Fellow Bloggers,
This week, the Democrats in the Senate and House introduced a devastating new bill – the so-called Generations Invigorating Volunteers and Education Act (S.277) – that would allow politicians to funnel billions of tax dollars to leftwing organizations that they could then use for political purposes. As a blogger, you are the front line for exposing what legislation does.
It's being done under the guise of enabling Barack Obama to build his $5 billion, 250,000-member “volunteer” youth corps – “just as powerful, just as strong” as the U.S. military, as he promised during his campaign. You may remember that chilling speech in Colorado Springs:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
If the so-called GIVE Act is passed in its present form, groups like ACORN and Jessie Jackson's PUSH will receive multi-million-dollar grants for lobbying, community organizing, protests, strikes – and just about any other activity they believe would further their hard left agenda. And that would mean your tax dollars would be used to pass legislation and elect politicians you absolutely oppose!
Fortunately, Sen. Jim DeMint has introduced a vital amendment to GIVE that would prohibit “advocacy” groups or groups co-located with advocacy groups from receiving any assistance under the Act. The DeMint Amendment would automatically prohibit any organization “engaged in legislative advocacy” – or working hand in hand with such organizations -- from receiving assistance under the GIVE Act. And that, of course, is exactly how it should be.
Leftwing groups and blogs are flooding the Senate with angry demands that the DeMint Amendment be defeated. They know it could cost them hundreds of millions of your tax dollars – and prevent them from using your money to disrupt our entire political system.
That's why I am asking you to join me in matching them call for call. We must fight them on the blogosphere as well. You have the power to expose this bill for what it is—a shame! Time is of the essence. The DeMint Amendment prohibiting advocacy organizations from receiving assistance under the GIVE Act could come up for a vote at any moment. We still have time to keep this language in the bill. But, we must act now!
You are on the front line in this fight! Be sure to check out the story that Adam Bitely ran on NetRight Nation today and post your own on your blog.
Please contact your Senators immediately and let them know how the DeMint Amendment's prohibition on nonprofit advocacy will help saves billions of tax dollars and prevent leftwing organizations from corrupting our political system. Tell them to vote to keep the DeMint Amendment in the bill -- and keep your tax dollars from going to groups whose policies and politics you oppose.
Showing posts with label tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tax. Show all posts
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Daily Grind Editorial: Senate Should Affirm the Foxx Amendment
Last week, the House passed the “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act” 325-105, a bill that establishes as a goal expanding national service organizations like AmeriCorps dramatically from 75,000 to 250,000. Gaining attention is an amendment to the bill inserted by Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) that prohibits participating not-for-profit entities from using taxpayer money for lobbying, political organizing, or other political purposes.
As the legislation proceeds through the Senate, it remains to be seen if these taxpayer protections will not ultimately be stripped out. Removing the provisions would allow taxpayer-funded not-for-profit organizations participating in the national service program to, among other things, lobby Congress for yet more tax dollars.
In essence, a vote to remove the Foxx amendment is a vote to hand yet more money over to radical groups like ACORN without any consideration as to the propriety of lobbying organizations participating in a national service program. Without Congresswoman Foxx's amendment, the legislation will, without a doubt, move billions of dollars into hundreds, if not thousands, of left-leaning organizations and special interest groups.
Ultimately, the GIVE Act is a bad bill as it seeks to achieve an unnecessary purpose. Expanding national “service” via funding of non-profit entities, that just turn around to lobby government for more money, and also give millions in campaign contributions, is simply pay-to-play corruption. The organizations that give the most, get the most. This system has perpetuated for decades.
And now Mrs. Foxx may bring an end to it all.
That is why an amendment to an otherwise bad piece of legislation prohibiting individuals and organizations that participate in national service programs would at from engaging in lobbying, and also prevented from co-locating upon the same premises as organizations that lobby must be preserved. It is the least Congress can do, if the bill must pass, to protect American taxpayers who grow weary of the constant deluge of waste, fraud, and abuses by government.
However, as the bill moves through the Senate the danger exists that members will strip out the Foxx amendment, either in the Senate or in conference. The message they must hear from their constituents is that a vote against the Foxx amendment is a vote in favor of national 'service' organizations engaging in lobbying on the taxpayer's dime. It is a vote funnel tax dollars to radical organizations.
Americans for Limited Government promises to release information on campaign contributions from organizations participating in national service programs to members of Congress that vote to remove the Foxx amendment from the bill. They should consider this notice.
Members must understand that they are being watched closely, and ALG News urges news outlets to hold representatives and senators accountable for where they wind up standing on this issue. A vote to remove the Foxx amendment can only be viewed for what it is: a vote in favor of lobbying with tax dollars and against taxpayers.
