign Debt, Stimulus, Taxation, United States of America, USA

The Tax Foundation – Basic Facts on Redistribution and the Impact of Obama’s Policies

Introduction

The debate over taxing high-income families to fund the expansion of health care coverage in America has renewed the broader question of government’s role in redistributing income through tax and spending policies. What is missing from this debate is some hard numbers on how much current tax and spending policies redistribute income from some Americans to others and how much the policies advocated by the Obama Administration will change the overall amount of redistribution.

The Tax Foundation’s “Fiscal Incidence” project has filled this void by first calculating how much current tax and spending policies are redistributing, then estimating how much President Obama’s policies—from taxes to health care to climate change—will alter that redistribution. Simply put, the Fiscal Incidence Model[1] compares the total amount of federal taxes families pay (such as income taxes, excise taxes, payroll taxes, etc.) to the total amount of government spending they receive (such as entitlement benefits, defense spending, public works, etc.).

How the Money Comes and Goes

We divide American families into ten equal groups by income level, and at the top end of the spectrum, we are able to break that 10 percent down into smaller groups. In general, as anyone would expect, families who earn more pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits while families who earn less receive more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes. These individual results are then summed up into a national picture of how much tax and spending policies redistribute income from some American families to others.

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE HERE:  The Tax Foundation – Basic Facts on Redistribution and the Impact of Obama’s Policies.

Leave a comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Big Government, Capitalism, Constitution, DEFICIT, Dollar, Economics, Entitlements, Government Spending, individual rights, IRS, Liberals, Limited Government, Lobbying, Medicaid, Medicare, Organized Labor, Progressives, Social Security, Socialism, Sovereign Debt, Stimulus, Taxation, TREASURY, United States of America, USA, Welfare

Exempted From Obamacare: Senior Staff Who Wrote the Bill | The New Ledger

For as long as the political fight took over the past year, the abbreviated review process on the health care legislation currently pending on President Obama’s desk is unquestionably going to result in some surprises — as happens with any piece of mashed-up legislation — both for the congressmen who voted for it and for the American people.

One such surprise is found on page 158 of the legislation, which appears to create a carveout for senior staff members in the leadership offices and on congressional committees, essentially exempting those senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans.

A major story during the course of the health care debate was whether members of Congress would commit to placing themselves in the same health care exchanges as average citizens, or whether they would hang on to their government plans — that’s why leadership chose to add this portion to the bill, serving as a guarantee that members would participate in the same health plans as the people. Here’s the relevant text:

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-

(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are–

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

Read the rest here:  Exempted From Obamacare: Senior Staff Who Wrote the Bill | The New Ledger.

Leave a comment

Filed under AFL-CIO, Barack Obama, Big Government, Congress, Constitution, Cronyism, DEFICIT, Entitlements, Executive Orders, Government Spending, Governmental Agencies, Healthcare Reform, Ideology, individual rights, Medicaid, Medicare, National Debt, Organized Labor, Progressives, SEIU, Social Security, United States of America

Why most Americans are angry about approval of ObamaCare

In spite of heavy opposition from the citizens from sea to shining sea, the U.S. House of Representatives proceeded to approve the ObamaCare legislation by a vote of 219-212.  The bill was passed without the support of even one Republican.

Yet 34 Democrats joined with Republicans in voting no.

Rarely has any piece legislation so bitterly divided the citizens of this nation.  The clear majority in poll after poll shows that this bill is very unpopular and Americans by and large are very angry that their elected representatives in Congress would even consider such a thing, much less vote in favor of it.

read the rest here: Why most Americans are angry about approval of ObamaCare.

**This article was written by Anthony G. Martin, one of my FAVORITE

Twitter friends.  You can follow him on twitter @welshman007

Leave a comment

Filed under 10th Amendment, Barack Obama, Big Government, Budget, Congress, Conservatives, Cronyism, DEFICIT, Dictators, Economics, Elections, Entitlements, Government Spending, Healthcare Reform, Ideology, individual rights, Liberals, Limited Government, Medicare, National Debt, Progressives, Social Security, Socialism, Sovereign Debt

Healthcare Just a Costly Legacy Booster?? –>Best Letter to the Editor EVER!

EDITOR,

On July 30, 1965, at the Harry S. Truman Library in Independence, Mo., President Lyndon Baines Johnson handed former President Harry S. Truman the very first Medicare card ever issued to a U.S. citizen. A few seconds earlier, Johnson had signed the Medicare Bill, America’s newest entitlement program.

The Congressional Budget Office projected that Medicare would cost American taxpayers $12 billion annually by 1980. In 1980, Medicare cost taxpayers $110 billion, almost 10 times the projection of the CBO. In 2009, the Medicare entitlement cost taxpayers $418 billion.

The CBO calculates costs based on the assumptions given by the proponents of the bill. In other words, the rosiest of the scenarios is given by the CBO. The costs are slanted by the group advocating the bill.

There is only one consistency with the CBO: When it comes to CBO projected costs on an entitlement, the CBO is consistently wrong. On cost projections, I always take the CBO numbers and triple them. History proves that a multiple of 3 is a very conservative guess when it comes to entitlements.

The CBO projects President Obama’s health care proposal will cost $940 billion over 10 years. This cost assumes a $500 billion cut in Medicare. When was the last time the government cut cost on anything?

For the Americans who will actually work and pay taxes for this boat anchor, we will begin paying immediately for a so-called benefit that we won’t see until after Obama leaves office. Then, when the program actually begins, our health care premiums will cost more than a privatized health care plan.

Just remember Tracy residents, Obama told Joe the Plumber we must “spread the wealth around a little.” This is all part of that grand plan.

However, the scariest part of this whole process is the complete subversion of the U.S. Constitution the Democrats are planning in order to get this bill passed. Yellow-bellied Democrats who do not want their names on this travesty want to “deem the bill to have passed” when voting on proposed changes to the Senate health care bill. This is the trickery of cowards, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who do not want to go on record as voting “Yea” on the bill.

Article 1, Section 7, of the U.S. Constitution states “All bills which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall … be determined by the Yeas and Nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively.”

In President Obama’s recent interview on the Fox News Channel, Obama stated he does not care about the process used to get this bill passed. He just wants his health care bill to sign into law. The president was very specific about calling this “his” health care bill.

President Obama is really telling us he could care less about the U.S. Constitution. He just wants his legacy to show that he rammed health care down America’s throat.

via Tracy Press – Your Voice Health care just a costly legacy booster.

1 Comment

Filed under Article 1 Section VII, Congress, Constitution, Cronyism, DEFICIT, Economics, Entitlements, Government Spending, Healthcare Reform, House of Representatives, Ideology, individual rights, Liberals, Medicaid, Medicare, National Debt, Senate, Social Security, Stimulus, Uncategorized, United States of America

Paul Ryan at his best! Remarks on House Floor in opposition of Majority’s Health Care Bill

In case you missed Paul Ryan in all his awesomeness on the house floor yesterday, here it is…

YouTube – Paul Ryan: Remarks on House Floor in opposition of Majority’s Health Care Bill.

Leave a comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, DEFICIT, Economics, Entitlements, Executive Orders, Government Spending, Healthcare Reform, House of Representatives, Ideology, individual rights, IRS, Jobs, Limited Government, Medicaid, Medicare, National Debt, Parlaimentary Procedure, Social Security, Uncategorized, United States of America