The (tax) world turned upside down?

by Rossputin | 3:29 am, June 15, 2009

One of the most contentious proposals (just barely) floating around in the health care “reform” debate is whether to tax as income the value of an employee’s health coverage above some amount. Some argue that “Cadillac” health insurance plans for which employers pay, for example over $12,000 per year, should be taxable income to the employee on the amount over some threshold. For example, if the threshold were $10,000 and the coverage cost the employer $12,000, then the employee would pay income tax on that excess $2,000.

During the presidential campaign, John McCain discussed that as a possibility only to be attacked successfully by Barack Obama.

The reactions by Republican Senator Charles Grassley (Iowa) and Democratic Senator Chris Dodd (Connecticut) were interesting, with Grassley saying that if Obama decides he wants to go down that road, then it will take his presidential leadership to make the move bipartisan, at least implying that there is more GOP support for the idea than just from McCain.

And Chris Dodd, a far-left Democrat, said “The idea of talking about taxing benefits at a time people are overwhelmed, I think, is a very bad idea.”

Yes, you read that right: The idea of a new tax is being semi-supported or at least not ruled out by a Republican and slammed by a leading ultra-liberal Democrat.

If you’ve been paying attention in recent months to the true goal of every Administration and Democratic congressional move, it shouldn’t be hard to figure out why these reactions are counter to what one might usually expect to hear about a tax increase.

Any guesses out there?

OK, I’ll tell you: The majority of people who get these “gold-plated” or “Cadillac” health insurance plans are union workers and union bosses. Since the proposed tax would hit unions fairly hard, Democrats strongly oppose it and Republicans are probably roughly neutral on it, though you’d think they could get away with being for or against it with just a little explanation.

Personally, I don’t really care about the issue very much the way it’s being discussed. But if it were up to me, I would oppose taxing health care benefits even if it would hurt the unions (which is generally something I’d take any opportunity to do). If passed, then it’s just a matter of Congress re-drawing a line – something much easier than drawing a line the first time – to suddenly start taxing health insurance as income at lower and lower threshold levels as part of a plan to destroy private health insurance, something which nobody should doubt is the true goal of Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy, and Chris Dodd.

[On a closing note, I encourage you to keep in mind the “how does this affect unions” angle on EVERYTHING you see coming from Democrats. For example, my view is that socialized medicine is being pushed in large part to relieve the unions of having to spend the billions of dollars they’ve saved for retiree health insurance costs and free up that money to spend on political activities, i.e. electing Democrats.]

Having a health care “system” *is* the problem

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, June 15, 2009

Rhonda Hackett writes in the Denver Post that as a Canadian living in the United States, many ask her “to declare one health care system as the better one.” But the very question assumes politicians should create a “system” to run health care. By contrast, there’s no “system” for shoes or grocery stores; there’s a [...]

Atlas Shrugged Trivia

by infinity3 | 9:46 pm, June 14, 2009

I was out at the Fat Tire Brewery in Fort Collins being introduced to their fabulous beer by the waiter/host dude in the tasting room. He handed out his leaflet for me to circle the beers I wanted and then as a Fat Tire notable, told me to write down …

Liberty On The Rocks Red Rocks–Special Guest Tom Tancredo

by elpresidente | 6:22 pm, June 14, 2009

Liberty on the Rocks Red Rocks will be hosting special guest Tom Tancredo:

Look for us at Old Chicago (weather permitting, on the rooftop patio) at 145 Union Blvd, Lakewood, CO for happy hours (5:00 pm to 7:00 pm) on the 1st and 3rd Monday of the month! Mark your calendar for:

June 15, 2009

Drum roll . . . our very special guest will be …. former presidential candidate and congressman, Tom Tancredo!

This is only our sixth meet up and we have had a number of fun and interesting people show up. The pictures on our website, RedRocks.LibertyOnTheRocks.com, show just part of fun.