ALG CTA: Please encourage your Senator not to strip the Foxx amendment out of the 'GIVE Act'. Non-profits should not use tax payer money to lobby, politically organize or support lunatic liberal causes! Your member of Congress may be reached through the Capitol Operator at 202-224-3121.
http://alg31blog.timberlakepublishing.com/default.asp?Display=1069
Bill Wilson; The Daily Grind; NetRight Nation
(Great info, highly encourage you to sign up for their updates)
As the legislation proceeds through the Senate, it remains to be seen if these taxpayer protections will not ultimately be stripped out. Removing the provisions would allow taxpayer-funded not-for-profit organizations participating in the national service program to, among other things, lobby Congress for yet more tax dollars.
In essence, a vote to remove the Foxx amendment is a vote to hand yet more money over to radical groups like ACORN without any consideration as to the propriety of lobbying organizations participating in a national service program. Without Congresswoman Foxx's amendment, the legislation will, without a doubt, move billions of dollars into hundreds, if not thousands, of left-leaning organizations and special interest groups.
Ultimately, the GIVE Act is a bad bill as it seeks to achieve an unnecessary purpose. Expanding national “service” via funding of non-profit entities, that just turn around to lobby government for more money, and also give millions in campaign contributions, is simply pay-to-play corruption. The organizations that give the most, get the most. This system has perpetuated for decades.
And now Mrs. Foxx may bring an end to it all.
That is why an amendment to an otherwise bad piece of legislation prohibiting individuals and organizations that participate in national service programs would at from engaging in lobbying, and also prevented from co-locating upon the same premises as organizations that lobby must be preserved. It is the least Congress can do, if the bill must pass, to protect American taxpayers who grow weary of the constant deluge of waste, fraud, and abuses by government.
However, as the bill moves through the Senate the danger exists that members will strip out the Foxx amendment, either in the Senate or in conference. The message they must hear from their constituents is that a vote against the Foxx amendment is a vote in favor of national 'service' organizations engaging in lobbying on the taxpayer's dime. It is a vote funnel tax dollars to radical organizations.
Americans for Limited Government promises to release information on campaign contributions from organizations participating in national service programs to members of Congress that vote to remove the Foxx amendment from the bill. They should consider this notice.
Members must understand that they are being watched closely, and ALG News urges news outlets to hold representatives and senators accountable for where they wind up standing on this issue. A vote to remove the Foxx amendment can only be viewed for what it is: a vote in favor of lobbying with tax dollars and against taxpayers.
ALG CTA: Please encourage your Senator not to strip the Foxx amendment out of the 'GIVE Act'. Non-profits should not use tax payer money to lobby, politically organize or support lunatic liberal causes! Your member of Congress may be reached through the Capitol Operator at 202-224-3121.
http://alg31blog.timberlakepublishing.com/default.asp?Display=1069
Bill Wilson; The Daily Grind; NetRight Nation
(Great info, highly encourage you to sign up for their updates)
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
He Who Has Earmarks, Let Him Hear
And now, back to our regularly scheduled spending. One week after the shock of the $1.3 trillion stimulus hit home, President Obama and his party are back at it, promoting fiscal responsibility while exercising anything but. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), fresh from her taxpayer-funded vacation, lifted the veil on a $410 billion omnibus bill that fails to live up to the President's campaign promises of "earmark reform."
"[W]hen I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely," he told a crowd in Mississippi last year. Of course, the irony is that Congress introduced a bill with 9,000 earmarks on the same day that the President delivered a speech to economists on spending restraint. "[I]f we want to spend, we'll need to find somewhere to cut," the President suggested Monday, mere days after he signed the biggest spending bill in U.S. history. At the same meeting, Obama vowed to reduce the deficit by half in his first term, which would be a real feat considering that he has already expanded it by roughly a trillion dollars. Got vertigo yet?
Liberals claim the omnibus, now under review in the House, is pork-free. The evidence suggests otherwise. A portion of the $5 billion in earmarks is slated to fund: a "Tattoo Removal Violence Prevention Outreach Program" ($200,000); the creation of a "Ted Kennedy Institute for the Senate" ($5.8 million); the National Council of LaRaza ($473,000); "the promotion of astronomy in Hawaii" ($2 million); and the Las Vegas Natural History Museum ($143,000), where Sen. Harry Reid's son served as a board member.
The flagrant waste, while upsetting, is far less damaging to values voters than the shifts in social policy, which often go undetected in spending bills like this one. Of particular concern to FRC are the diminished pro-life "riders" attached to the legislation. (For a better understanding of the term "rider," check out the FRC Action Blog). Unfortunately, we learned yesterday that the President has reinstated $50 million for the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA). For the first time in eight years, the U.S. will be knowingly subsidizing forced abortion and sterilization.
