by | ARTICLES, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA
Most Americans would score Obama poorly on foreign policy issues. It’s a conundrum, really, because most of the things he has done, people seem to have supported him – from pulling troops out of Afghanistan, to not going to war in Syria. And yet, people think he has done very badly with his decisions.
While at first glance it may seem inconsistent, it is not actually inconsistent at all. People don’t necessarily want their opinions of foreign policy matters carried out; instead, what they want is for the Executive Branch to lead and do the right thing for the country. So much information relating to foreign policy is not public and cannot be made privy to public. For that reason, our country has depended on the Executive Branch to use the information to do the right thing for American, first and foremost above what may be popular sentiment or easy.
FDR faced this with WWII. Almost universally no one wanted to go to war but when the United States was attacked and FDR told the American people, “we need to do this”, Americans said okay and fully supported the war effort. Similar situations with Reagan and Panama, Clinton and Kosovo. These were not particularly popular positions, but when the Presidents made their case, Americans by-and-large gave their support.
What the Presidents didn’t do, was ask first. We had leaders who would lead, even it they did something that was not exactly the most popular or easiest — because there has been a mutual understanding that a President will act first and foremost for the best of his country based on his more full knowledge.
Here’s where Obama is different. We now have a president who is trying to do what he thinks will get him the most political points with the people. This is not presidential. This is not how presidents act. This has given us terrible results.
Obama, like all other presidents, has all the information at his fingertips. Instead of doing what he should do on foreign policy questions — which is to lead — he is trying to listen to the people and gauge their temperature, if they are warm to the idea, instead of telling Americans what is right.
What Americans may by-and-large think what is the right thing to do is sometimes wrong because we do not have the full picture. We understand decisions need to be made on sound policy, not politics. But for Obama, his leadership style has been that of politics first, policy second. Because he’d rather do what he perceives is politically beneficial instead of lead with conviction, both his domestic and foreign audiences find Obama to be weak and ineffective in foreign policy matters.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK, OBAMACARE
Would any consumer-driven industry be able to get away with this?
“Surprise medical bills occur when a consumer does everything possible to use hospitals and doctors that are in the consumer’s insurance plan, but nonetheless receives a bill from a specialist or other medical provider by whom the consumer did not know he or she would be treated, and who was outside his or her plan’s network of providers.
Worse, a relatively small but significant number of out-of-network specialists appear to take advantage in emergency care situations in particular, where the consumer has little choice or ability to “shop” for an appropriate provider. Too frequently, out-of-network specialists charge excessive fees — many times larger than what private or public insurers typically allow. In one example, a New Yorker who severed his finger in an accident went to participating hospital and ultimately received an $83,000 bill from a plastic surgeon who reattached the finger but – unbeknownst to the patient — was outside the insured’s network of providers.
The problem of surprise bills is not limited to emergency situations. They also can occur when a consumer schedules health care services in advance and an in-network provider, such as an anesthesiologist, is not available. In these instances, consumers are not told that the provider is out-of-network, not informed about how much the provider will charge, or not advised how much the insurer will cover. This lack of disclosure not only ill serves the consumer, but also undermines the efficiency of the health insurance market because consumers cannot effectively comparison shop for benefits or services”
This except from is part of a larger letter from Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services for New York State, written to members of the New York State Legislature. You can read the letter here.
In any other industry, this would ALL be considered fraud.
by | ARTICLES, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, QUICKLY NOTED
From Katie Pavlich at Townhall.com
“According to new IRS emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from Judicial Watch, former head of tax exempt groups at the IRS Lois Lerner was in contact with the Department of Justice in May 2013 about whether tax exempt groups could be criminally prosecuted for “lying” about political activity.
JW IRS doc
Read the full story here
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, TAXES
The Tax Foundation releases an annual “Tax Freedom Day” report, which calculates “the day when the nation as a whole has earned enough money to pay its total tax bill for year”.
This is done by looking at federal budget projections, data from the U.S. Census and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and projections of state & local taxes. Then, all the federal, state, and local taxes are divided by the country’s income.
This year, Tax Freedom day is April 21st, 3 days later than last year. The Tax Foundation cites sluggish economic growth and recovery.