Canadian hospitals cutting services to pay carbon tax

by Rossputin | 1:45 am, June 14, 2009

Thanks to Paul Chesser for posting a link to this article from a Canadian newspaper discussing how Canadian hospitals are cutting services, even threatening to close an emergency room, because of budget pressures from having to pay carbon taxes: “You have public hospitals cutting services to pay a tax that goes to another 100 per cent government-owned agency,” NDP health critic Adrian Dix said.”

see “Carbon costs add to health regions’ woes“, Surrey Leader (British Columbia), 6/11/09

Jonah Goldberg On Liberal Fascism

by elpresidente | 1:55 pm, June 12, 2009

The bestselling book Liberal Fascism is now out in paperback.

Jonah discusses the ongoing necessity to push back against the Left’s intentional misuse of the term for political purposes to bash conservatives and libertarians.

Betsy Markey and Health Care – Tea Party Target

by Jon Caldara | 12:10 pm, June 12, 2009

Re-post from the People’s Press Collective:
***Saturday June 13th at Washington Park behind Ft. Collins City Hall***
***Rally to encourage Betsy Markey to vote against socialized single-payer health care this summer***
Does this picture terrify you? Well, if it does, consider yourself invited to the Ft. Collins Tea Party’s rally this weekend to encourage Congresswoman Betsy Markey to [...]

Friday’s Funny

by Jon Caldara | 12:04 pm, June 12, 2009

© 2008, Benjamin Hummel. To see more cartoons like this go to www.politixcartoons.com.

Free People, Free Markets: The Foundations Of Liberty Course

by elpresidente | 12:01 pm, June 12, 2009

The Independence Institute is proud to offer a first-of-its-kind course on the moral and philosophical case for free market capitalism:

Free People, Free Markets: The Foundations of Liberty!

The class will take place on 5 Saturdays, from 9am to noon, starting June 27th and ending August 1st. (Skips July 4th).

This class is open to everyone. And you may obtain college credit through the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs (Good for credit at CU-Boulder and CD-Denver).

The course makes the moral and philosophic case for free-market capitalism. One of the most important concepts of Western Civilization is the acquisition of property as an unalienable right. The course develops the relationship between economic liberty and political liberty. Participants learn the principles behind wealth-creation. They are introduced to the philosophy of the Austrian School of Economics and its connection to the founding ideas of the American experiment. Participants are awakened to their heritage of economic liberty. It will be more than worth your time.

Classes will meet once a week for five weeks, from 9-12 on Saturdays (skipping July 4). The course is designed for business and community leaders, college students, and the general public. If desired, you may obtain three college credits through the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs by paying the usual college per-credit fee.

Come if you love liberty. Come if you love collectivism, but need to understand the libertarian position. Come if you want to receive an inexpensive, thorough, and energetic exposure to the founding principles of economic and political liberty.

If you would like to register, please call 303-279-6536, or send an email to rsvp@i2i.org.

For more information and/or to register, go to
http://www.i2i.org/main/event.php?event_id=63.

Class fee is $75

Enough to make a grown man cry

by Mr. Bob | 10:40 am, June 12, 2009

#tcot #army
How he kept this a secret, I don’t know.

CLICK HERE

Michael Bennet can’t decide: Unions or our nation?

by Rossputin | 9:31 am, June 12, 2009

Observers of Colorado Senator Michael Bennet have been wondering aloud how he could in 25 minutes make a decision to support Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor but still be unable after a few months of opportunity to consider the issue to take a position on “card check”, the Democratic plan to eliminate the requirement for a secret ballot to unionize a company and to force binding arbitration of contracts between companies and their unionized employees. As reports of a potential “compromise” come out, the positions of on-the-fence Democrats becomes increasingly important. And Michael Bennet is the poster child for “on the fence.”

The choice about whether to support card check, given the Orwellian title of the Employee Free Choice Act (“EFCA”) by its devious union-owned creators, pits two essentially simple positions against each other: Do you support a bill designed to enrich unions, and therefore Democratic politicians, at the expense of fundamental rights and the US economy and your (or your constituents) ability to get a job?