The President demanded $545 million ($88 million more than 2008) in contraceptives and other "family planning" activities that do not merit public support. In a major setback for the Community-Based Abstinence Education program, the White House asked for a $13 million reduction in CBAE grants, while increasing its funding for Title X birth control programs to $307 million. Another provision would give college health and abortion clinics the ability to purchase contraception and Plan B at a "nominal" price. (Keep in mind that leaders are proposing this while a network of California Planned Parenthood clinics is under investigation for fraudulently re-selling these same drugs at higher prices for profit.)
On the education front, the bill includes language that would eliminate the D.C. school voucher program and bars new students from participating in the program despite its documented success. In a subtle move, House liberals have also pushed for $1.2 billion in "anti-bullying programs." In the past, these funds have been used to introduce pro-homosexual curricula into the nation's public schools. Last, but by no means least, the report language launches a sneak attack on marriage by encouraging reconsideration of the ban on benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees.
Tonight, despite these assaults on American values, the President will address the nation with the familiar themes of hope, camaraderie, and optimism. But, as we have come to expect in Obama's first month, the rhetoric of this administration falls miserably short of reality.
Additional Resources Kitchen Table Blog: What Exactly are Pro-life Riders?
Tony Perkins
Family Research Council:
801 G Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 800/225-4008
W: frc.org
"[W]hen I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely," he told a crowd in Mississippi last year. Of course, the irony is that Congress introduced a bill with 9,000 earmarks on the same day that the President delivered a speech to economists on spending restraint. "[I]f we want to spend, we'll need to find somewhere to cut," the President suggested Monday, mere days after he signed the biggest spending bill in U.S. history. At the same meeting, Obama vowed to reduce the deficit by half in his first term, which would be a real feat considering that he has already expanded it by roughly a trillion dollars. Got vertigo yet?
Liberals claim the omnibus, now under review in the House, is pork-free. The evidence suggests otherwise. A portion of the $5 billion in earmarks is slated to fund: a "Tattoo Removal Violence Prevention Outreach Program" ($200,000); the creation of a "Ted Kennedy Institute for the Senate" ($5.8 million); the National Council of LaRaza ($473,000); "the promotion of astronomy in Hawaii" ($2 million); and the Las Vegas Natural History Museum ($143,000), where Sen. Harry Reid's son served as a board member.
The flagrant waste, while upsetting, is far less damaging to values voters than the shifts in social policy, which often go undetected in spending bills like this one. Of particular concern to FRC are the diminished pro-life "riders" attached to the legislation. (For a better understanding of the term "rider," check out the FRC Action Blog). Unfortunately, we learned yesterday that the President has reinstated $50 million for the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA). For the first time in eight years, the U.S. will be knowingly subsidizing forced abortion and sterilization.
The President demanded $545 million ($88 million more than 2008) in contraceptives and other "family planning" activities that do not merit public support. In a major setback for the Community-Based Abstinence Education program, the White House asked for a $13 million reduction in CBAE grants, while increasing its funding for Title X birth control programs to $307 million. Another provision would give college health and abortion clinics the ability to purchase contraception and Plan B at a "nominal" price. (Keep in mind that leaders are proposing this while a network of California Planned Parenthood clinics is under investigation for fraudulently re-selling these same drugs at higher prices for profit.)
On the education front, the bill includes language that would eliminate the D.C. school voucher program and bars new students from participating in the program despite its documented success. In a subtle move, House liberals have also pushed for $1.2 billion in "anti-bullying programs." In the past, these funds have been used to introduce pro-homosexual curricula into the nation's public schools. Last, but by no means least, the report language launches a sneak attack on marriage by encouraging reconsideration of the ban on benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees.
Tonight, despite these assaults on American values, the President will address the nation with the familiar themes of hope, camaraderie, and optimism. But, as we have come to expect in Obama's first month, the rhetoric of this administration falls miserably short of reality.
Additional Resources Kitchen Table Blog: What Exactly are Pro-life Riders?
