In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.

The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but whether it has the power to compel the purchase of insurance.

Judge Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s campaign words from an interview with CNN to show that there are other options that could fall within the Constitution — including then-candidate Obama‘s plan.

During the presidential campaign, one key difference between Mr. Obama and his chief opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was Mrs. Clinton’s plan required all Americans to purchase insurance, and Mr. Obama‘s did not.

In the heat of the primaries in 2008, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman predicted Mr. Obama‘s opposition to an individual mandate could come back to haunt him: “If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he’ll find that it can’t be done without mandates — but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.”

Mr. Obama has since defended the constitutionality of the individual mandate, arguing it’s the linchpin of the program to bring in more customers, which is key to expanding the availability and affordability of insurance.

This is just one of the many lies and distortions that this president has foisted upon the population, and this one has come back to bite him. Nothing better than his own words to discredit his statements.


Egypt goes offline US gets internet 'kill switch' bill ready

Egypt's government attempted to crackdown on street protests by shutting down internet and mobile phone services, the US is preparing to reintroduce a bill that could be used to shut down the internet.

The legislation, which would grant US President Barack Obama powers to seize control of and even shut down the internet, would soon be reintroduced to a senate committee, reported.

It was initially introduced last year but expired with a new Congress.

Angry scenes ... protesters gathered at the statue of Alexander the Great in Cairo to demand the resignation of Hosni Mubarak.

Senator Susan Collins, a well known RHINO, a co-sponsor of the bill, said that unlike in Egypt, where the government was using its powers to quell dissent by shutting down the internet, it would not. Have you ever listened to this dim witted Senator talking....who in that state keeps voting her in?

“My legislation would provide a mechanism for the government to work with the private sector in the event of a true cyber emergency,” Collins said in an emailed statement to Wired. “It would give our nation the best tools available to swiftly respond to a significant threat.”

The proposed legislation, introduced into the US Senate by independent senator Joe Lieberman, who is retiring finally and none too soon, who is chairman of the US Homeland Security committee, seeks to grant the President broad emergency powers over the internet in times of national emergency.
The internet is a dangerous place ... US Senator Joe Lieberman.

The internet is a dangerous place ... US Senator Joe Lieberman. Photo: AP

Last year, Lieberman argued the bill was necessary to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people".

He said that, for all its allure, the internet could also be a "dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets".

US economic security, national security and public safety were now all at risk from new kinds of enemies, including "cyber warriors, cyber spies, cyber terrorists and cyber criminals".

Although the bill was targetted at protecting the US, many have said it would also affect other nations.

One of Australia's top communications experts, University of Sydney associate professor Bjorn Landfeldt, had previously railed against the idea, saying shutting down the internet would "inflict an enormous damage on the entire world".

He said it would be like giving a single country "the right to poison the atmosphere, or poison the ocean".

The scale of Egypt's crackdown on the internet and mobile phones amid deadly protests against the rule of President Hosni Mubarak is unprecedented in the history of the web, experts have said.

US President Barack Obama, social networking sites and rights groups around the world all condemned the moves by Egyptian authorities to stop activists using mobile phones and cyber technology to organise rallies.

"It's a first in the history of the internet," Rik Ferguson, an expert for Trend Micro, the world's third biggest computer security firm, said.

Julien Coulon, co-founder of Cedexis, a French internet performance monitoring and traffic management system, added: "In 24 hours we have lost 97 per cent of Egyptian internet traffic".

Despite this, many Egyptians are finding ways to get access, some using international telephone numbers to gain access to dial-up internet.

According to Renesys, a US Internet monitoring company, Egypt's four main internet service providers cut off international access to their customers in a near simultaneous move at 2234 GMT on Thursday.

Around 23 million Egyptians have either regular or occasional access to the internet, according to official figures, more than a quarter of the population.

"In an action unprecedented in internet history, the Egyptian government appears to have ordered service providers to shut down all international connections to the internet," James Cowie of Renesys said in a blog post.

Link Egypt, Vodafone/Raya, Telecom Egypt and Etisalat Misr were all off air but Cowie said one exception was the Noor Group, which still has 83 live routes to its Egyptian customers.

He said it was not clear why the Noor Group was apparently unaffected "but we observe that the Egyptian Stock Exchange ( is still alive at a Noor address."

Mobile telephone networks were also severely disrupted in the country on Friday. Phone signals were patchy and text messages inoperative.

British-based Vodafone said all mobile operators in Egypt had been "instructed" Friday to suspend services in some areas amid spiralling unrest, adding that under Egyptian law it was "obliged" to comply with the order.

Egyptian operator ECMS, linked to France's Telecom-Orange, said the authorities had ordered them to shut them off late Thursday.

"We had no warning, it was quite sudden," a spokesman for Telecom-Orange told AFP in France.

The shutdown in Egypt is the most comprehensive official electronic blackout of its kind, experts said.

Links to the web were cut for only a few days during a wave of protests against Myanmar's ruling military junta in 2007, while demonstrations against the re-election of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009 specifically targeted Twitter and Facebook.

Egypt – like Tunisia where mass popular unrest drove out Zine El Abidine Ben Ali earlier this month – is on a list of 13 countries classed as "enemies of the internet" by media rights group Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

"So far there has been no systematic filtering by Egyptian authorities – they have completely controlled the whole internet," said Soazig Dollet, the Middle East and North Africa specialist for RSF.

Condemnation of Egypt's internet crackdown has been widespread.

Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on Cairo to restore the internet and social networking sites.

Facebook, the world's largest social network with nearly 600 million members, and Twitter also weighed in.

"Although the turmoil in Egypt is a matter for the Egyptian people and their government to resolve, limiting Internet access for millions of people is a matter of concern for the global community," said Andrew Noyes, a Facebook spokesman.

Twitter, which has more than 175 million registered users, said of efforts to block the service in Egypt: "We believe that the open exchange of info & views benefits societies & helps governments better connect w/ their people."

US digital rights groups also criticized the Egyptian government.

"This action is inconsistent with all international human rights norms, and is unprecedented in internet history," said Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology in the United States.

Did you notice that our elected officials said that our version of the kill switch would be to "protect us" not to stifle communication...RIGHT our government only does everything to protect us.

Instead of wanting to be able to spread the information as wide as possible, they introduce legislation to stop the spread of information.

How about a suggestion to independent Joe and nutcase Senator from about fixing Social Security shortfalls, and STOP SPENDING!!!!!!!!


A new estimate predicts the federal budget deficit will hit almost $1.5 trillion this year, a stunning new record.

The latest figures from the Congressional Budget Office are up from previous estimates because Congress and President Barack Obama teamed up in December on bipartisan legislation to extend Bush-era tax cuts that were due to expire. The new estimates will only add fuel to a raging debate over cutting spending and looming legislation that's required to allow the government to borrow more money.

The nonpartisan budget agency predicts the deficit will drop to $1.1 trillion next year. Wow what a predicted drop....still larger than the economies of all but the top countries of the world.

Legislation passed in December to extend tax cuts, unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and provide a 2 percent payroll tax cut this year adds almost $400 billion to this year's deficit.

What exactly was the point of decreasing the SOCIAL SECURITY withholding since it only makes the future payouts ever more onerous? The genius Mr. Obama, said in the State of the Union Speech that he lowered our taxes by 2%..but did not mention that this also lowered the amount available for payout by the same what was the point of this???. This is not a lowering of anything but a cruel deception.


This irresponsible fiscal policy will destroy the dollar, will cause all consumers to pay more for everything that is purchased and will create a serious erosion in the dollar's standing as a global trading currency.