Here’s a neat graphic from the Tax Foundation, which shows the breakdown:
The Tax Foundation calculates that “in 2014, Americans will pay $3.0 trillion in federal taxes and $1.5 trillion in state taxes, for a total tax bill of $4.5 trillion, or 30.2 percent of income”.
You can also visit the site to see how your state factors in, or what the Tax Freedom date is if you include federal borrowing.
by | ARTICLES, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, TAXES
Last week, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, John Koskinen, spoke to the National Press Club on a variety of matters. One of the items he discussed was the proposed regulation changes to 501c4s.
As I mentioned earlier, the citizen commentary on this matter was unprecedented. As such, the IRS concluded they could not review it all in a timely matter for this year. However, he did not say that the matter was closed — only delayed:
“Another recommendation by the IG was that the Treasury Department and the IRS should provide clearer guidance on how to assess the permissibility of 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations’ activities. So last November, Treasury and the IRS issued proposed regulations that are designed to clarify the extent to which a 501(c)(4) organization can engage in political activity without endangering its tax-exempt status.
While I was not involved in the issuance of this draft proposal, because it happened before I was confirmed as Commissioner, I believe it is extremely important to make this area of regulation as clear as possible. Not only does that help the IRS properly enforce the law, but clearer regulations will also give a better roadmap to applicants, and will help those that already have 501(c)(4) status properly administer their organizations without unnecessary fears of losing their tax-exempt status.
During the comment period, which ended in February, we received more than 150,000 comments. That’s a record for an IRS rulemaking comment period. In fact, if you take all the comments on all Treasury and IRS draft proposals over the last seven years and double that number, you come close to the number of comments we are now beginning to review and analyze. It’s going to take us a while to sort through all those comments, hold a public hearing, possibly repropose a draft regulation and get more public comments. This means that it is unlikely we will be able to complete this process before the end of the year.”
Therefore, the IRS will continue to ponder the matter and revisit it — likely during another important election cycle. It is imperative to keep an eye on this, as the changes are onerous and unnecessary for the operation of 501c4s to educate and advocate.
by | ARTICLES, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, OBAMA, POLITICS
Mat Staver from the Liberty Council put together a good overview of the proposed changes to Social Welfare Organizations (501c4s). Below is a partial list that attempts to define political activity, changing the language that has stood for more than 50 years.
“IRS Regulation-134417-13, “Guidance for Tax-Exempt Social Welfare Organizations on Candidate-Related Political Activities,” is a proposed new regulation that is an outrageously brazen attempt by the IRS to silence the speech of 501(c)(4) organizations before the upcoming election. If implemented, the regulation would prohibit a 501(c)(4) from speaking to matters of public concern during the 2014 election cycle.
In part, the proposed regulation:
–Prohibits using words like “oppose,” “vote,” “support,” “defeat,” and “reject;”
–Prohibits mentioning, on its website or on any communication (email, letter, etc.) that would reach 500 people or more, the name of a candidate for office 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days prior to a general election;
–Prohibits mentioning the name of a political party 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days prior to a general election, if that party has a candidate running for office;
–Prohibits voter registration drives or conducting a nonpartisan “get-out-the-vote” drive;
–Prohibits creating or distributing voter guides outlining how incumbents voted on particular bills;
–Prohibits hosting candidates for office at any event, including debates and charitable fundraisers, 30 days prior to a primary election or 60 days prior to a general election, if the candidate is part of the event’s program;
–Prohibits distributing any materials prepared on behalf of a candidate for office;
–Restricts employees of such organizations from volunteering;
–Restricts the ability of officers and leaders of such organizations to make public statements regarding the nomination of judges;
–Creates a 90-day blackout period, in an election year, that restricts the speech of §501(c)(4) organizations;
–Declares political activity as contrary to the promotion of social welfare; and
–Protects labor unions and trade associations by not including them under the proposed regulations.
The proposed IRS regulation even restricts the ability of leaders within these organizations to speak publicly regarding legislative matters of public concern and to volunteer”
Tens of thousands of comments have been recorded during the IRS open comment session, which has now closed. While the 501c4s wait to hear the outcome, many have chosen not to be active right now, which is having an impact on the current 2014 election cycle..
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
The extensive, substantive, and expensive Obamacare changes being made now on a regular basis by President Obama certainly appear to be an unconstitutional, if for no other reason than law changes of that magnitude seem clearly to be Congress’s domain. But the administration argues that these are just minor tweaks needed to ease the implementation of a vast new law. Let’s look at reality.