Tony Perkins
Family Research Council:
801 G Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 800/225-4008
W: frc.org
Monday, February 2, 2009
Price, Campbell & Issa on Porkulus
Economic Recovery Act is Wiser Alternative to Massive Spending
Chairman Tom Price (GA-06)
Congressional Democrats have engaged in a full offensive to convince the American people that another massive dose of borrowing and spending is the solution to our economic tribulations. They talk of an economic near-Armageddon without as much as a trillion dollars in new spending. The rhetoric, in point of fact, sounds remarkably similar to the appeals for their last economic solution, the disastrous Troubled Asset Relief Program. (Read more)
An Awful Excuse for a Stimulus Bill
Rep. John Campbell (CA-48)
Last September, we cautiously backed away from the precipice of financial collapse, but we are still a long way from getting our economy growing, flourishing, and functioning properly. Now, more than ever, we need innovative economic policies, not the political gamesmanship already playing out across all areas of government. (Read more)
The $825 Billion Earmark
Rep. Darrell Issa (CA-49)
The more we learn about the proposed Pelosi-Obey $825 billion economic stimulus proposal, the more it looks like an $825 billion earmark. Excluded from the package are good government provisions that would prohibit use of economic stimulus funds for lobbying or political activities. Democratic leaders are repeatedly touting the importance of passing their bill, yet are taking the path of least resistance and failing to ensure that the funds actually go towards the stated goal of creating jobs and jumpstarting our economy. (Read more)
Chairman Tom Price (GA-06)
Congressional Democrats have engaged in a full offensive to convince the American people that another massive dose of borrowing and spending is the solution to our economic tribulations. They talk of an economic near-Armageddon without as much as a trillion dollars in new spending. The rhetoric, in point of fact, sounds remarkably similar to the appeals for their last economic solution, the disastrous Troubled Asset Relief Program. (Read more)
An Awful Excuse for a Stimulus Bill
Rep. John Campbell (CA-48)
Last September, we cautiously backed away from the precipice of financial collapse, but we are still a long way from getting our economy growing, flourishing, and functioning properly. Now, more than ever, we need innovative economic policies, not the political gamesmanship already playing out across all areas of government. (Read more)
The $825 Billion Earmark
Rep. Darrell Issa (CA-49)
The more we learn about the proposed Pelosi-Obey $825 billion economic stimulus proposal, the more it looks like an $825 billion earmark. Excluded from the package are good government provisions that would prohibit use of economic stimulus funds for lobbying or political activities. Democratic leaders are repeatedly touting the importance of passing their bill, yet are taking the path of least resistance and failing to ensure that the funds actually go towards the stated goal of creating jobs and jumpstarting our economy. (Read more)
From RedState on Daschle
Well now we know why the Democrats don't mind raising taxes - they don't pay them.
Barack Obama has nominated another tax cheat.
With Tim Geithner we were told he was the indispensable man during the economic crisis. What about Tom Daschle? What makes him special?
In truth - nothing makes Daschle special other than he's one of Barack Obama's friends.
One tax cheat is enough.
Call 202-224-3121. Tell your Senator to vote no on Tom Daschle.
Barack Obama has nominated another tax cheat.
With Tim Geithner we were told he was the indispensable man during the economic crisis. What about Tom Daschle? What makes him special?
In truth - nothing makes Daschle special other than he's one of Barack Obama's friends.
One tax cheat is enough.
Call 202-224-3121. Tell your Senator to vote no on Tom Daschle.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
On an anti-Geithner bender...
I feel like the base of our country is being chipped at from all sides. Sooner or later they're going to chip just enough off the bottom and the country will topple. Where are the American people of character and principle? Tell me we haven't crossed the line yet, that there are enough people involved and concerned who are willing to fight? who understand the importance of taking time to learn what's happening outside their own little nest? Arrggg... can you tell I am FRUSTRATED!
But take heart, I'm getting close to getting it out of my system. Maybe.
Wait until you read my next posts on the stupid-stimulus package if you think I'm over the top on Geithner. Geithner being voted in is nothing compared to what's getting ready to happen with the bailout / stimulus package. That one isn't a chip and chisel, it's a bulldozer.
Here's a batch of articles from P.U.M.A. Great stuff.
Tax Evader, Tim “Turbo-Tax” Geithner Sworn In As Treasury Secretary…
Posted: 26 Jan 2009 10:17 PM CST
It’s official… We have our first self-confessed tax-evader as Treasury Secretary. I wonder how the IRS is going to treat people who make “innocent mistakes” and choose not to pay their taxes under his watch… What is amazing is not that Obama nominated him, it is that even those who should be opposed to such ethically [...]
Is there any common sense left in Washington?
Posted: 26 Jan 2009 09:52 PM CST
Won’t say I agree with everything here, but I really don’t like what is going on in Washington, and this article makes tons of sense… RS The Senate is now falling all over itself to confirm all of President Obama’s nominees. My personal favorite is Timothy Geithner, admitted tax evader, who is set to earn “widespread [...]
Here’s a List of The Senators Who Voted To Confirm Tim Geithner…
Posted: 26 Jan 2009 08:36 PM CST
If you’ve been wondering which Senators voted to confirm a self-confessed tax cheat as the Treasury Secretary, wonder no more. I just have to wonder what Obama promised some of them in exchange for their vote. It baffles me that people entrusted to look after the Republic would put political expediency before principle. Anyway, here’s the Roll [...]