We read every day how the Federal Spending is out of control, and it is!

Take for example the spending on our "DEFENSE", which is all grouped together and with the heading of DEFENSE make it appear that this is not an item that could be reduced; after all it is for our defense, right? WRONG!

Let's first think a little bit analytically and thus analyze the DEFENSE budget. One does not have to be an accountant or budgetary expert to just think logically relating to the analysis of this $760 BILLION annual expenditure.

Various pundits and analysts we see on TV and certainly our military tell us that there is little we can do to reduce this spending, but that is a totally false statement, especially when we put it to the LOGIC test and furthermore to the comparison of the world powers test.

Logically, who is is that we are defending ourselves from...militarily that is?

Are we going to be attacked and invaded by Russia, China, Iran or North Korea?

Are we going to see Chinese, Russian or North Korean Army presence on US soil?

Are you starting to get the picture here??? Does any of this sound logical? Are we going to be attacked by these "powers"?

Do we really need to defend ourselves with the 9,400 NUCLEAR WARHEADS in our possession against an army of any of these countries swimming toward our shores and taking us over????

Ok, now you get the picture. Now are there others such as Iran, or a terrorist organization of some type that can potentially detonate a deadly weapon of some type on our soil???? That may be a possibility much more so than an army swimming toward our shores, don't you think?

Also, let's consider the fact that China holds $2 trillion of our bonds and various debt instruments and Russia has some $500 billion...are they going to destroy themselves financially and attack our country?; highly unlikely!

Now lets compare further our spending on DEFENSE versus what China and Russia spend on their DEFENSE ( in case we decide to attack them and take over their countries).

We spend $780 BILLION and maintain 1.6 million active "military" personnel in 700 ( emphasis added, 700!!!!!) military installations throughout the WORLD, to defend ourselves.

China spends $78 BILLION and maintains 2.3 million active "military" personnel in an unknown number of bases.

Russia spends $69 BILLION ( and some more on research and related) and maintains 1.1 million "military" personnel.

Do we really need to spend more than all the rest of the world combined on our DEFENSE, or 10 times more than each, Russia and China?

You now have a little more of the FACTS about or defense needs and spending comparison.

The military operates 234 GOLF COURSES and resorts strictly for the military use throughout the world.

Are you getting the picture yet of our "DEFENSE" spending and are you starting to analyze the need for all that defense?

Here is some more information for you to analyze.

By Chalmers Johnson

Mr. Johnson's latest book is The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (Metropolitan).

As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize -- or do not want to recognize -- that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet. This vast network of American bases on every continent except Antarctica actually constitutes a new form of empire -- an empire of bases with its own geography not likely to be taught in any high school geography class. Without grasping the dimensions of this globe-girdling Baseworld, one can't begin to understand the size and nature of our imperial aspirations or the degree to which a new kind of militarism is undermining our constitutional order.

Our military deploys well over half a million soldiers, spies, technicians, teachers, dependents, and civilian contractors in other nations. To dominate the oceans and seas of the world, we are creating some thirteen naval task forces built around aircraft carriers whose names sum up our martial heritage -- Kitty Hawk, Constellation, Enterprise, John F. Kennedy, Nimitz, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Carl Vinson, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, John C. Stennis, Harry S. Truman, and Ronald Reagan. We operate numerous secret bases outside our territory to monitor what the people of the world, including our own citizens, are saying, faxing, or e-mailing to one another.

Our installations abroad bring profits to civilian industries, which design and manufacture weapons for the armed forces or, like the now well-publicized Kellogg, Brown & Root company, a subsidiary of the Halliburton Corporation of Houston, undertake contract services to build and maintain our far-flung outposts. One task of such contractors is to keep uniformed members of the imperium housed in comfortable quarters, well fed, amused, and supplied with enjoyable, affordable vacation facilities. Whole sectors of the American economy have come to rely on the military for sales. On the eve of our second war on Iraq, for example, while the Defense Department was ordering up an extra ration of cruise missiles and depleted-uranium armor-piercing tank shells, it also acquired 273,000 bottles of Native Tan sunblock, almost triple its 1999 order and undoubtedly a boon to the supplier, Control Supply Company of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and its subcontractor, Sun Fun Products of Daytona Beach, Florida.

At Least Seven Hundred Foreign Bases

It's not easy to assess the size or exact value of our empire of bases. Official records on these subjects are misleading, although instructive. According to the Defense Department's annual "Base Structure Report" for fiscal year 2003, which itemizes foreign and domestic U.S. military real estate, the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. Pentagon bureaucrats calculate that it would require at least $113.2 billion to replace just the foreign bases -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic product of most countries -- and an estimated $591,519.8 million to replace all of them. The military high command deploys to our overseas bases some 253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employs an additional 44,446 locally hired foreigners. The Pentagon claims that these bases contain 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and that it leases 4,844 more.

These numbers, although staggeringly large, do not begin to cover all the actual bases we occupy globally. The 2003 Base Status Report fails to mention, for instance, any garrisons in Kosovo -- even though it is the site of the huge Camp Bondsteel, built in 1999 and maintained ever since by Kellogg, Brown & Root. The Report similarly omits bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan, although the U.S. military has established colossal base structures throughout the so-called arc of instability in the two-and-a-half years since 9/11.

For Okinawa, the southernmost island of Japan, which has been an American military colony for the past fifty-eight years, the report deceptively lists only one Marine base, Camp Butler, when in fact Okinawa "hosts" ten Marine Corps bases, including Marine Corps Air Station Futenma occupying 1,186 acres in the center of that modest-sized island's second largest city. (Manhattan's Central Park, by contrast, is only 843 acres.) The Pentagon similarly fails to note all of the $5-billion-worth of military and espionage installations in Britain, which have long been conveniently disguised as Royal Air Force bases. If there were an honest count, the actual size of our military empire would probably top 1,000 different bases in other people's countries, but no one -- possibly not even the Pentagon -- knows the exact number for sure, although it has been distinctly on the rise in recent years.

For their occupants, these are not unpleasant places to live and work. Military service today, which is voluntary, bears almost no relation to the duties of a soldier during World War II or the Korean or Vietnamese wars. Most chores like laundry, KP ("kitchen police"), mail call, and cleaning latrines have been subcontracted to private military companies like Kellogg, Brown & Root, DynCorp, and the Vinnell Corporation. Fully one-third of the funds recently appropriated for the war in Iraq (about $30 billion), for instance, are going into private American hands for exactly such services. Where possible everything is done to make daily existence seem like a Hollywood version of life at home. According to the Washington Post, in Fallujah, just west of Baghdad, waiters in white shirts, black pants, and black bow ties serve dinner to the officers of the 82nd Airborne Division in their heavily guarded compound, and the first Burger King has already gone up inside the enormous military base we've established at Baghdad International Airport.

Some of these bases are so gigantic they require as many as nine internal bus routes for soldiers and civilian contractors to get around inside the earthen berms and concertina wire. That's the case at Camp Anaconda, headquarters of the 3rd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, whose job is to police some 1,500 square miles of Iraq north of Baghdad, from Samarra to Taji. Anaconda occupies 25 square kilometers and will ultimately house as many as 20,000 troops. Despite extensive security precautions, the base has frequently come under mortar attack, notably on the Fourth of July, 2003, just as Arnold Schwarzenegger was chatting up our wounded at the local field hospital.