A new report by the Workforce Fairness Institute estimates that card check “could result in at least $1.7 billion (in 2009 dollars) in additional political spending by labor unions over a 10-year period.” Anyone want to guess what percentage of that money would go to Democrats? The report takes SEIU boss Andy Stern at his word when he estimated that unions would increase their membership by 1.5 million members over the next decade or so. Assuming a dues amount of $425, “enactment of EFCA would increase union receipts by $637,500,000 per year.” You get the picture: Democrats pass legislation which enriches the unions, then unions contribute money to Democratic candidates for office in a never-ending cycle of parasitism on the US economy, taxpayers, and voters.

Of course, almost every Democratic plan puts a legislator facing essentially this same question: Big government and unions versus a competitive economy with reasonable taxes. And the Democrats are finally getting some push-back, including from the corporations that one might have viewed to be most “liberal”. For example, last week Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said that if Obama’s plans to tax the foreign-earned profits of US corporations at higher rates passes, Microsoft will move jobs offshore.

But card check should be an easier decision for Bennet and others. Not only does it enrich unions at the expense of competitiveness (a concept which most Democrats seem not to understand and the ones who do seem not to care), but it also eliminates the secret ballot currently required to unionize. It’s almost embarrassing to see card check supporters twisting and spinning, trying to explain why a secret ballot is important everywhere (even in Mexican labor organizing) except to unionize an American company. Card check will mean that union bosses can and will ask employees to sign cards – and will ask in front of those employees’ friends, putting tremendous pressure on them to go along. It also bears noting that if an employee signs a card indicating that he supports an election to decide the question of unionization, that card can be used toward a card check majority, i.e. to unionize without an election! It is interesting to see how such an undemocratic idea is somehow so Democratic.

The other extremely objectionable provision of the law would force binding arbitration, presumably by a government or government-like board, of employment contracts when a union and a company don’t agree on terms. Imagine this scenario: The prevailing wage for a particular industry is $30/hour. The company offers $25. The newly unionized company would, under normal circumstances, counter at $32 or $35 or $38 and then sit down to negotiate. Under card check, the union will probably come back at $45 and then refuse to enter into meaningful negotiations. Then the arbitrator could easily say “Well, let’s split the difference” and force a contract of $35/hour on to the company, leaving the company unable to compete – and therefore likely to end up firing the workers anyway.

You may say that unions are smarter than that, but I disagree for two reasons. First, the union bosses will have collected at least some dues from the company’s workers, dues which they wouldn’t have otherwise collected without card check because unionization wouldn’t have happened without the pressure the bill allows unions to bring on workers. Second, history shows that unions don’t understand, at least not until it’s too late, such as with GM. And I suppose one might add that recent events might give unions the sense that government will just bail them out anyway if they’ve demanded so much that their employer is now not competitive. In other words, the scenario of binding arbitration is likely to cause many cases of companies not being able to compete – and companies never being created because the potential entrepreneurs won’t want to live through this nightmare scenario.

So, I repeat, the question of card check is very simple: Do you care more about enriching unions or more about the entire American economy and basic “small-d” democratic principles? And I repeat, why is this question so difficult for Michael Bennet?

In a sense, it’s a rhetorical question because we basically know the answer: He’s a Democrat and that’s the party that does almost nothing without union approval or the best interest of union bosses in mind. But at some point – and that point is now – a Senator must consider more than just whether the SEIU will contribute to his next election. I know that most politicians care primarily about winning their next election, but any decent human being (and most politicians are human beings) has to be able to sleep at night. No decent human being could support card check and sleep at night.

So it was interesting to see the Denver Post article about Michael Bennet saying that a group of Latino business owners who oppose card check were publicly pleased with a meeting they had with Bennet only to be followed by Bennet’s staff trying to repeat Bennet’s lack of position on the issue, trying to calm unions for whom card check is the top priority.

According to the Post, “Bennet said he’s waiting to see a compromise on the unionization bill that Democrats are trying to hammer out before deciding his position.” Hmmm. Is that like waiting to see Hitler’s compromise position on the Jews before deciding whether to vote for him?

Although Senator Bennet is one of the most high profile wafflers on card check, he’s not alone. California Senator Diane Feinstein was reported to be “firmly and completely opposed” to EFCA by someone who attended a meeting in which she spoke on the subject. Her office then put out a clarification saying she’s “working to find common ground.” Again, what common ground can there be between an evil stew of tyranny and economic destruction versus the sanctity of a secret ballot and the ability for companies and workers to negotiate contracts without government imposing them?