Senator Susan Collins opposes Timothy Geithner for Treasury Secretary…
Posted: 26 Jan 2009 02:50 PM CST
I hope more Senators take a principled stand… The vote is at 6pm EST tonight. It makes no sense to put a tax cheat in charge of the treasury… PRN U.S. Senator Susan Collins today announced that she will oppose the confirmation of Timothy Geithner, who was nominated to be U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. [...]
But take heart, I'm getting close to getting it out of my system. Maybe.
Wait until you read my next posts on the stupid-stimulus package if you think I'm over the top on Geithner. Geithner being voted in is nothing compared to what's getting ready to happen with the bailout / stimulus package. That one isn't a chip and chisel, it's a bulldozer.
Here's a batch of articles from P.U.M.A. Great stuff.
Tax Evader, Tim “Turbo-Tax” Geithner Sworn In As Treasury Secretary…
Posted: 26 Jan 2009 10:17 PM CST
It’s official… We have our first self-confessed tax-evader as Treasury Secretary. I wonder how the IRS is going to treat people who make “innocent mistakes” and choose not to pay their taxes under his watch… What is amazing is not that Obama nominated him, it is that even those who should be opposed to such ethically [...]
Is there any common sense left in Washington?
Posted: 26 Jan 2009 09:52 PM CST
Won’t say I agree with everything here, but I really don’t like what is going on in Washington, and this article makes tons of sense… RS The Senate is now falling all over itself to confirm all of President Obama’s nominees. My personal favorite is Timothy Geithner, admitted tax evader, who is set to earn “widespread [...]
Here’s a List of The Senators Who Voted To Confirm Tim Geithner…
Posted: 26 Jan 2009 08:36 PM CST
If you’ve been wondering which Senators voted to confirm a self-confessed tax cheat as the Treasury Secretary, wonder no more. I just have to wonder what Obama promised some of them in exchange for their vote. It baffles me that people entrusted to look after the Republic would put political expediency before principle. Anyway, here’s the Roll [...]
Senator Susan Collins opposes Timothy Geithner for Treasury Secretary…
Posted: 26 Jan 2009 02:50 PM CST
I hope more Senators take a principled stand… The vote is at 6pm EST tonight. It makes no sense to put a tax cheat in charge of the treasury… PRN U.S. Senator Susan Collins today announced that she will oppose the confirmation of Timothy Geithner, who was nominated to be U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. [...]
The Republicans who voted for Geithner
I'm going to "assume" that the ten Republicans who voted to approve tax-cheat Geithner made a stand on some kind of principle. I can't imagine which principle would trump ethics, common sense, character and ability to lead with pride, but that's just li'l ol me way down here in voter land.
Here's the list:
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Ensign (R-NV)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Here are some Democrats and an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats I'd like to commend for standing on principles:
Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa
Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia
Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin
Independent Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont
Those four voted against Geithner.
The vote was 60 - 34. One of our Republicans missed the vote but would have voted no. If the Republicans had all voted no it wouldn't have changed the vote. Assuming that the one Republican and three Democrats who didn't vote still didn't vote, it would have been 44 nays against 50 yippie-yi-yays.
But you know, I'd have just felt better about our Republican caucus.
We need to watch carefully to see who's voting for what in these next few days and months. Let's get some people in there with backbone and principles.
Here's the list:
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Ensign (R-NV)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Here are some Democrats and an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats I'd like to commend for standing on principles:
Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa
Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia
Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin
Independent Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont
Those four voted against Geithner.
The vote was 60 - 34. One of our Republicans missed the vote but would have voted no. If the Republicans had all voted no it wouldn't have changed the vote. Assuming that the one Republican and three Democrats who didn't vote still didn't vote, it would have been 44 nays against 50 yippie-yi-yays.
But you know, I'd have just felt better about our Republican caucus.
We need to watch carefully to see who's voting for what in these next few days and months. Let's get some people in there with backbone and principles.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Idea for Business Owners
Rec'd this via email, love it:
Dear Fellow Business Owners
As a Business owner who employs 30 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barack Obama will be our next President, and that I will be forced to lay off 6 of my employees.
This really bothered me as I believe we are family here and didn't know how to choose who will have to go. So, this is what I did. I strolled thru the parking lot and found 8 Obama bumper stickers on my employees' cars. I have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off.
I can't think of another fair way to approach this problem. If you have a better idea, please let me know.
I am sending this letter to all Business owners that I know.
Dear Fellow Business Owners
As a Business owner who employs 30 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barack Obama will be our next President, and that I will be forced to lay off 6 of my employees.
This really bothered me as I believe we are family here and didn't know how to choose who will have to go. So, this is what I did. I strolled thru the parking lot and found 8 Obama bumper stickers on my employees' cars. I have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off.
I can't think of another fair way to approach this problem. If you have a better idea, please let me know.