Our armed missionaries live in a closed-off, self-contained world serviced by its own airline -- the Air Mobility Command, with its fleet of long-range C-17 Globemasters, C-5 Galaxies, C-141 Starlifters, KC-135 Stratotankers, KC-10 Extenders, and C-9 Nightingales that link our far-flung outposts from Greenland to Australia. For generals and admirals, the military provides seventy-one Learjets, thirteen Gulfstream IIIs, and seventeen Cessna Citation luxury jets to fly them to such spots as the armed forces' ski and vacation center at Garmisch in the Bavarian Alps or to any of the 234 military golf courses the Pentagon operates worldwide. The Defense Secretary flies around in his own personal Boeing 757, called a C-32A in the Air Force.

Our "Footprint" on the World

Of all the insensitive, if graphic, metaphors we've allowed into our vocabulary, none quite equals "footprint" to describe the military impact of our empire. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers and senior members of the Senate's Military Construction Subcommittee such as Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) are apparently incapable of completing a sentence without using it. Establishing a more impressive footprint has now become part of the new justification for a major enlargement of our empire -- and an announced repositioning of our bases and forces abroad -- in the wake of our conquest of Iraq. The man in charge of this project is Andy Hoehn, deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy. He and his colleagues are supposed to draw up plans to implement President Bush's preventive war strategy against "rogue states," "bad guys," and "evil-doers." They have identified something they call the "arc of instability," which is said to run from the Andean region of South America (read: Colombia) through North Africa and then sweeps across the Middle East to the Philippines and Indonesia. This is, of course, more or less identical with what used to be called the Third World -- and perhaps no less crucially it covers the world's key oil reserves. Hoehn contends, "When you overlay our footprint onto that, we don't look particularly well-positioned to deal with the problems we're now going to confront."

Once upon a time, you could trace the spread of imperialism by counting up colonies. America's version of the colony is the military base. By following the changing politics of global basing, one can learn much about our ever larger imperial stance and the militarism that grows with it. Militarism and imperialism are Siamese twins joined at the hip. Each thrives off the other. Already highly advanced in our country, they are both on the verge of a quantum leap that will almost surely stretch our military beyond its capabilities, bringing about fiscal insolvency and very possibly doing mortal damage to our republican institutions. The only way this is discussed in our press is via reportage on highly arcane plans for changes in basing policy and the positioning of troops abroad -- and these plans, as reported in the media, cannot be taken at face value.

Marine Brig. Gen. Mastin Robeson, commanding our 1,800 troops occupying the old French Foreign Legion base at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti at the entrance to the Red Sea, claims that in order to put "preventive war" into action, we require a "global presence," by which he means gaining hegemony over any place that is not already under our thumb. According to the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, the idea is to create "a global cavalry" that can ride in from "frontier stockades" and shoot up the "bad guys" as soon as we get some intelligence on them.

"Lily Pads" in Australia, Romania, Mali, Algeria . . .

In order to put our forces close to every hot spot or danger area in this newly discovered arc of instability, the Pentagon has been proposing -- this is usually called "repositioning" -- many new bases, including at least four and perhaps as many as six permanent ones in Iraq. A number of these are already under construction -- at Baghdad International Airport, Tallil air base near Nasariyah, in the western desert near the Syrian border, and at Bashur air field in the Kurdish region of the north. (This does not count the previously mentioned Anaconda, which is currently being called an "operating base," though it may very well become permanent over time.) In addition, we plan to keep under our control the whole northern quarter of Kuwait -- 1,600 square miles out of Kuwait's 6,900 square miles -- that we now use to resupply our Iraq legions and as a place for Green Zone bureaucrats to relax.

Other countries mentioned as sites for what Colin Powell calls our new "family of bases" include: In the impoverished areas of the "new" Europe -- Romania, Poland, and Bulgaria; in Asia -- Pakistan (where we already have four bases), India, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and even, unbelievably, Vietnam; in North Africa -- Morocco, Tunisia, and especially Algeria (scene of the slaughter of some 100,00 civilians since 1992, when, to quash an election, the military took over, backed by our country and France); and in West Africa -- Senegal, Ghana, Mali, and Sierra Leone (even though it has been torn by civil war since 1991). The models for all these new installations, according to Pentagon sources, are the string of bases we have built around the Persian Gulf in the last two decades in such anti-democratic autocracies as Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.

Most of these new bases will be what the military, in a switch of metaphors, calls "lily pads" to which our troops could jump like so many well-armed frogs from the homeland, our remaining NATO bases, or bases in the docile satellites of Japan and Britain. To offset the expense involved in such expansion, the Pentagon leaks plans to close many of the huge Cold War military reservations in Germany, South Korea, and perhaps Okinawa as part of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's "rationalization" of our armed forces. In the wake of the Iraq victory, the U.S. has already withdrawn virtually all of its forces from Saudi Arabia and Turkey, partially as a way of punishing them for not supporting the war strongly enough. It wants to do the same thing to South Korea, perhaps the most anti-American democracy on Earth today, which would free up the 2nd Infantry Division on the demilitarized zone with North Korea for probable deployment to Iraq, where our forces are significantly overstretched.

In Europe, these plans include giving up several bases in Germany, also in part because of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's domestically popular defiance of Bush over Iraq. But the degree to which we are capable of doing so may prove limited indeed. At the simplest level, the Pentagon's planners do not really seem to grasp just how many buildings the 71,702 soldiers and airmen in Germany alone occupy and how expensive it would be to reposition most of them and build even slightly comparable bases, together with the necessary infrastructure, in former Communist countries like Romania, one of Europe's poorest countries. Lt. Col. Amy Ehmann in Hanau, Germany, has said to the press "There's no place to put these people" in Romania, Bulgaria, or Djibouti, and she predicts that 80 percent of them will in the end stay in Germany. It's also certain that generals of the high command have no intention of living in backwaters like Constanta, Romania, and will keep the U.S. military headquarters in Stuttgart while holding on to Ramstein Air Force Base, Spangdahlem Air Force Base, and the Grafenwöhr Training Area.

One reason why the Pentagon is considering moving out of rich democracies like Germany and South Korea and looks covetously at military dictatorships and poverty-stricken dependencies is to take advantage of what the Pentagon calls their "more permissive environmental regulations." The Pentagon always imposes on countries in which it deploys our forces so-called Status of Forces Agreements, which usually exempt the United States from cleaning up or paying for the environmental damage it causes. This is a standing grievance in Okinawa, where the American environmental record has been nothing short of abominable. Part of this attitude is simply the desire of the Pentagon to put itself beyond any of the restraints that govern civilian life, an attitude increasingly at play in the "homeland" as well. For example, the 2004 defense authorization bill of $401.3 billion that President Bush signed into law in November 2003 exempts the military from abiding by the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

While there is every reason to believe that the impulse to create ever more lily pads in the Third World remains unchecked, there are several reasons to doubt that some of the more grandiose plans, for either expansion or downsizing, will ever be put into effect or, if they are, that they will do anything other than make the problem of terrorism worse than it is. For one thing, Russia is opposed to the expansion of U.S. military power on its borders and is already moving to checkmate American basing sorties into places like Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. The first post-Soviet-era Russian airbase in Kyrgyzstan has just been completed forty miles from the U.S. base at Bishkek, and in December 2003, the dictator of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, declared that he would not permit a permanent deployment of U.S. forces in his country even though we already have a base there.

By far the greatest defect in the "global cavalry" strategy, however, is that it accentuates Washington's impulse to apply irrelevant military remedies to terrorism. As the prominent British military historian, Correlli-Barnett, has observed, the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq only increased the threat of al-Qaeda. From 1993 through the 9/11 assaults of 2001, there were five major al-Qaeda attacks worldwide; in the two years since then there have been seventeen such bombings, including the Istanbul suicide assaults on the British consulate and an HSBC Bank. Military operations against terrorists are not the solution. As Barnett puts it, "Rather than kicking down front doors and barging into ancient and complex societies with simple nostrums of 'freedom and democracy,' we need tactics of cunning and subtlety, based on a profound understanding of the people and cultures we are dealing with -- an understanding up till now entirely lacking in the top-level policy-makers in Washington, especially in the Pentagon."