Government periodically changes tax rules through new legislation. Often, the new laws require clarification concerning how to interpret the law under certain conditions, and the law itself anticipates that the IRS will issue regulations, rulings, or procedures to assist in understanding the law. The President’s Obamacare changes have nothing to do with this, since the President is changing unambiguous, clearly understandable provisions of the law.
Often, especially when new laws reflect a major change from prior law, these new laws require a way to smooth the transition. So when President Clinton phased out exemptions and some deductions for high net-worth individuals, the law provided that only ⅓ of the disallowances would apply for the first year, ⅔ for the second year, and complete disallowances from the 3rd year forward. This is an example of a “transition rule”. It allowed for the substantial effects of the new law to be smoothly integrated into people’s tax lives.
As a CPA, I have to deal with the tax code side of things, and the process that happens with such tax changes is called the “transition rules”. Tedious as it may be, Congress spends a lot of time on these transition rules to get it right.
Having experienced major tax changes such as the 1986 IRC overhaul, and the Bush “tax cuts” of 2001 and 2003, I can say that the transition rules during these times were specific, onerous, and complicated. They particulars were negotiated by Congress down to every last period and exclamation point.
Everyone knows the transition rules are the province of Congress.
So for the President to come out and say that he has the universal right to make tax transition rules, it is laughable — and one of the biggest lies yet. If his advisors did not tell him it is Congress’s role to make transition rules, he should fire all of them for incompetence.
One of the most important things about transition rules is that Congress spends time negotiating in committee and on the floor, the revenue effect of those rules. They are complex and interwoven with the law and focus on the effects of implementing that law. An example might be for Congress to consider whether to make the pain of the law spread out over time, or implemented all at once.
It is absolutely irregular for President Obama to insert himself into law and play with the transition rules willy-nilly. As a CPA, I would demand to see his detailed analysis of the revenue effects of these changes. I am not confident that such an analysis exists.
It is absolutely critical to understand the problem that Obama creates: only Congress is allowed to appropriate revenue, not the President. Therefore, any transition rules changes made by Obama that wreak havoc on the budget lack the proper authority to appropriate extra revenue to cover the effect of such changes.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE
The recent revelation that the White House, congressional Democrats, and the CBO all now consider work to be a lifestyle choice reminds me of a scenario some years back with one of my clients.
There was a person who was getting a divorce, and the couple had 2 children. One of the discussions involved who was going to pay for the children’s college. The husband offered to pay 90% of the cost since he made substantially more money, leaving 10% as the wife’s portion to pay. This seemed to be a pretty fair offer.
The wife, on the other hand, did not agree that the offer was fair. Her rationale? If she ultimately got remarried down the road and decided to stay at home and not work, she would not be able to afford her 10% portion.
Understandably, the husband was taken aback. He said to her something along the lines of “you mean to tell me that you have a responsibility to take care of your children’s education, and because you have the chance not to work, then your children’s needs and your obligations somehow aren’t your responsibility anymore?”
The wife was understandably a little embarrassed, as she had never looked at it that way before.
Have you? We ought to have the moral compass not to insist that other people pay our bills for us.
This brings us back to Obamacare. It is not in any way morally acceptable, for those of us who are working, to subsidize people who prefer not to work and stay home and call it a “choice”.
Here’s the root of programs like Obamacare and welfare. A social safety net is supposed to be just that — a temporary hand-up, not a prolonged hand-out. A steady diet of benefits creates a disincentive to work. The decision not to work unfairly forces other people (who do work) to pay for the things that the benefit receipients should be paying for. With the expansion of programs such as food stamps, unemployment, and now healthcare, we are making it harder, if not impossible, to move out of that lower class rung.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
What is Wall Street, anyway? I would be willing to bet that 90% of the protesters from Occupy Wall Street and of self-styled liberals have absolutely no idea what Wall Street is, what it does, and how important it is.
If not for Wall Street, there wouldn’t be any Main Street, certainly not as we know it today.
In order for any business to be successful, it must run on capital. Capital can be funded by an owner’s personal investment or through funds from outside investors. The ability to grow from the Mom and Pop store to the bigger corporation model is dependent upon the business owner’s ability to get risk capital.