I am sending this letter to all Business owners that I know.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
McCain-Palin Campaign Conference Call On Barack Obama's Health Care Lies
"Barack Obama says that Washington is broken, but he's running his health care system through it. It doesn't make sense." -- Doug Holtz-Eakin, Senior Policy Adviser
Today, the McCain-Palin campaign held a press conference call with Doug Holtz-Eakin, McCain-Palin senior policy adviser, to discuss Barack Obama's lies concerning John McCain's proposed health care reforms:
Doug Holtz-Eakin: "At the moment, the Obama campaign has several ads up on radio and television attacking the McCain health plan and quite frankly these ads can only be described as cynical and deceitful. Despite the fact that Barack Obama has not shown the judgment to choose well in other policy areas, on this one it cannot possibly be a lack of knowledge or judgment. His adviser, Jason Furman, advocated for what is essentially the McCain health tax reform in the journal Democracy, in the summer of 2006, and so he could easily be informed as to how wrong these ads are. So it cannot be a lack of knowledge. It has to be a lack of honor.
"They are saying several things about the McCain tax plan that are just flat out wrong. The first thing was Senator Obama himself, in the first debate, said that John McCain would tax employers on the insurance they provide their employees, that is false. Nothing changes for the employer under the McCain healthcare reform. Nothing. They have the same incentives to provide health care insurance. They can still deduct all compensation cost, health insurance, wages, and others. They still want to attract high quality employees and providing a rich benefits package, pensions, health insurance, is a way to do that. Their incentives will be unchanged.
"They are saying that it is a big tax increase, and that, my friends, is also false. This is a plan where if you are receiving from your employer the health insurance that Barack Obama has decided that every American should have, whether they decide that or not, Barack Obama has decided everybody should have health insurance like a Congressman. That would be a $12,000 family plan. If you are receiving that from your employer you will have more money for healthcare left over after this tax reform than you do right now. If you are in the very bottom tax bracket, the 10% bracket, a $12,000 health insurance plan would yield a tax liability of $1,200. A $5,000 family refundable credit would more than offset that tax liability, leaving you with $3,800 to put in a HSA. If you are fortunate enough to be in that top bracket, the liability would be $4,200, more than offset by the $5,000 credit, $800 in your HSA. Now, it is the case that there may be some people at the very top who have a liability greater than their health tax credit. Now, under the current system as a result, the one that Barack Obama wants to defend which is attacking John McCain's system, we are having the middle class pay taxes and subsidize the gold plated coverage of the most affluent in America. And it perplexes me, even given his flexible policy principles, how he could walk around saying the things he says about the middle class and defend the status quo which rewards to greatest subsidy to the most affluent of Americans.
"He's called this a middle class tax increase. As I've pointed out, you've had to be getting an enormous amount of health insurance, one the middle class can only dream of, in order to have a net tax liability. For some Americans, they are actually paying out-of-pocket and getting no help whatsoever. This would give them the same help, $2,500 for an individual, $5,000 for a family, that those receiving from an employer get. Simple matter of fairness. And, there are many Americans who are uninsured, 47 million, roughly. This would give them money toward a health insurance policy, and it basically is nearly the cost, in the individual market, for a family policy of an individual policy, nationwide.
"Now, they're also saying that John McCain's health care plan would mean they never saw the money -- it would go straight to insurance companies. Well, that's just a ridiculous charge. Individuals control the insurance they choose under the John McCain plan. They decide the insurance company. It's essentially the same, I think, as the Associated Press pointed out, it's like saying money for a car loan will go straight to the car dealer. This is money in control of the individuals -- in control of families. John McCain trusts the judgment of the American people. He's willing to put the money in their hands because they know what's best. They can then shop, across state lines as the Senator has pointed out, to find a policy that fits their family's needs and, by producing greater competition among the 12,000-odd insurers, nationwide, generates some genuine policies at a reasonable cost, and a high quality of service, holding some insurance company's feet to the fire -- have them work for the American people, not the other way around.
"Senator Obama has leveled two charges on that particular approach: Number one, that that the most vulnerable -- those with previous conditions or high costs will be left exposed. He knows that's false. John McCain has proposed a Guaranteed Access Plan at every state in this country. It would provide federal and state assistance to make sure that individuals could buy a policy, at no more than 150% of the comparable policy in that state. Any denial would be immediately referred to a board which would adjudicate whether it was acceptable or not, and if it was not, that company, that had denied the claim, would be fined. He's going to take care of the most vulnerable population.
"He's also made the assertion that John McCain wants to deregulate health care like you would want to deregulate banking. This is the situation where it's the equivalent of having a consumer deregulation of banking to allow you to get off a plane and get money out of the ATM, in any state in the country. That's the kind of deregulation that allowed Americans to travel and not have to open a bank account in every state. They should equally be able to get a financial service for their health insurance across state lines.