One can almost hear Michael Bennet’s fear and inexperience when he says “I feel like I’m having the opportunity for people to share their concerns on both sides of the issue.” As if he doesn’t know people’s “concerns”. The unions are “concerned” about how they can get as much money as possible and everyone else is concerned about the ability to get a job or start a business. Come on, Senator Bennet, is this really that hard a question? And if it is, don’t we certainly have the wrong guy representing us on Capitol Hill?

Milton Friedman speaks crystal clear truth

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 7:09 am, June 12, 2009

Knife Nuts

by ToxicHypoxic | 2:32 am, June 12, 2009

Well, it just keeps getting stranger all the time. Like they told me in grad school, “When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional”. And so our government introduces this latest bit of foolishness that seems to be par … Continue reading →

Jon Voight: Bring an end to this false prophet, Obama

by Rossputin | 1:42 am, June 12, 2009

(H/T Michelle Malkin)

On Monday night, actor Jon Voight gave a remarkable speech at a GOP fundraising dinner in which he attacked every aspect of Obama’s cult of personality.

Rather than offer my unnecessary additional commentary, please listen to Voight’s address and pass it around as widely as you can:

You trust this bumbling government with your health care?

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, June 12, 2009

Check out this great letter to the editor by Michelle Ciletti in last week’s Denver Post. It’s in response to a news article that begins:
Colorado’s most powerful charitable foundations have spent millions to feed hungry people this year — including money that could be funneled to other needs if state and county officials were able [...]

Five More Reasons to Oppose Obama’s “Single-Payer” Collectivized Healthcare

by T.L. James | 1:25 am, June 12, 2009

Forget the statistics and the care-and-share rhetoric coming from the Obama team, urging you to support “single-payer” health insurance (aka socialized medicine, aka collectivized health care) — here are a few simple, obvious reasons why you should not want it: The Incompetence of Large Organizations “That government governs best which governs least.” As anyone who has served in [...]

Ah, the smell of socialism in the summertime!

by John West | 7:43 pm, June 11, 2009

Here we go folks.  Colorado is looking to put pressure on our legislators to defeat the upcoming national health care plan that is expected this summer.  This weekend Coloradoans will take aim on Betsy Markey letting her know what they think of natio…

Betsy Markey and Health Care – Tea Party Target

by wesley | 5:27 pm, June 11, 2009

***Action Alert! Scroll Down for More Recent Posts*** ***Saturday June 13th at Washington Park behind Ft. Collins City Hall*** ***Rally to encourage Betsy Markey to vote against socialized single-payer health care this summer*** Does this picture terrify you? Well, if it does, consider yourself invited to the Ft. Collins Tea Party’s rally this weekend to [...]

Crowder Thursdays

by Mr. Bob | 4:33 pm, June 11, 2009

Crowder comedy! good stuff.

Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to terrorists

by Mr. Bob | 2:20 pm, June 11, 2009

A Critical Mass Awake to the Destructive Effects of Obama’s “Stimulus”?

by Ben DeGrow | 12:47 pm, June 11, 2009

Remember all the pomp and circumstance of four months ago when President Barack Obama flew out here to Denver to sign the “stimulus” bill? The legislation that had to be rushed through? The legislation that was supposed to prevent “irreversible decline” in our economy?
While anyone with decent sense knew the “stimulus” was long-term poison, I [...]

Say It Ain’t So, Joe

by Ari Armstrong | 9:45 am, June 11, 2009

I met Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher at the Sam Adams Alliance awards event April 18. My interview with him is available on YouTube. Joe struck me as a fun and friendly guy with some good leanings if a superficial understanding of individual rights.

I thought I was lobbing a softball when I asked him, “What do you see as the central proper purpose of the federal government? What is your basic message? What do the politicians go to Washington, DC to do?”

He began to complain about the “growth of government” under various presidents, then praised Teddy Roosevelt for nationalizing wilderness lands. I thought his answer on this point was basically wrong and that it lacked substance. But overall I thought he came across as a relatively well-informed and well-spoken “man from the street.”

