by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS
Congress heard a report this week that evidenced interference by the Obama administration into Congressional process with regard to a piece of radiation legislation in 2014. The Administration appears to have used the Department of Energy to forward his particular climate change package while simultaneously remove opposing viewpoints and sour lawmakers on a certain bill that would possibly conflict with his agenda.
The Washington Free Beacon produced the overview; I have reprinted it below in its entirety so as to not leave out any pertinent details:
A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda, according to a new report that alleges the administration ordered top officials to obstruct Congress in order to forward this agenda.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, released a wide-ranging report on Tuesday that shows how senior Obama administration officials retaliated against a leading scientist and plotted ways to block a congressional inquiry surrounding key research into the impact of radiation.
A top DoE scientist who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, according to the report, which provides an in-depth look at the White House’s efforts to ensure senior staffers toe the administration’s line.
The report also provides evidence that the Obama administration worked to kill legislation in order to ensure that it could receive full funding for its own hotly contested climate change agenda.
The report additionally discovered efforts by the Obama administration to censor the information given to Congress, interfering with the body’s ability to perform critical oversight work.
“Instead of providing the type of scientific information needed by Congress to legislate effectively, senior departmental officials sought to hide information, lobbied against legislation, and retaliated against a scientist for being forthcoming,” Smith said in a statement. “In this staff report based on lengthy record before the committee, much has been revealed about how senior level agency officials under the Obama administration retaliated against a scientist who did not follow the party line.”
“Moving forward, the department needs to overhaul its management practices to ensure that Congress is provided the information it requires to legislate and that federal employees and scientists who provide that information do so without fear of retribution,” Smith said.
The report goes into Congress’ efforts to regulate the Low Dose Radiation Research Program, or LDRRP, which sought to test the impact of radiation on human beings. The program, started in the 1990s, was meant to support research into waste cleanup and the impact of nuclear weapons.
In mid-2014, lawmakers introduced legislation, the Low Dose Radiation Act of 2014, to help regulate the program and minimize harmful side effects.
During an October 2014 briefing with senior DoE staff on the matter, lawmakers heard testimony from Dr. Noelle Metting, the radiation research program’s manager.
Less than a month later, lawmakers discovered that Obama administration officials had “removed Dr. Metting from federal service for allegedly providing too much information in response to questions posed by” Congress during the briefing, the report states.
Congressional investigators later determined that the administration’s “actions to remove Dr. Metting were, in part, retaliation against Dr. Metting because she refused to conform to the predetermined remarks and talking points designed by Management to undermine the advancement of” the 2014 radiation act.
Emails unearthed during the investigation “show a sequence of events leading to a premeditated scheme by senior DoE employees ‘to squash the prospects of Senate support’” for the radiation act, a move that lawmakers claim was meant to help advance President Obama’s own climate change goals.
“The committee has learned that one of DoE’s stated purposes for Dr. Metting’s removal from federal service was her failure to confine the discussion at the briefing to pre-approved talking points,” according to the report. “The committee has also established that DoE management … failed to exercise even a minimal standard of care to avoid chilling other agency scientists as a result of the retaliation against Dr. Metting for her refusal to censor information from Congress.”
The investigation concluded that “DoE placed its own priorities to further the president’s Climate Action Plan before its constitutional obligations to be candid with Congress,” the report states. “The DoE’s actions constitute a reckless and calculated attack on the legislative process itself, which undermines the power of Congress to legislate. The committee further concludes that DoE’s disregard for separation of powers is not limited to a small group of employees, but rather is an institutional problem that must be corrected by overhauling its management practices with respect to its relationship with the Congress.”
These moves by the administration were part of an effort to secure full funding for the president’s climate change agenda, the report claims.
“Instead of working to understand the value of the LDRRP for emergency situations, DoE Management engaged in a campaign to terminate research programs that could divert funds from the president’s Climate Action Plan,” the report states.
Congress is recommending a full overhaul of the DoE’s management structure in order to ensure this type of situation does not occur again.
by | BLOG, GOVERNMENT, HEALTHCARE, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
It gets really annoying when commentators blather on about Obamacare and the Republican’s plan to repeal and replace; they get called hypocrites and the commentators keep suggesting that there is no plan to replace Obamacare, because they are terrified that it actually might happen, striking at the heart of the pinnacle of liberal policies.