"They also suggest that, somehow, that there will be no consumer protections. That's an insult to the 50 state insurance commissioners that are working very hard to ensure that in those states, insurance policies are well documented, that there is suitable coverage, there is safety and soundness regulations for every company that's headquartered in the state. None of that goes away under the John McCain plan. There's also the assertion that somehow the John McCain plan is going to shred employer coverage. The McCain plan is meant to build on the foundation of employer coverage which is the largest source of health insurance in the United States. There is no incentive for a young, healthy worker to walk out of an employer plan as the assertion goes. Suppose you're a 25-year old who has got about $5,000 in health insurance from your company. Under the McCain plan you're in the bottom bracket, you'll have a $500 tax liability, a $2500 c redit, a $2000 net addition to your HSA. Why would you trade that $5,000 policy with nothing out of your pocket for an inferior $2,500 policy bought in the individual market? No individual is going to walk out. Even someone in the 25% bracket comes out $1250 ahead. The assertions don't match the numbers in the McCain plan. It's simply an attempt to scare individuals.
"The McCain plan does stand in stark contrast to Barack Obama's plan. Obama has said that he would prefer to have a single payer system if that's where the United States had started and he is certainly making a strong push for much more centralized, government run health insurance. He has a mandate that parents must cover their children. Parents want to cover their children but they can't afford to. He will have to enforce this mandate somehow -- presumably with a fine -- for a mandate on parents who are unable to cover their children. It's a play-or-pay mandate on employers. Employers are going to take one look at that mandate, cover the $12,000 for workers or pay a fine, and they'll pay a fine. Where will those individuals end up? Well, either uninsured or in the new government-run insurance plan that Barack Obama is proposing. At a time when Medicare is already broken, he is going to have a new government insurance progr am for Americans, and it'll be run through a large new health bureaucracy, the Health Exchange, which all leads you to have mandates on employers, mandates on kids, a big push for new bureaucracies and new government programs. It's been estimated that his program will cost $240 billion a year. Now, that's not a way to improve prior coverage. That's not a way to improve the functioning of health insurance markets. That's enlarging government bureaucracies. That's like having your health insurance run by the DMV. Barack Obama says that Washington is broken, but he's running his health care system through it. It doesn't make sense. So it's time to set the record straight. John McCain's health care plan should be presented to the American people. They should compare it to Barack Obama's plan and make their choice. We trust the people that if they're given the fair information they'll make the right choice."
Listen To The Conference Call
Today, the McCain-Palin campaign held a press conference call with Doug Holtz-Eakin, McCain-Palin senior policy adviser, to discuss Barack Obama's lies concerning John McCain's proposed health care reforms:
Doug Holtz-Eakin: "At the moment, the Obama campaign has several ads up on radio and television attacking the McCain health plan and quite frankly these ads can only be described as cynical and deceitful. Despite the fact that Barack Obama has not shown the judgment to choose well in other policy areas, on this one it cannot possibly be a lack of knowledge or judgment. His adviser, Jason Furman, advocated for what is essentially the McCain health tax reform in the journal Democracy, in the summer of 2006, and so he could easily be informed as to how wrong these ads are. So it cannot be a lack of knowledge. It has to be a lack of honor.
"They are saying several things about the McCain tax plan that are just flat out wrong. The first thing was Senator Obama himself, in the first debate, said that John McCain would tax employers on the insurance they provide their employees, that is false. Nothing changes for the employer under the McCain healthcare reform. Nothing. They have the same incentives to provide health care insurance. They can still deduct all compensation cost, health insurance, wages, and others. They still want to attract high quality employees and providing a rich benefits package, pensions, health insurance, is a way to do that. Their incentives will be unchanged.
"They are saying that it is a big tax increase, and that, my friends, is also false. This is a plan where if you are receiving from your employer the health insurance that Barack Obama has decided that every American should have, whether they decide that or not, Barack Obama has decided everybody should have health insurance like a Congressman. That would be a $12,000 family plan. If you are receiving that from your employer you will have more money for healthcare left over after this tax reform than you do right now. If you are in the very bottom tax bracket, the 10% bracket, a $12,000 health insurance plan would yield a tax liability of $1,200. A $5,000 family refundable credit would more than offset that tax liability, leaving you with $3,800 to put in a HSA. If you are fortunate enough to be in that top bracket, the liability would be $4,200, more than offset by the $5,000 credit, $800 in your HSA. Now, it is the case that there may be some people at the very top who have a liability greater than their health tax credit. Now, under the current system as a result, the one that Barack Obama wants to defend which is attacking John McCain's system, we are having the middle class pay taxes and subsidize the gold plated coverage of the most affluent in America. And it perplexes me, even given his flexible policy principles, how he could walk around saying the things he says about the middle class and defend the status quo which rewards to greatest subsidy to the most affluent of Americans.