But then I heard about a couple of unfortunate comments he’s made elsewhere, so of course I had to look them up.

In Christianity Today, where he argues that states should have the ability to ban abortion (which I regard as totally wrong and a violation of basic rights), he says of “queer” people (homosexuals): “I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children.” That’s just straight-up bigotry.

(He added, “I would love to hear our leaders actually check with God before he does stuff.”)

Elsewhere, Joe said, “Back in the day, really, when people would talk about our military in a poor way, somebody would shoot ‘em. And there’d be nothing said about that, because they knew it was wrong. You don’t talk about our troops. You support our troops. Especially when our congressmen and senators sit there and say bad things in an ongoing conflict.” That’s just stupid. You don’t shoot people for criticizing the military. Hello, free speech?

What’s interesting about this in the context of Colorado politics is that the Independence Institute again bumped Christopher Buckley, an Obama supporter, this time for the ATF party on June 20, in favor of Joe the Plumber. Buckley is the author of Thank You for Smoking, which, it seems to me, would have fit the theme of the event rather well. Meanwhile, it’s unclear to me what anti-nanny credentials Joe the Plumber brings to the table. Being at times a politically-incorrect ass is hardly the same thing as fighting the nanny state.

Swine Flu Hysteria continues in spite of evidence

by Mr. Bob | 9:03 am, June 11, 2009

Weird news..#tcot #swine #hhrs #redco

Ben at Mount Virtus has a great story WITH graphs about this supposed Epidemic. Stay informed, don’t be fooled…read it. For some reason the WHO is calling this an epidemic when it has turned out to be something way down further on the scale.

More Bad Unintended Consequences from Media Swine Flu Hysteria?

by Ben DeGrow | 8:26 am, June 11, 2009

So some of y’all must be thinkin’ … Whatever happened to that thar’ swine flu thing? Apparently, the World Health Organization is set to issue an alert for a “level 6 pandemic” — the first such designation in 40 years.
Before you start stampeding through the streets in panic, take note:

The declaration of a global epidemic [...]

What the Failure of the “Massachusetts Model” Tells Us about Health Care Reform

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, June 11, 2009

Michael Tanner at Cato has a new briefing paper:
Massachusetts Miracle or Massachusetts Miserable:
What the Failure of the “Massachusetts Model” Tells Us about Health Care Reform
Here’s the summary:

When Massachusetts passed its pioneering health care reforms in 2006, critics warned that they would result in a slow but steady spiral downward toward a government-run health care system. [...]

FBI shuts down gun range, calls it “militia training camp”

by Meg | 5:31 pm, June 10, 2009

The FBI is investigating a Washington state gun range that is supposedly “serving as a militia training camp.”

What is notable is that the range was shut down because of “violation of commercial zoning laws,” although the gun range has been around for a while. The owner, Jim Faire, thinks it’s because of Andrew Gray, a convicted felon who is now facing weapons and drug charges. An informant told the FBI that Gray was using Faire’s range to fire rifles. Evidently Gray was worth watching because of his “history with anti-government groups.”

The FBI felt compelled to raid Gray’s storage units, where they found 21 firearms and 300 marijuana plants. Now Gray is out on bail, due to appear in court on Thursday.

Back to Jim Faire. He didn’t catch Gray because he didn’t have the means to do a background check on every customer, which is, of course, way over the top and has been secretly (and illegally) used as a means to keep information on gun owners and their firearms. I have been to a number of gun ranges and have only had to sign waivers saying that it isn’t their fault if I shoot myself.

The FBI is also touting the informant’s assertion that Faire’s range is a “militia training center.” Faire says that the word “militia” is merely a joke, thanks to his range being a member of the Appleseed Project, a program of the Revolutionary War Veterans Association that promotes a return to a nation of marksmen.

Faire’s neighbors think that the FBI is being heavy-handed. What’s the real reason that the FBI is cracking down? Could it be a repeat of the old Clinton administration’s zeal for gun control? President Obama knows the lessons of Clinton’s “assault weapons” ban, and is not eager to repeat them. But maybe his FBI heavies just can’t help themselves.