But it’s not true and we all know it. It’s like the same lie we keep here over and over from the Democrats that the Republicans are being obstructionist and have nothing to contribute. “Being obstructionist” for the left means that the Republicans aren’t interested in sacrificing core principles for some ridiculous leftist policy. Likewise, saying the Republicans have “nothing to contribute” simply means that the Republicans have nothing to contribute that would appeal to the leftists.
The lie gets repeated because the press is either too lazy or too in the bed with certain camps to actually report on facts. Paul Ryan and Congress have come up their “A Better Way” proposal and its like it doesn’t even exist among mainstream media, because it goes against the narrative that “Republican are bad” and “Democrats are good.” Unfortunately, that narrative got deflated on Election Day.
Until now, no one has bothered to vote on the “A Better Way’ plan, because everyone who pays attention knew that Obama would automatically veto it. Now that Obama will be gone, now is the time to do it. The question is, will the commentators finally admit that such a roadmap to recovery exists?
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES, TRUMP
I’m sick and tired of reading over and over again in places, both liberal and conservative, that the Trump and GOP-proposed tax reforms are going to give the lion’s share of the cuts to the top 1%. The entire concept is utterly distorted, especially in light of the fact that nobody talked about the litany of tax increases that occurred when Obama and his Democrat cronies passed the Obama and Obamacare increases.
Obama raised the Bush tax rates on only the wealthiest earners from 36% – 39.6 % and then again raised the tax rates on only the same wealthiest by adding a Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT) of 3.8%, — otherwise known as the “Obamacare Tax” — which covered all investment income of individuals, estates, and trusts. What’s more, Obama also raised capital gains on the wealthiest earners from 15% – 20%, but when the NIIT 3.8% tax was added to it, it actually raised the capital gains rates on the highest earners from 15 – 23.8% — an effective increase of nearly 59%!
Those ludicrous tax increases that no one talks about were principally responsible — along with the hemorrhage of regulations coming out of the Obama administration — for the horrific economic performance we’ve experienced since Obama took office. The first step the new Trump administration should take would be to reverse those very tax increases that Obama inflicted, which went 100% to the higher income individuals, and 0% to the middle class and lower income earners. The reversal of those insane tax increases should in no way be considered a tax cut as part of any tax reform package. Such a change would be a mere restoration of more reasonable rates from what was in fact an insane toxin on our entire economy.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES, TRUMP
Nick Timiraos’ recent article in the Wall Street Journal ( Donald Trump’s Spending Push Rankles Fiscal Conservatives, 11/28/16) , is rather disingenuous with his so-called analysis of Trump’s fiscal roadmap. He clearly aims to torpedo Trump’s plan to cut taxes by tying the discussion to deficits — though correlation, of course, does not necessarily mean causation. Timiraos’ analysis is full of half-truths, but it is not entirely certain if that is willfully written or just plain economic ignorance.
First, Timiraos suggests that budget deficits “fell from 2010” but “are on track to climb in the next decade,” yet doesn’t even give any hard data to back that up — because their really isn’t any. A deficit is still a deficit. Going from a $1.4 trillion budget deficit, as Obama had in 2009, down to a $600 billion deficit in 2016, is still a massive deficit. And of course, Timiraos also doesn’t even mention that the “the total national debt nearly doubled to $19.3 trillion from $10.6 trillion when Obama took office.” Those two data points indicate an enormous spending problem on the part of Obama, something Timiraos totally ignores.
Timiraos then has the audacity to try to link rising deficits to tax cuts by Republicans. Timiraos writes, “the last two times Republicans reclaimed the White House from Democrats—in 1981 and 2001—they also successfully pushed for large tax cuts. Deficits nonetheless rose during their administrations.” Again, another instance of Timiraos telling only part of the story. Both tax cuts resulted in huge revenue increases, but it was even greater spending that created larger deficits. The tax cuts were not the problem; the deficits were not caused by a lack of revenue. Even Republicans can overspend.