In his notorious "long, hard slog" memo on Iraq of October 16, 2003, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld wrote, "Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror." Correlli-Barnett's "metrics" indicate otherwise. But the "war on terrorism" is at best only a small part of the reason for all our military strategizing. The real reason for constructing this new ring of American bases along the equator is to expand our empire and reinforce our military domination of the world.

Ok, so now you have a bit of the reasons we are needlessly spending such astronomical amounts on our defense. How much can be cut?


How about stating with 50% in year one and another 50% in year two....that would bring the budget down to about $200 billion, about equal to that of the China and Russia combined...that would be plenty, and that would save us over $500 billion alone!

Now lets cut some more out of the budget for needless spending.

Discretionary spending totals about $450 BILLION; let's just cut that by 50%, saving $250 billion more!

These two items alone save $750 Billion, thus allowing perhaps a reduction in the TAX rates.

So here is the start for our budget cutters in Washington to start with, since they seem to have such trepidations about where to cut.

Next, lets deal with the federal pensions, which are totally out of control
(remember that the legislators vote them for themselves)and stop using the Social Security funds for all types of payments that are not for retirees!

Oh well, we can only hope, but without some strong actions to reduce the spending, the USA is on a unsustainable course toward the implosion of the financial system and the destruction of the dollar as a reserve currency of the world.


Next week, the U.S. House of Representatives will be voting on an historic repeal of the Obamacare law. While there are many reasons to oppose this flawed government health insurance law, it is important to remember that Obamacare is also one of the largest tax increases in American history. Below is a comprehensive list of the two dozen new or higher taxes that pay for Obamcare’s expansion of government spending and interference between doctors and patients.

Individual Mandate Excise Tax(Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following:

1 Adult
2 Adults
3+ Adults


1% AGI/$95

1% AGI/$190

1% AGI/$285


2% AGI/$325

2% AGI/$650

2% AGI/$975

2016 +

2.5% AGI/$695

2.5% AGI/$1390

2.5% AGI/$2085

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS)


Employer Mandate Tax(Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. This provision applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): This increase involves the creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income

Capital Gains





2011-2012 (current law)




2011-2012 (Obama budget)




2013+ (current law)




2013+ (Obama budget)




*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.

Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). For early retirees and high-risk professions exists a higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family). CPI +1 percentage point indexed.

Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:

First $200,000
($250,000 Married)

All Remaining Wages

Current Law

2.9% self-employed

2.9% self-employed

Obamacare Tax Hike

2.9% self-employed

3.8% self-employed

Medicine Cabinet Tax($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap of $2500 (Indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited). . There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exemptions include items retailing for less than $100.

Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI; it is waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.

Tax on Indoor Tanning Services($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons

Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D($4.5 bil/Jan 2013)

Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services

Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals(Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS

Tax on Innovator Drug Companies($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.

Tax on Health Insurers($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. The stipulation phases in gradually until 2018, and is fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.

$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives($0.6 bil/Jan 2013)

Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2(Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting($17.1 bil/Jan 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers

“Black liquor” tax hike(Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel.

Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”(Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed.


This is great. The bill will be paid for and 30 million people will have coverage that never had it before. Not to mention no more cap on benefits or pre-existing conditions.
>> Joel

EDITORIAL COMMENT FOR JOEL...JOEL YOU ARE A RAVING MORON THAT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND ANYTHING ABOUT HOW "INSURANCE WORKS", YOU ARE A BIG DUMMY. If there are no caps, there can never be a CAP on your premiums dummy. The insurance companies can charge whatever they need to to make their numbers work, do you not understand that??? They have to spend 85% on care, and after that they will charge YOU more you dummy to make up the difference. You must be a student of our public "edumucation" system.

I was going through family files at the end of the year, readying for the new tax year. I noticed that our medical file was by far the largest of all records we must keep. We are not sick people, rarely visit the doctor, and do not rely on any prescription drugs. It is proof that the government already has too much control over the delivery of medical services. I have had enough; give us our freedom and let the free market do what it does better than government.
>> L. Holloway

STOP this crazy Health Bill NOW......
>> Dr Robert Danneman

Not with MY money, Joel. Move to Canada if you want socialized medicine, pal.
>> Rich

So,illegal aliens and prisoners get an exemption but hardworking taxpayers are given the shaft.... as usual. Sure wish my two tone-deaf senators from Virginia would start listening to their constituents for a change and vote to repeal this disaster.
>> RealityBites

Is there any wonder why Obama and drones have a 30-40% approval all types of polls? I went to school for 12 extra years to pay for a high school dropout so he can have his methadone paid for? My sacrifice goes to pay for dinglebats like Joel who are so entrenched in their 'Entitlement Money' way of thinking...
>> Ben

Looters and thieves. I especially liked the Surtax = Sell your house and the thugs in Washington take 3.8% from you, and if you do not pay they will send the IRS with guns to take it from you. LOOTERS. Start the chant now: RESIST THE LOOTERS!!!!
>> Dagney

If you aren't doing anything to keep this healthcare reform sham from continuing, then stop complaining. Also, if you voted for Obama, stop complaining - you got who you voted for.
>> Joe

Did King Barry, Leader Harry and Princess Nancy mention any of these taxes when they were pushing their Healthcare bill down our throats? Well we know Princess Nancy didn't because she told us we wouldn't know what was in the bill until it was passed, that way saving us from all the worry about reading the 2,000 plus pages. Long live the King! He is taking us down the path to destruction, blaming it all on others, forbidding us to drill for oil and smiling with his Arab cronies as oil prices rise and rise and rise.
>> Kimdi01

Joel, those 30 million people will now have coverage because they are forced to buy it using their own money. Or more accurately, they will not be purchasing health insurance and take the mandate tax until they are sick, which is going to severely damage insurance companies. Since when did congress have the right to tell businesses how much their CEOs can earn? Where is that in the constitution? Don't say commerce clause, as that is a total crock of feces. How about inter-state insurance purchasing? THAT would be covered by the commerce clause, if congress cared about the actual costs.
>> Ignoramous

Won't happen. Americans will not buy something the govt tells them they must buy. Enforcement won't happen either. Americans will find ways around it. Real Americans, (not welfare lifers), are far too smart to get cornered by a corrupt government.
>> Mike

Note to Joel: Look at what the government record is- #1 Bankrupted Social Security- 3 people now pay in to cover 1 person. This is an unsustainable ponzi scheme. In the free market people go to jail for this. #2 Bankrupted Medicare and Medicaid- Now paid for with money stolen from the so-called Social security trust Fund #3 Government Employee Pensions- Bankrupted #4 The Post Office - Bankrupted They say this "program" creates a budget surplus. They are taxing us 10 years to pay for 6 years of services. Why do you think that is? What happens when you look at a year of taxes to pay for a year of services? It's quite a bit higher isn't it? And it certainly is not a surplus.
>> Alan

10% Tax on tanning booths? Unless some race other than Caucasians uses tanning booths this is clearly a racist, Obama tax.
>> Danbury

No wonder the Left came after Palin, Limbaugh and all conservatives this week with libel and lies connecting them to the Tucson massacre. They were obviously hoping to divert our attention from debate over these looming and onerous tax hikes! Don't anyone go to sleep now that there was one victory in November. Don't be commanded to be "civil" (code word for censored). We need to take our country back!
>> John Friday