"He's called this a middle class tax increase. As I've pointed out, you've had to be getting an enormous amount of health insurance, one the middle class can only dream of, in order to have a net tax liability. For some Americans, they are actually paying out-of-pocket and getting no help whatsoever. This would give them the same help, $2,500 for an individual, $5,000 for a family, that those receiving from an employer get. Simple matter of fairness. And, there are many Americans who are uninsured, 47 million, roughly. This would give them money toward a health insurance policy, and it basically is nearly the cost, in the individual market, for a family policy of an individual policy, nationwide.
"Now, they're also saying that John McCain's health care plan would mean they never saw the money -- it would go straight to insurance companies. Well, that's just a ridiculous charge. Individuals control the insurance they choose under the John McCain plan. They decide the insurance company. It's essentially the same, I think, as the Associated Press pointed out, it's like saying money for a car loan will go straight to the car dealer. This is money in control of the individuals -- in control of families. John McCain trusts the judgment of the American people. He's willing to put the money in their hands because they know what's best. They can then shop, across state lines as the Senator has pointed out, to find a policy that fits their family's needs and, by producing greater competition among the 12,000-odd insurers, nationwide, generates some genuine policies at a reasonable cost, and a high quality of service, holding some insurance company's feet to the fire -- have them work for the American people, not the other way around.
"Senator Obama has leveled two charges on that particular approach: Number one, that that the most vulnerable -- those with previous conditions or high costs will be left exposed. He knows that's false. John McCain has proposed a Guaranteed Access Plan at every state in this country. It would provide federal and state assistance to make sure that individuals could buy a policy, at no more than 150% of the comparable policy in that state. Any denial would be immediately referred to a board which would adjudicate whether it was acceptable or not, and if it was not, that company, that had denied the claim, would be fined. He's going to take care of the most vulnerable population.
"He's also made the assertion that John McCain wants to deregulate health care like you would want to deregulate banking. This is the situation where it's the equivalent of having a consumer deregulation of banking to allow you to get off a plane and get money out of the ATM, in any state in the country. That's the kind of deregulation that allowed Americans to travel and not have to open a bank account in every state. They should equally be able to get a financial service for their health insurance across state lines.
"They also suggest that, somehow, that there will be no consumer protections. That's an insult to the 50 state insurance commissioners that are working very hard to ensure that in those states, insurance policies are well documented, that there is suitable coverage, there is safety and soundness regulations for every company that's headquartered in the state. None of that goes away under the John McCain plan. There's also the assertion that somehow the John McCain plan is going to shred employer coverage. The McCain plan is meant to build on the foundation of employer coverage which is the largest source of health insurance in the United States. There is no incentive for a young, healthy worker to walk out of an employer plan as the assertion goes. Suppose you're a 25-year old who has got about $5,000 in health insurance from your company. Under the McCain plan you're in the bottom bracket, you'll have a $500 tax liability, a $2500 c redit, a $2000 net addition to your HSA. Why would you trade that $5,000 policy with nothing out of your pocket for an inferior $2,500 policy bought in the individual market? No individual is going to walk out. Even someone in the 25% bracket comes out $1250 ahead. The assertions don't match the numbers in the McCain plan. It's simply an attempt to scare individuals.
"The McCain plan does stand in stark contrast to Barack Obama's plan. Obama has said that he would prefer to have a single payer system if that's where the United States had started and he is certainly making a strong push for much more centralized, government run health insurance. He has a mandate that parents must cover their children. Parents want to cover their children but they can't afford to. He will have to enforce this mandate somehow -- presumably with a fine -- for a mandate on parents who are unable to cover their children. It's a play-or-pay mandate on employers. Employers are going to take one look at that mandate, cover the $12,000 for workers or pay a fine, and they'll pay a fine. Where will those individuals end up? Well, either uninsured or in the new government-run insurance plan that Barack Obama is proposing. At a time when Medicare is already broken, he is going to have a new government insurance progr am for Americans, and it'll be run through a large new health bureaucracy, the Health Exchange, which all leads you to have mandates on employers, mandates on kids, a big push for new bureaucracies and new government programs. It's been estimated that his program will cost $240 billion a year. Now, that's not a way to improve prior coverage. That's not a way to improve the functioning of health insurance markets. That's enlarging government bureaucracies. That's like having your health insurance run by the DMV. Barack Obama says that Washington is broken, but he's running his health care system through it. It doesn't make sense. So it's time to set the record straight. John McCain's health care plan should be presented to the American people. They should compare it to Barack Obama's plan and make their choice. We trust the people that if they're given the fair information they'll make the right choice."
Listen To The Conference Call
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