Once more, near the end of the article, Timiraos tries again to make Obama’s economics to be the pinnacle of fiscal responsibility, when he writes, “Concerns about deficits over the past few years have faded because economic growth remains disappointing and because Washington took several steps to cut spending and increase taxes after deficits jumped in 2009. Deficits have also fallen below projections in recent years due to a surprising decline in the growth rate of health care spending and because interest rates have been lower than projected.” Only the Democrats are unconcerned about deficits — because their deficit spending is so astronomical, it’s better not to talk about it at all! Suggesting that Obama “cut spending and increased taxes” and that “Deficits have also fallen below projections in recent years” again ignores Obama still spent $600 billion – $1.4 trillion more than his revenue receipts were. When deficits are projected to be $1 trillion, and the actual deficit comes in a bit lower than that (but still in the hundreds of billions), you still have a deficit problem! Timiraos also ignores the fact that Obama regularly had record tax receipts each month (noted on this blog numerous times), and yet Obama still could not control his overspending.
To ignore this economic reality of the past eight years, and the simultaneously try to suggest that a tax plan with tax cuts will alarmingly increase the deficit is reckless. Timiraos ought to be ashamed at such blatant hypocrisy.
by | ARTICLES, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES, TRUMP
On Election Day, many people were willing to overlook Donald Trump’s personal weaknesses because they realized that the biggest factor in this election was the economy — it affected their day-to-day lives more than anything else.
Many people – uniformly partisan Democrats – have accused Trump’s supporters of being bigots; but facts dispute this. A simple look at the voting changes between 2008/2012 and 2016 shows that fully one-third of counties that went for Obama in both 2008 and 2012 went for Trump in 2016. Clearly these Obama supporters were not bigots, and show that the move to Trump was based on real issues. You can hardly play the race card with such data. The electorate understood and believed that Trump’s economic policies were superior to Hillary’s, and they would be better off economically going forward with a President Trump instead of President Clinton.
Every single policy that Clinton advocated would have made the standard of living worse for the poor and the lower middle class – her major constituency. And this would have substantially increased inequality, the opposite of what she had promised. Her policies included:
- raising taxes on the upper middle class and the wealthy (who are already at an obscenely high tax rate). This stifles new growth by reducing the capital that would otherwise have gone into new or expanding businesses, and the jobs they would have created.
- increasing regulations, including overtime, sick pay, child care, union rules, environmental restrictions, etc. This places huge additional costs and burdens on job providers and creators, reducing the likelihood that they could provide new jobs.
- raising the minimum wage. This makes it too expensive for businesses to keep the least productive people on their payroll, as well as incentivizing business use of technology instead of people to grow.
Those that voted for Trump have been left behind or worse by Obama’s economic strategies. A vote for Hillary meant a vote for more of the same. So much of America is tired of that status quo, and wants to be able to not just try to survive — but thrive once again. For those who want to cast aspersions and heap cries of racism and other -isms upon the Americans who voted for our next President, they would be wise to remember the famous slogan of the other Clinton Era: “It’s the economy, stupid!”
by | ARTICLES, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK, OBAMA, POLITICS
I recently attended a dinner in NYC and sat next to a very nice professor from NYU. He was non-tenured, and have moved to the United States from Europe a decade ago. Because he was somewhat low-level, he felt he could not speak out any anything controversial or conservative, which is anathema to the idea of a university being a free exchange of ideas.
What’s more, this professor relayed how he had gotten an email from senior level administration at NYU after Trump was elected; the email pretty much stated how terrible it was the Trump one. This type of email from a high-ranking NYU official, could only be sent to faculty and staff if such positions were overwhelmingly singular-minded (in this case liberal) so that there would be little-to-no blowback for articulating such a position on a controversial matter.
Unfortunately, this anecdote represents a mindset that seems to be infecting NYU; two other, recent incidents support this. First, NYU decided to cancel a talk given by Milo Yiannopoulos that was scheduled this month. Mr. Yiannopoulos is the tech editor of the Breitbart website, and “has been criticized for his comments on Muslims, Black Lives Matter activists and feminists.” NYU’s official position cited “security concerns,” because the talk “was going to be held near student groups at NYU’s Manhattan campus ‘that are subjects of Mr. Yiannopoulos’ attacks.’” Of course, the real reason for this is that Yiannopoulos is popular among the alt-right, and giving him a platform to espouse his views — as controversial as some may find — would be bad. Better to silence someone with whom you disagree instead of mutual engaging and exchanging of viewpoints.