Fight in 2012!
>> Leroy Friday

Thank God, I did not vote for this guy. People get what they deserve when they don't take the time to think.
>> Gary

Wow, undocumented, ie illegal aliens exempt. Another example how liberals are punishing the legal residents by spreading the wealth to the illegals. We need to throw them all out. This country is failing, while China is rising. The best days of America are GONE!
>> Mike Crystal

Why don't you make it more complicated than it already is? I am not an accountant. Give me a break. Why don't you make it simple so we can understand it?
>> Lawrence A. Tubbiolo


If this lurch into socialism is allowed to stand you will get to see how the third world lives...up close and personal.
>> Pompey

hang em high
>> Deepak

Everyone is missing the BIG enchilada here. The NHS (UK's health service)...which Obamacare is modeled after...employs 1.2 million people (about 75% of which are administrators), which equates to 1 admin per 40 citizens. In the US, that would mean employing 7.5million administrators! At average gov't wage of $70k, that's over $500billion per year in wage disbursements at taxpayer expense! And, of course, they will unionize and demand higher wages as the program progresses. It won't be long before it's $1trillion per year!! The BIG wealth transfer is hidden here. Repeal the bill NOW!!!!!
>> GoodGolly

Don't trust the Government? They ripped off Social Security for 2.5 TRILLION. Hasn't the Government earned your trust? The Obamacare is the death of our freedom of choice! And the ironic part it that Obama is not even a citizen! You got no "President", What you got is a pretender who can't wait to steal your rights and your money!
>> Mark

>> Gregario continue my rant...the NHS is the third largest employment ‘agency’ on the planet behind the Chinese Red Army and India’s national railway service. All things being equal, a US socialized health system would, conservatively, employ about 7 million people (vaulting it into first place!). Each voting cycle, Dems and Repubs will be tripping over themselves to get this voting block in their corner. And, how do they do this you ask? Well, they promise higher wages and lavish pension plans for these folks. And who’s paying for that? We are! Higher taxes. Worse health care. Massive rationing. Unbelievable nightmare. REPEAL NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> GoodGolly

For all of you "dying for" socialized medicine (and you will be dying) I have a real time story of how bad it is. I work in an ER near an airport. Family from England lands with a daughter crying because of a headache. Come to ER, and have a CAT scan in 30 minutes. Father say "She's had headaches like this for over a year and we've been on a CAT scan waiting list for a year, wondering if she had a tumor, and in 30 minutes she has a CAT scan in the US? And you Americans want OUR health care?"
>> Paul

I currently have health insurance through my employer. When the mandate kicks in I will drop my coverage. Since at that point they wont be able to deny pre-existing conditions I will not have coverage unless I get sick. I will then get coverage until I am done with whatever treatment I need when I will again drop my coverage. And they wont be able to punish me because the punishment is a tax that can really only be collected from people who are owed a refund. Since I pay taxes every year I simply wont pay the extra tax. The law prohibits them from throwing me in jail for not not paying and it prohibits them from adding further fines, penalties and interest.
>> Brian

This Tax hike is only bad for the people with jobs, by 2014 there won't be many of those folks left.
>> Marcus

"The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury.” ~ George Washington
>> Aunt Bee

People have lost focus, there is a government run health care system in place already. It's the VA, and look how good of job the government runs that. And if you need any clarification ask anyone in the military.
>> Michael

Thank goodness this is going to be repealed...if not now then after 2012..hopefully before it gets it's claws further into our government.....It's great to know we finally have people in congress who have the power to fight this.....Can you imagine if Pelosi was still running the House???....It gives me the shivers!!..
>> Bob

Makes me smile only for a second when I hear people complaining about Obamacare. I sure do wish people would have made an effort to find out what Obama was all about BEFORE the election. I hope the repubs can muster up enough momentum to repeal this huge steaming pile of bull manure, I won't be suprised if they don't though. Here we are getting INTO socialized medicine and the european are going towards getting OUT of socialized medicine because it don't work. On top of that, Obamacare was patterned after Michigan's already failed system. I just SMHL.
>> Harold

That last one. Folks really need to read that one carefully. It gives the IRS the power to deem that your deductions do not apply as you're just trying to reduce your tax obligation. Think about it.
>> LeRoy

Margi, Health Insurance and Heath care are two totaly separate things. EVERYONE can get health care FREE by waking into any hospital, but the productive, and responsible members of our society go to the expense and effort of obtaining insurance to help pay the bills, instead of stiffing the hospital. I understand that there are poorer people in our society that cannot provide for themselves, but dragging the country into a socialist model only guarantees all of us, including you, a much lower quality of care. Disagree? Point out a successful gvt run system anywhere else in the world that does not take more from the citizens than it gives.
>> Opie

Margi, these people are not entitled to my money. These people are victims of welfare. Get rid of welfare, get the government out of our way and these people will find ways to survive. By the way, I'm from Massachusetts and Romney Care is bankrupting our state.
>> Paul Hickey

This mess of a bill is based on just so many lies. How could so many people far for it?! Repeal now, impeach next!
>> Jon Carry

Worst. President. Ever. Time he was removed from power, as the Libs say, "By any means necessary".
>> LibsAreCommies

MARGI - i agree. We are better than this. We are BETTER than this government atrocity! I am all FOR helping the poor and disadvantaged. I assume most Americans are, but this bill is a total horror. Case in point: in 2009, Texas enacted massive TORT reform. Since then, the # of doctors moving to the state has nearly tripled and the health costs have been cut by nearly 40%. In fact, Texas now has THOUSANDS of applicants for doctors who want to move there and practice. Why in the world did this Obama-nightmare-care bill not have TORT reform first and foremost??? Well, in the words of Howard Dean: "Congress would rather take on the insurance companies than the lawyer lobby"
>> GoodGolly

And just think..he stopped ALL oil drilling for Americans but Cuba/China start drilling next week in Florida Gulf..he just killed the biggest COAL contract in US history!!-thx Lisa Jackson (EPA)..he talks, smiles then behind the scenes he stabs Americans in the back!! Now $1B to run for office again!!! WOW--they LOVE that POWER over US. OBAMACARE sucks!!! DEMO-RATS have destroyed everything good..for our grandchildren!!IMPEACH!!! ALL of THEM!! GET RID of liberal media!!!
>> Saxton

Page 360 of Obamacare (HR 4872) states that the US Govt and Insurance Companies will be forced to pay for physician assisted suicides. If forced onto my medical practice I will immigrate to another county elsewhere.
>> Doc Ed

A service/skill perfomed by an individual is now a 'right' for all. Intersting.
>> Sean

Impeach first... Then Repeal. IRS will disallow deductions that reduce tax liability... What MOR0N gave them that ability? The only reason for the deductions is to reduce your taxes! So the IRS is working against the Tax Code!!
>> James Wood

Socialized medicine like Britain or even Canada is not a reasonable model by any standard... notice the whiners that post their love for socialized medicine do not address the many taxes... as usual, liberals (aka secular socialists) are the worst at debate or reality. They never stop pushing OzLand policies that have failed worldwide. Why? They must be the dumbest humans God ever made.
>> The Reelman

I just looked up ONE of the things they will be taxing "black liquor" guess what it is something that 80% of the paper companies use to POWER their plants.. it is the waste from making paper.. So it appears that Now Obama is taxing actual GREEN tech. since the power it creates to run it's plants is STEAM.. So now there will be NO full time jobs available and Obama has made it more appealing to hire Illegals..
>> HPS