Wednesday Wrap-Up

by Jon Caldara | 1:56 pm, June 10, 2009

***Yesterday we received a bumper crop of new interns. This means my front yard and my car will be in tip top shape. Ah, to be young and exploited.
***Health Care Policy rockstar Linda Gorman was quoted again, this time in the Investor’s Business Daily.
***The Investor’s Business Daily also has some fine cartoons too. [...]

Armed Gays Don’t Get Bashed

by zombiehunter | 12:13 pm, June 10, 2009

That’s the slogan of the Pink Pistols, a gay, pro-gun rights group. The Pink Pistols and GOProud are supporting Senator John Thune (R-SD) on an amendment to recently-introduced Federal “so-called hate crime” legislation, Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. (As an aside, I think “so-called hate crime” legislation is rather silly. Instead, why not just [...]

Time to boycott UPS and use FedEx

by Rossputin | 10:52 am, June 10, 2009

The Washington Times reports on a sneaky move by a Democratic Congressman to “kneecap FedEx” in a bid to help unions and UPS. Let’s make UPS pay for that abuse of government and encourage them to get Congressman Oberstar to remove his poison pill.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/kneecapping-fedex/

(H/T Christopher Sanders)

Liberty in Religion and Medicine

by Ari Armstrong | 9:50 am, June 10, 2009

Today’s Denver Post published a letter from Kaye Fissinger titled, “Church and medicine.” She argues that Catholic churches should not be able to practice “Catholic doctrine on birth control, sterilization and abortion.”

Following is my online reply:

I advocate the separation of church and state. I also advocate freedom and individual rights — a free market — in medicine. Kaye Fissinger’s position violates both ideals.

Women have the right to get an abortion — from willing providers. Patients do not have the right to force hospitals or doctors to offer abortions — or any procedure — against their judgment.

Likewise, customers do not have the right to demand that any business provide some good or service. You have no right to require that a car dealer sell the truck you want to buy, or a grocer particular produce, or a book store a particular book. If you walked into a Marxist bookshop and demanded to purchase Ayn Rand, for instance, that would be a violation of the bookstore’s right of free speech. You do, however, have every right not to shop at that store.

The ones who properly set policy at a hospital are its owners. If a church owns a hospital, the church properly decides policy there. The owners do owe potential patients full disclosure regarding their faith-based policies. I would choose to do business elsewhere.

Doctors who disagree are free to work elsewhere. If you work for a bookstore, you agree to sell the books the owners wish to sell. The principle is no different when it comes to medicine. If you wish to sell different books or perform different medical procedures, get a job someplace else.

Hospitals should not need to rely on “conscience clauses” to protect their rights of property and contract. Likewise, a bookstore owner who dislikes pornography or some other sort of publication should not have to pass some “conscience” test to abstain from selling such works. Yet the logical implication of Fissinger’s view is that somebody should be able to walk into a Christian bookstore and demand a book praising abortion, atheism, Satanism, or whatever (or into an atheist bookstore and demand a copy of the Bible).

Fissinger’s interpretation of the First Amendment is completely wrong. The First Amendment prohibits state establishment of religion. It does not guarantee lack of dominance of some doctrine. For example, 75 percent of Americans are Christian. The First Amendment does not require mass conversion to other religions in order to prevent Christian “dominance.”

The fundamental problem in medicine is that there is no free market in health care. Governments spend more than half of all health-care dollars. Tax-funded hospitals, like tax-funded schools, should not be able to impose any faith-based practice. The solution to this problem is not to expand political control of hospitals, but to return to liberty in medicine.

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Testify Against Themselves

  In order to protect our rights, our security must be protected. In order to protect our security, our rights must be invaded. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

• World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
• SCOTUS decision on warrantless GPS surveillance produces an expected friend of privacy
• You didn’t want your Fifth Amendment rights, anyway, did you?
• Keynesian Economists Finally Catch Up and Agree: China to Have Hard Landing
• The Beauty of Private Property—from China?
• Regime Uncertainty, Regulatory Surge, and Unemployment Numbers