NYU has extended this mindset to one of its own professors. On October 30, “An NYU professor crusading against political correctness and student coddling was booted from the classroom last week after his colleagues complained about his ‘incivility.’” Michael Rechtenwald was a professor of liberal studies, and was put on paid leave for the rest of the semester. According to the NY Post, “Rectenwald launched an undercover Twitter account called Deplorable NYU Prof on Sept. 12 to argue against campus trends like “safe spaces,” “trigger warnings” policing Halloween costumes and other aspects of academia’s growing PC culture.
Once his identity became known, a “12-person committee calling itself the Liberal Studies Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Working Group, including two deans, published a letter to the editor:
“As long as he airs his views with so little appeal to evidence and civility, we must find him guilty of illogic and incivility in a community that predicates its work in great part on rational thought and the civil exchange of ideas. We seek to create a dynamic community that values full participation. Such efforts are not the ‘destruction of academic integrity’ Professor Rectenwald suggests, but rather what make possible our program’s approach to global studies.”
The same day the letter was published, Rectenwald was summoned to a meeting with his department dean and an HR representative, Rectenwald described how, “They claimed they were worried about me and a couple people had expressed concern about my mental health. They suggested my voicing these opinions was a cry for help.”
Apparently, expressing an opinion counter to the prevailing liberal cultural at NYU will silence you (if you are a professor), cancel you (if you are a speaker), or remove you and claim you have a mental health crisis (if you are an undercover and outspoken critic). This is what passes for academia these days, and it is truly reprehensible.
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
As we’ve been following this story regarding the IRS for years, here’s the latest update from the Washington Times:
Nearly seven years after it applied to the IRS for nonprofit status, the Albuquerque Tea Party has finally been given a decision: Denied.
The tax agency, under orders from a federal judge, is belatedly tackling the remaining tea party cases that it delayed for years, and so far the tea party isn’t doing well. Only one of the three groups in the case was approved, and the other two, including Albuquerque, got notices of proposed denials last week.
The applicants will have a chance to appeal, but the denials aren’t sitting well with the groups, whose attorney said it’s more evidence that the IRS continues to single out the tea party for abuse.
“It is clear that we still have an IRS that is corrupt and incapable of self-correction,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, which represented a number of tea party groups in a case against the tax agency.
The one group that was approved was Unite in Action, a Michigan-based organization that first applied for tax-exempt status more than six years ago. The Albuquerque Tea Party and Tri Cities Tea Party from Washington state were notified of proposed denials.
“It is clear that we still have an IRS that is corrupt and incapable of self-correction,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, which represented a number of tea party groups in a case against the tax agency.
Still to come is a decision on Texas Patriots Tea Party, a group that is part of a separate class-action lawsuit out of Ohio. A judge in that case ruled late last month that the IRS was likely violating the group’s First Amendment rights by delaying its application and ordered the tax agency to process and decide on the application.
The IRS, which declined to comment on the new decisions, admitted in court that it did subject the tea party groups to intrusive scrutiny, singling them out because of their political viewpoints and forcing them to go through hurdles that other groups didn’t face.
IRS officials over the summer promised both the courts and Congress that the agency would begin to process all outstanding applications after years of delay that it blamed on a “litigation hold” policy.
Under that policy, the IRS said once a group sued, the agency stopped work on its application. Federal courts held that policy was both ill-advised and not a hard-and-fast rule and ordered the agency to get back to work.
In a notice filed last week, the IRS said it has now met its first deadline.
“As of November 8, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service has issued determinations with respect to each of the Plaintiffs whose applications for tax exempt status had been pending,” the agency said.
Mr. Sekulow said the groups never should have faced the delays, adding that they showed “continuing problems inside the IRS.”
In a court filing this weekend Mr. Sekulow asked a federal judge in the District of Columbia to officially declare that the IRS violated groups’ First Amendment rights.
The groups also said they are worried that the IRS decision-making in applications that were denied might have been skewed by the entire history of the targeting.
The Albuquerque Tea Party first applied on Dec. 29, 2009. Four months later, it got a two-page, 10-question reply from the IRS, beginning years of back and forth. It has faced a series of follow-up questions, the years long delay in court and an offer to be approved — if the group would agree to limit its political advocacy to 40 percent of its activities.