Clueless Joel Friday, January 14, 2011 1:10 PM says "This is great. The bill will be paid for and 30 million people will have coverage that never had it before. Not to mention no more cap on benefits or pre-existing conditions. >> The aircraft is going down in flames but let me get you another pillow Joel so you are more comfortable!
>> BraceForImpact_

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
>> supersniffy

First Obama said it wasn't a tax (in order to keep a campaign promise.) Then in court, his Administration insisted it is a tax. What is it, Mr. President. Is it a tax? Yes or No?
>> Tastes Like Chicken

Joel, the democrat leaders love people like you. They simply love you. You will believe what you want to believe so they will tell you what you want to hear. There is a ZERO chance that this "program" will pay for itself. ZERO.
>> Gary

As to Joel, there are not anywhere near 30 million uninsured who want government health care. Probably closer to 8 million. Just giving them a Blue Cross Blue Shield policy would by 1/10 of what Obamacare costs. As to the the concerned home health nurse. Same answer. Those who are truly needy after the billions we all spend on medicaid, medicare fraud, and illegals getting health care, could still be covered at a fraction of the cost of Obamacare. Obamacare is not about helping the truly needy. We Americans will take it upon ourselves to do that when we know what is needed. It is about power and control.
>> Alan

Having read all this, I never again want to hear, " we have to pass this bill so we can see what's in it". Our Republic is in mortal danger, and as Thomas Jefferson said, "out republic must occasionally be refreshed by the blool of tyrants and patriots". As Patrick Henry said, "is life so sweet or peace so dear as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" We must take back our government, peacefully if at all possible, but take it back nevertheless.
>> Sam

Democrats did all this in secret. This Socialism Scam is all their fault. This will ruin the "world's best medical system". Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should be held accountable. We need Congressional Hearing on this travesty.
>> Oh Grovert

Let me understand. Obamacare is covering 30 Million who weren't covered? How many aren't covered by choice? How many aren't covered because of legal status? Of the aforementioned, how many simply haven't applied? Nobody is refused care. Obama says all rates are going down because everyone is now covered. But wait, the latest is "of course rates are going up, you're adding 30 Mil to the rolls". We have to add 16K+ IRS agents to the already bloated gov't. payroll to "enforce" insurance laws? I'm very confused. Final question: If an Obamacare patron has an abortion (I know its legal), would that not be income tax evasion, as the law is written?
>> Kelly

Un friggin believable. Actually, it's quite believable with O in office
>> Magnus13

@teapartyamerican1776: you mention 'collecting govt welfare (medicare, soc programs are not govt welfare..they are programs that we have been forced to pay into for many years, with the govt's promise of receiving benefits in our senior years. It is not welfare to those that have paid for it, but I'm sure you knew that and only want to antagonize the honest, hardworking taxpayers. By the way, you do realize the govt skims trillions of dollars from these programs for whatever they want...It is theft in my opinion and those funds should be lockboxed.
>> Fossey

Joel, If you're so pleased with being screwed by this boondoggle, perhaps you would be willing to take over my part of the payment for it as well, ya liberal putz.
>> 1GregM

The tax increases with health care for all are inevitable. Unfortunately Canadians and politicians are quickly beginning to realize that universal health care is unsustainable. In 2010 the premier of Ontario stated that 46% of the budget was allocated to health care expenses. The real stinging admission is that health care expenses are projected to increase to 70% in 12 years! This kind of increase is unsustainable and run the rest of the provinces services. What are the options? Reduced services - health care - other services - increased taxes. For our neighbors to the south, please be careful what you wish.
>> Canuck

Reelman said: ". notice the whiners that post their love for socialized medicine do not address the many taxes..." The liberals who think this pile of crap called ObamaCare is so wonderful are those who for the most part don't pay taxes as they are the welfare bums who sit around with their hand out wanting the rest of the working people to pay for their stupidity and laziness.
>> Buzz

These taxes are minuscule, and most of them only affect 250K+ earners. Big deal. I am looking forward to the new health plan, and the better coverage for all, and bye bye pre existing condition denials.
>> Eric

Joel is a sickeningly deluded Democrat. The comment about 30 million newly covered is a joke... what happened to the 48 million number all the Democrats used to throw around? Also, HIPAA (enacted back in the 90s)dramatically rolled back the rule about pre-exisiting condition exclusions quite a long time ago. So when this President talks about fixing "pre-ex" I can't help but wince at his blatent dishonesty. If Congress was serious about pre-ex they could have enacted a more precise, HIPAA II type legislative approach and incrementally improved coverage rather than gut a private care system, that while certainly imperfect, served the vast majority beautifully -- and much better than what the saps in the rest of the world receive.
>> Dennis Fisher

>> Don Grimes

So, the new CEO of Duke Power will be making 8 million per year and an health insurance executive may make only 500 K??
>> VaughnHathawayt

All those in favor of Obamacare, if these market based incentives are to entice people into buying their own healthcare at their own expense, did you not stop to wonder where they are spending the money they collect from all these tax increases. It isn't to cover the over 40 million that will still be without health insurance. The Obamacare proposals violate the constitution and one by one at someone other than your expense they will fall in the courts.
>> Tjp

Great Joel, and you can continue to live in your parents basementand get health care without ever having to grow up and get a job.
>> Mike

As to feeling bad about collecting social security and medicare? If they were privatized and invested conservatively over the average workers lifetime, they'd retire a multi-millionaire. Instead under the careful supervision of the government the program faces bankruptcy where current workers retirement depends not on what they have paid into social security, but on what some future generation pays into social security. The money you pay in to the fund today gets paid out rather quickly to current retirees. You have no money in the social security fund. You have a promise of future money that can be negated by law at any time.
>> Tjp

The Democratic machine of zero transparency pushed this scam of the century into the American sector. While you sleep your civil liberties are eroding, your taxes increasing higher, the demographics of citizenry changing for third world and Islamic demands, more police powers over your life. This illegitimate elected official has an agenda to socialize us and strip rights away; once the public wake up and rise up he and the ghetto wife will flee to another country. This country is pushed towards a civil conflict whether it's legal, physical or moral..something will break.
>> blah blah

This is in response to Joel. Why not just insure the people who have no insurance and leave the rest of us alone. This is so stupid and complicated and so un-American.
>> Jim C. \

Hey, Margie. Those people you speak of are not my dependents. I did not beget them. I stopped at 2 children because that is all I felt I could support. Now you want me to support every Tom, Dick, and Harry that walks in the door? Sorry, I have my own bills to take care of, and my own set of problems. Keep your hands out of my wallet.
>> ImBigMo

Obamacare is as bad a proposal as Clinton's healthcare proposal was, only Obama and his blind followers spent a legislative year pushing it through into law at the expense of needed regulations and laws being considered at a time when creation of new jobs was vastly more important than any provision of this healthcare law.
>> Tjp

This is more than socialization. This is frightening. This must be repealed now.
>> Belleburgh Friday, January 14, 2011 9:39 PM Report Comment

The House of Representatives is set to vote to repeal this disastrous healthcare bill next Wednesday, January 19th. Obamacare was created and passed for one reason: to drive every American citizen into a public option health care system that will ration health care. If the House of Representatives cannot repeal Obamacare, it will bankrupt our nation. It will be the end of freedom in America. If the government can force you to buy health care insurance, it can force you to buy anything. It can also take anything away from you that it wants in the name of health care. America is at a crossroad. Pray for our nation today.
>> Scott

E X E M P T P A Y E R S MUSLIMS ARE E X E M P T from Obama c a r e because it is against their religion!!!!!!
>> Bill