This risk capital is necessary to rent the space, hire the employees, grow the inventory,and buy the equipment to get the business going. There is no guarantee that this money could ever be paid back. But the investors are willing to risk their hard-earned money in the hope that the venture is successful enough to 1) repay the money borrowed and 2) to give back a reasonable profit for the risk taken.
So where does that money typically come, that risk capital? Wall Street. Look around the house at what you have. Your lights? From the utility company. Where did that capital come from to build the utility plants, to lay the distribution networks, to expand them? Risk capital. Wall Street. Where did Macy’s get its start? Or Google, or IBM? Or any of the energy, pharmaceutical, or chemical companies? Or virtually any large corporation you can think of today — where did it get its funds to really get going and continue to grow? Wall Street.
And the people on Wall Street, people sometimes described (invariably by clueless politicians and populists who know nothing about what it takes to run a business or create jobs) as paper-pushers who make unconscionable amounts of money, what do they do?
They must be able to analyze how businesses (Main Street) work, and which ones (out of the many thousands out there all claiming to be worthy) are likely to be successful. They must develop the confidence of potential investors, and convince them to invest in these projects. They must bring the companies and investors together to agree on how much of the company the investors would get for the amount of capital that is being invested. Should the money invested be equity (ownership in the company) or bonds (loans to the company), and if bonds, what interest rate? Most importantly, more than in any other business, pay day never comes to Wall Street unless the capital is successfully raised. And if Main Street is not successful with its new capital, good luck for that Wall Street company in trying to raise money for its next project.
There have been abuses on Wall street, certainly. But there is absolutely no reason to believe that there are any more abuses than in any other business. And those abuses almost always are paid for with serious financial pain to those companies.
But none of these abuses can compare with the financial abuses and mismanagement that we endure daily from our government. Our government has us at the brink of bankruptcy, with a $17 trillion dollar debt (more than 100% of our GDP) which balloons to more than $100 trillion if our entitlement obligations are included.
We have President Obama and the Democratic leaders of the Senate (Harry Reid) and the House (Nancy Pelosi) saying that this is not a current problem (clearly not the truth) and spending money they don’t have to get votes for the next election. A short trip through YouTube (circa 2004-2005) clearly show that Barney Frank (Democratic House…), Chris Dodd (Democratic Senate ….) and Maxine Waters (Democratic House ….), among other Democrats, were principally responsible for the recent economic meltdown. The videos of Congressional Hearings demonstrate unquestionably that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were cooking their own books and lending to dangerously unqualified borrowers, but the Democrats prevented any remedial action to be taken.
And taxpayers and Main Street have borne the heavy burden of their negligence during this sluggish, anemic economic recovery.
Wall Street is an invisible backbone of our economy — providing the money and investments that are necessary to continue America’s upward mobility in all facets of our lives. Focusing only on trumped up Wall Street problems or buying into the class warfare hatred of the rich is misguided — especially while giving our government a free pass to use and abuse our taxpayer money each day.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
It was certainly no surprise to most of us the the CBO report showed Obamacare was costing the economy countless jobs. White House and congressional Democrats could have put a rational spin on it – that this was a necessary price to pay in order to get his signature health care proposal implemented, – but they didn’t do that.
Instead, they chose a response which showed them to be the disingenuous hypocrites that they truly are. It also showed that the true intention is simply political — in other words, they wantonly come up with whatever excuse will lose them the least number of votes.
The White House and congressional Democrats have explained the CBO’s job loss outlook to actually be a good thing. The job losses merely reflect the fact that individuals will, going forward, have choices. Such examples include the option to retire before one might have otherwise done so, or perhaps stay at home as a single parent because the government is providing for them (health care) what otherwise only a job could.
But this “logic” is ridiculous. Electing the option to not work when one could do so will certainly prevent many people from getting ahead along the economic chain. And in combination with an extension of food stamp benefits, an extension of unemployment benefits, an extension of other welfare programs, and raising the minimum wage, all are acting in tandem to prevent the upward mobility that the President has said he so sorely wants and unequivocally demands.
He can’t have it both ways. The President cannot be both against economic inequality and simultaneously for policies that maintain prolonged dependence. The preposterous idea that work is now a “lifestyle” choice reveals the shallowness of his commitment to economic success.