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Jay Cost is one of my favorite writers these days, blending history and analysis in a straightforward tone. Here’s his take on why Clinton lost:
“Political coalitions are tricky things to manage in the United States. Ours is a country of more than 320 million people but only two major political parties—so each side’s voting bloc tends to be unstable at the margins, where national elections are actually won and lost. It is hard to build a winning coalition, harder still to maintain it during the laborious process of governing, and hardest of all to hand it off to a designated successor. It takes a politician of the highest caliber—a Roosevelt, a Reagan—to accomplish all this.
As last week’s results clearly demonstrated, Barack Obama is not cut from such an Augustan cloth. The political coalition he built in 2008 burst apart in spectacular fashion. His successor will not be Hillary Clinton, his secretary of state, but Donald Trump, the man who accused him of being a foreigner.
No lame duck president has ever had to suffer such ignominy. If Obama were to quietly steal out of town on January 20, as John Adams and John Quincy Adams did upon their defeats, nobody could blame him. Even so, Obama’s coalition fell apart because he failed utterly to maintain it during his tenure.
For eight years, we have heard stories about Obama’s “coalition of the ascendant.” Single women, millennials, Latinos and Asians, gays and lesbians, and so on, drove Obama to a fantastic electoral victory in 2008 and would power the Democrats for a generation—or more—to come.
While these blocs were integral to Obama’s triumph in 2008, there were other, more humdrum factions as well—the typical ones that every Democratic politician, be he as cool as Obama or as boring as John Kerry, has to win over. The suburban women of Florida’s I-4 corridor. The blue-collar workers in Dubuque and Erie. The African Americans in Detroit and Milwaukee, who are always counted on to deliver an enormous haul for the party. These voters are not the stuff of highfalutin’ think pieces for liberal magazines, but they were nevertheless an essential part of Obama’s victory.
They abandoned his successor last week. Not altogether, of course—but enough to serve the Democrats a shocking defeat.
There had been warning signs from virtually the start of Obama’s tenure. He won a smashing victory in 2008 by sweeping the traditional swing states and adding new ones to the list—Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. But voters in all these states signaled at some point over the last seven years that their loyalty was not unconditional. Starting with Bob McDonnell’s whopping victory in the Virginia gubernatorial race in 2009, then Scott Brown’s surprise Senate triumph in Massachusetts, and finally to the Tea Party wave of 2010—it was evident by the halfway point of Obama’s first term that personal affection for him did not necessarily translate to support for his policies or other Democrats. Then came 2012, in which the president was reelected with 3.6 million fewer votes than he received four years prior. The admonition was repeated in 2014, when the Republican wave that hit the House of Representatives in 2010 wiped the Democrats out of their Senate majority.
Obama’s response to these electoral setbacks was to pretend they did not happen. Again and again, he stubbornly refused to change course. When he lost his filibuster-proof Senate majority in 2010, he passed an unfinished version of Obamacare through the budget reconciliation process. When he and House speaker John Boehner were on the cusp of striking a grand bargain on taxes and entitlements in the summer of 2011, he insisted on additional tax hikes at the last minute, skunking the deal. When he won a narrow victory in 2012, he called for extensive gun control legislation, framing the debate in Manichean terms that alienated those Midwestern voters who had the gall to support him and the NRA simultaneously. When the Democrats lost the Senate in 2014, he enacted immigration reform through executive fiat and brokered a highly unpopular deal with Iran.
Last but not least, he handed off leadership of his party to Hillary Clinton. Weighed down by personal and professional issues, she was his opposite in almost every way. During the Democratic primary battle of 2008, she had been a useful foil for Obama, illustrating his point that it was time for a new approach to governance. Now, she was the heir apparent—as if his voters would not care either way. Turns out they did.
Much of the blame for last week’s defeat obviously belongs to Clinton, who was a terrible candidate. But one cannot overlook Obama’s responsibility in this epic debacle. He blessed Clinton’s candidacy early in the cycle, despite the fact that she was under investigation by the FBI. And for years prior, he had acted as though he could do as he wished and retain the loyalty of his voters.
He was wrong. Clinton dramatically underperformed with the white working-class in the Midwest. She did not receive sufficient margins from African Americans in the Rust Belt or the South. And though she had the noxious Trump as her opponent, she failed to make up for these setbacks with swing voters in places like suburban Charlotte or Philadelphia. Nor did she make many inroads with traditional GOP constituencies in Milwaukee and Grand Rapids, who had been turned off by the bombastic Republican in the primaries. Even the Latino vote disappointed, leaving Florida out of reach and Colorado surprisingly close. Only the Harry Reid “machine” in Nevada functioned as expected.