It is very simple: insure everyone to bring down costs. I have little respect for those who wish to settle for the status quo system of an inefficient and wasteful system, and admire those like President Obama who are trying to fix the dire healthcare crisis. This bill is not perfect and I don't agree with everything that is in it, but it is progress towards a more affordable system for our children.
>> Andrew

No more pre-existing conditions for children not adults and children already could stay on most plans to age 26 so what it is, is a plan to make insurance companies go out of business cause they are no longer allowed to cap the expenses at 5 million and have to cover all the mental and nervous as well as drugs and alcohol treatment. This will drive rates up extremely high for all. It also will result in rationed healthcare. Good job huh Joel? All so we have to install a government option so the government can control us cause a few elites know better than we do. Joel people like you should move to France or Canada so you can have your healthcare rationed dont force this crap down our throats we dont deserve it!
>> Cheryl

Robert we couldnt do anything cause the house was controlled by the commiecrats for the last 4 years and they would not entertain any of the ideas that our people came up with so dont say we didnt do anything, we couldnt do anything. We had good ideas and I work in the industry yet the ideas were thrown out for the lousy ideology of the brother of William Ayers and John Podesta, Van Jones and the other card carrying self-admitted communists that make up the Appollo Alliance that wrote the healthcare and stimulas bills. Look it up oh thats right you commiecrats refuse to do any research you listen to staterun media and think its the gospel truth.
>> Cheryl

I don't see what the problem is. Obama said it would be paid for. He just never said how. Doesn't seem any different then the bank bailouts, the wars, and all the humanitaian aid we give out. If these things were paid for we wouldn't have debt as a country. How obamacare has managed to get this far by violating law is beyond me. What happened to equal protection? Why is mcdonalds treated differently then any other business? How do you exempt one company and not the next?
>> James Woods

We didn't need this. We could have made a law that insurance companies could not have caps. Though,why do we need one? Most policies cover up to 1 million. We could have made a single law to sell insurance across state boundaries. Republicans tried to put through these enhancements but the Dems. wouldn't let them because they cared more about politics than the people. This was nothing but a grab to nationalize every sector of our country. That's what Fabian socialists do.
>> Karen

From experience: We have been health insurance brokers for the past 8 years, building a business for our family and our future. That business is now gone. We are losing our home. We have always paid for our own health insurance as self-employed people. Obamacare has destroyed what we have worked night and day to build, our own business. I have helped hundreds of individuals, self-employed people and small business owners with coverage over the years. Fortunately, we are not too old and we can start over with a lot of sweat and tears. Many cannot. People who support this bill are ignorant of what it really does. You can't fix stupid.
>> Paul

Repeal this insane, Marxist redistribution of wealth bill! Barry needs to be a 1 term president before he destroys this country!
>> Michael

Andrew, you libtard, I have long since paid for my children and grandchildren. Why should I pay for yours? My money is not yours to spend, nor is it the governments to spend. I'll keep my money, you keep the change..
>> Tony Friday, January 14, 2011 10:28 PM Report Comment

If you failed to buy house insurance, and it burns to the ground, should you be able to go and get insurance after the fact and have the insurance company pay for your loss? The pre-existing condition is going to cost the rest dearly. How can anyone be expected to pay for someone else's problem...who never contributed in the first place? This is not an equal world and it cannot be legislated to be equal.
>> Jason

Right, insure everyone to bring down the costs. The government who can't keep its own finances in order is now opening up a health care business. And what do you think will be the long term result? Just look at the post office, social security, the list goes on. All these services are just a shell now, and it's a matter of time before they belly up. And you trust them in healthcare business? Borrowing is their model, and we can only borrow from China and other countries for so long. And if you take into account all the interest that will need to be paid for all the borrowed money required to fund this constitutionally illegal program, it will cost "everyone" (to use your words) a hell of a lot more than what we're paying now!
>> Obama Care = Welfare

The above comment was directed to Andrew. And let's not forget, more government programs = more opportunity for corruption... so while we have to repay another country for all this borrowed money (+ interest) for substandard health care (that a majority of Americans reject... look at the last election), Chicago style politics will kick in and somebody's going to get a kickback, if they haven't already. Sounds like a *loose* *loose* (and *loose* more) proposition to me... Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme style. BTW, did Obama used to hang out with Bernie? The reason I ask is I'm wondering where he got this idea : )
>> Obama Care = Welfare

There will be "death Panels." no doubt about it. There is not an endless supply of money to cure everything on everyone. Just common sense. There is only so much "skin in the game."
>> Mark

I like the comments regarding pre-existing, especially from those who clearly haven't a clue. A pre-existing condition clause applies when you have had no prior coverage or a lapse in coverage, and I think that is pretty legit. I work my full time job, pay a ridiculous amount for health insurance, and I prefer it that way. I want options. I want to choose my doctor. I don't want to wait 2 hours in his office while he sees the same 4 munchausen syndrome-hypochondriacs before me, who are probably there every other week. As it stands now, physicians are allowed to choose their patients and the insurances they will accept. I think the level of care will drop once that right has been taken from them.
>> Barbara



The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. It had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935. It had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938. It had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.

The War on Poverty started in 1964. It had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. It had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970. It had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.

The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. It had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

The government FAILED in every "government service" shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.


Unfortunately the OBAMACARE programs are already failing and they just barely got started.


The plans by Illinois' DEMOCRATIC politicians who have run this state right into the ground now will definitely provide for a deeper recession and worse financial crisis as actions they are taking will push all new business out of this state, will motivate present businesses to move elsewhere, and will suck out more funds from the wallets of working taxpayers.

Illinois has already started losing population, now this will worsen and home values will plummet as well as people move out and sell.

Top Illinois State Legislators, all Democrats, have agreed to push a plan that would temporarily boost income taxes by 75 percent and double cigarette taxes, Senate President John Cullerton said Thursday.

Why are we not setting up the flogging gallows for this spending and spending legislature?

This BLUE state is so broke we are the laughing stock of the entire world together with California, Ohio and New York! Notice each of these states is controlled by the runaway spending policies of their majority Democratic legislators.

If one was to forecast the future spending in these states, theoretically over the next century, at the present rates of entitlements and other spending increases, every resident would have to be taxed at 100% of their income ( every corporation and business too)!

ARE THESE PEOPLE CRAZY, DO ANY OF THEM OWN A checkbook to understand how it is supposed to work? No money in the checkbook, no spending!

Illinois’ personal income tax rate, now 3 percent, would climb to 5.25 percent for four years under the plan Cullerton outlined. After that, it would drop to 3.75 percent. OH, that is really something we can will never happen!

That means someone who now owes $1,000 in state income taxes would owe $1,750 at the new rate, then $1,250 after four years ( right!).

The permanent portion would be used several ways. Some would be devoted to schools ( yes just like the Lottery was supposed to do, but then other funds were deleted and the lottery was substituted, for a net effect of ZERO) and some to repaying an $8.5 billion loan ( and the rest to fraud and corruption we assume) that would be used to pay overdue bills, Cullerton said.

Do not forget that Illinois is well known for the fact that literally most of its Governors in the last few decades have gone right to prison after their term ended and at present we have one who was thrown out of office for attempting to sell Obama's Senate seat for personal gain, and is scheduled for trial.

Another chunk would go to property tax relief in the form of annual $325 checks, he said. The checks would replace the property tax exemption that homeowners can now claim on their income taxes. WOW A $325 CHECK to offset my $11,000 property tax bill, what a grand gesture!

Cullerton said House Speaker Michael Madigan and Gov. Pat Quinn fully support the tax proposal, although Quinn once promised to veto any increase of that size. These politicians are so entrenched in their offices that each of them profits handsomely from personal ownership in law firms that do a lot of business with large corporations seeking tax relief or other favors in the State.

Madigan’s spokesman said he couldn’t discuss the speaker’s position ( because he had no real defense perhaps?). The Senate has approved tax increases in the past, so the biggest question about this proposal is whether Madigan can find enough votes to get it through the House.

The governor’s office put out a statement that stopped short of saying the three leaders had reached a final agreement. Rank-and-file legislators said Quinn described the tax plan to them earlier in the day and portrayed it as a deal among all three of the powerful Democrats.

Democrats say they have no choice but to raise taxes as one part of a solution to Illinois’ massive budget crisis. The state deficit could reach $15 billion in the coming year. The government is borrowing money to cover some obligations, letting bills go unpaid for months and cutting corners everywhere from state prisons to state parks.

Yet, they did not cut enough, did they? In fact Illinois is actually INCREASING its spending instead of cutting back, not a dime of cutting back of the budget.

It is time to slash, slash by 25%-30% or more everything including the overly generous and out of control pensions for retiring workers that see 85% of their salaries paid!

“We are in desperate need,” Cullerton said at a news conference in his office.

Cullerton said the higher taxes would generate about $7.5 billion a year during the four years they’re at their highest.

The tax on cigarettes, now 98 cents a pack, would jump to $1.98, Cullerton said. The money would be earmarked for education.

Quinn, Cullerton and Madigan want to pass something before the current General Assembly formally ends Jan. 12. After that, they lose some of their Democratic majority as well as outgoing legislators who might be persuaded to support a tax increase as they leave office.

Madigan has repeatedly said he doubts that a tax increase could pass in the House without Republican support. But Republican leaders have not been included in tax and budget negotiations, and there was no indication Thursday that they were prepared to cooperate with the Democrats.

“If they think this is a solution, they should go ahead and put their own votes on it,” said Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno, R-Lemont.

Cullerton emphasized that taxes would be just one part of the solution.

Quinn and the Legislature already have cut spending significantly. They’ve also reduced pension benefits for future state employees and passed a plan to help limit the cost of providing health care to the poor.

Cullerton said there also will be a moratorium on new programs and spending growth would be held to 1 percent a year.

“We are not doing a short-term fix,” he said.

The tax proposal puts Quinn in an awkward position. It would boost the tax rate by 2.25 percentage points, but the governor promised last year to veto any increase above 1 percentage point.

Last summer, a Quinn aide suggested taxes might have to be raised by 2 points. Quinn quickly disavowed the comments and said he opposed anything beyond his proposed hike of 1 percentage point.

“I’m going to veto anything that isn’t my plan,” Quinn said at the time.

Quinn’s office didn’t comment Thursday on the conflict between the tax plan and his campaign promise.

Radogno said it would be “dishonest” for Quinn to approve it after promising a veto.

“To me, that’s kind of a bait and switch,” she said.

The Illinois residents have got to wise-up and throw out all these spend and spend liberals that are destroying the economic viability of the state and its residents.

What services is the State providing that we can not live without?

The local jurisdictions clean the snow, the state does not.

The driver license is self supporting from that department.

The schools and their overpaid staff is mostly supported by local property taxes.

Oh, yes now I remember, the state needs all those welcome to Illinois signs with the governor's name on them.


Put yourself in the shoes of a lender, like your bank for instance. If you provided your bank with your financial statement that showed annual operating shortfalls
(deficits) of a TRILLION dollars or more for as many years as can be counted in the future with no end in sight-would you lend money to such a borrower?

The simple answer is NO!

There is no way any prudent lender would under any circumstances consider extending loans to a borrower with no positive cash flow and none predicted in the next decade! Yet our FEDERAL government wants lenders to keep lending money to it under these dire and unsustainable circumstances!

Furthermore, the U.S. TREASURY wants the rest of the world to use the US DOLLAR as the currency of global financial settlements when it is now the biggest debtor nation in the world. In fact, its debt is greater than the debt of pretty much the rest of the world nations combined!

The dollar's slide has started due to nothing else other than the normal workings of the markets...stronger valued or perceived currencies will simply move in due to the natural tendencies of currency risks and trading spreads that will show which currency is the strongest.

Over the next 20 years, it is inevitable that the gigantic population of China and even India will be moving into the same consumer driven place as the USA did after the 1950's. With its 2.3 billion potential consumers those two countries will be the future driving force of the world economy.

Unfortunately for the USA, it is not likely that those new consumers with their relatively weak per-capita income will be asking for consumer products made in the USA by high cost labor. They will instead be buying locally manufactured consumer goods of every type ( just as Americans are buying now).

It is amazing how the made in China label is on more and more products.

I noticed that every single auto part that I have purchased in the last year in the aftermarket for auto parts, is MADE IN CHINA, and for every car.

If you need an auto part, whatever it is, ranging from the lowest price BMW or Mercedes key chain, right down to alternators, starters and generators and every conceivable electrical part, they are all of Chinese least the lowest priced ones ( and often of lower component quality). Many of these are manufactured by Chinese subsidiaries of Japanese and Korean companies which used to be the lowest priced suppliers previously for all these components.

There is no going back, we can not manufacture these parts at a lower cost.

The World Bank issued its first yuan-denominated bond in January 2011, raising $76 million and trying to promote the use of the Chinese currency in international markets at a time when China's stake in the institution is about to increase.

The World Bank said in a statement on Wednesday the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, its low-interest lending arm, had priced the two-year paper at 0.95 percent, representing the lowest yield so far on same-maturity dim sum bonds -- the nickname for yuan-denominated bonds issued in Hong Kong.

The offshore yuan market in Hong Kong has seen explosive growth in less than a year, with renminbi deposits in the former British colony surging more than 150 percent in the six months to October 2010. Global companies and institutions such as the Asian Development Bank, McDonald's Corp and Caterpillar have all issued yuan bonds.

The World Bank's 500 million yuan bond issue arrived when China's shareholding in the World Bank is about to increase, potentially making China the third-largest stakeholder in the lender after the United States and Japan.

"This is a landmark transaction for the World Bank as it is the first World Bank issuance in RMB, and signals the strong interest of the World Bank in supporting the development of the RMB market," Doris Herrera-Pol, Global Head of Capital Markets at the World Bank, said in a statement.

"It is a privilege for us to have this opportunity that establishes the institution as a premier issuer in the fastest growing capital market in the world."

HSBC was the lead manager for the deal, an international bank that has had a strong presence in China and its growing economy.

If one was to predict what currency one should own to not lose value, it should be the Chinese yuan, not the US Dollar. One can benefit in its steady value and predictable growth of the spread against the US the yuan sell the dollar to make money, it's a sure bet.


The lies and lies that were spewed by OBAMA and his minions are coming home to roost. A variety of new onerous taxes related to the health care bill are going to hit employers and people, even the unemployed ones harder, and make it even more unlikely that employers will want to hire new employees.

13 new tax hikes found in 1,990 page House Obamacare text

Here's the list of tax hikes included in H.R. 3962, the revised House version of Obamacare, otherwise known as "The Affordable Health Care for America Act." The text of this bill runs to 1,990 pages, all of which can be read here in pdf format. The page number references to each of the tax hikes noted below correspond to those in the pdf.

Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).

Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.

Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.

Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped).

Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)

Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services.

Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.

Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price. It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344): Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments. Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons. Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.

Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345): Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act

Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346): Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.

Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.

Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357): Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties. If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.

The further reality is that these and other mandates of all types will stifle employment for years.