When Obama leaves the White House in two months, the Republican party will hold more public offices than at any point since the Great Depression. The president’s greatest political ambition will therefore go unrealized: He is not the 21st century’s Ronald Reagan; he is its Woodrow Wilson.
The 28th president was quite a bit like Obama, a cerebral type with unceasing confidence in his superior intellect and moral purity. But Wilson’s ambition to recast society in his own image outstripped his political acumen. Elected in a landslide in 1912, he only narrowly squeaked by in 1916. Four years later, his would-be successor lost to Warren Harding, one of the most unspectacular specimens ever to occupy the Oval Office. Wilson tarnished the reputation of progressivism so badly that the GOP would enjoy complete control over the government for the ensuing decade. It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt—a pragmatic man who lacked Wilson’s scholarly disposition but had an intuitive grasp of what the people expected of him—who would become modern liberalism’s hero.
Maybe some Democrat down the line will re-create Obama’s coalition and reshape it in a durable way. After all, Obama was on to something back in 2008. There are common interests among working-class whites in the Midwest, college kids, minority voters, and suburban women. Democrats have thought for a decade that this coalition was waiting to emerge. Not so, but a gifted politician could unite that group and build a coalition for the long haul. Such a leader would have to be more like FDR or Reagan than like Wilson—or Obama.”
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, OBAMA, TAXES, TRUMP
As a financial guy, I find that there are certain things that Trump is suggesting in his tax plan that are just flat out ridiculous. For instance, his childcare plans are ludicrous — because we simply cannot have things that add huge complexity to the code anymore. The idea is worth exploring, but his suggested implementation is atrocious. We can’t keep doing this. The tax code is already Byzantine enough for taxpayer and tax preparer.
A potential problem with his plan is in regard to his proposed 15% tax rate for corporate and individual businesses — again, it’s hugely complex. Furthermore, I think the 15% rate for business rate is too low, especially coming from the perspective of the current corporate tax rate; the change is rather drastic, and probably a little too low from a revenue perspective. 20% is a better rate and keeps us competitive in a global market.
There are some main things that his plan does that simplifies the code: for instance, he kicks out the Obamacare tax, kicks out Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). These are both monstrously complex tax issues, and removing them is beneficial to the code.
Finally, as all the non-Trump supporters are talking about Trump’s plan and how it will bankrupt everything — they are assuming he’ll get everything! It’s really a non starter — you can modify his plan somewhat all over, here and there, and the growth it will give the economy will pay for itself. Couple it with cutting spending, and you really can have a much stronger economy, which will be good for both the debt and deficit.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, TAXES
“Obamacare is working as designed” — except for the part about “individuals free-riding the system,” according to Jonathan Gruber, one of the chief architects of Obamacare. His assertion is that Obamacare doesn’t need any kind of overhaul; the people are the problem. They aren’t doing what they are supposed to in order to make Obamacare work.
“We have individuals who are essentially free-riding on the system, they’re essentially waiting until they get sick and then getting health insurance. The whole idea of this plan, which was pioneered in Massachusetts, was that the individual mandate penalty would bring those people into the system and have them participate. The penalty right now is probably too low and I think that’s something that ideally we would fix.”
Not enough people want to participate in the government run healthcare system, so the solution is to punish them more by levying a greater tax/penalty/fee to pay for the spiraling costs.
For tax year 2016, the penalty will rise to 2.5% of your total household adjusted gross income, or $695 per adult and $347.50 per child, to a maximum of $2,085. For tax year 2017 and beyond, the percentage option will remain at 2.5%, but the flat fee will be adjusted for inflation.
So, people aren’t using Obamacare because it’s expensive — premiums this year are rising at an average of 25%. So they choose to forgo insurance and pay a penalty, and then it’s their fault for not paying into the system, so we need to raise the penalty rates higher to force them to choose between insurance with high premiums or no insurance with high penalties. This doesn’t sound like it’s about healthcare. It sounds like it’s about more money for a healthcare system that is hemorrhaging funds at an alarming pace.
