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, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
When Chuck Rocha, from the Center for National Policy, was a guest on Bulls and Bears last past weekend, he continued to spew out statistics that touted the economic benefits of Obamacare. His assertions were based on a Price Waterhouse report that indicated health care cost had come down 4%.
Of course, health care costs have not come down. If Mr. Rocha was referring to the fact that the rate of growth of health care spending has slowed (by a not really significant 4%), this trend started long before Obamacare. In fact, the Price Waterhouse Study lays out the reasons for the slowing growth, including individuals delaying treatments, individuals using the internet to find lower pricing, large employers finding ways to get cheaper alternatives for their employees – all specifically NOT RELATED to ObamaCare.
What’s worse, although Mr. Rocha acknowledges that this country does have a debt problem, he insists that it does not need to be dealt with currently. He espouses the clearly dangerous and uneducated view that unfunded costs of future promises are not a real liability.
He also claims that incentives to manufacturing are necessary to keep employment in this country, totally ignorant of its effect on free trade, which is really what is necessary to get the economy moving.
The frustrating part of the entire segment was that nobody on the show thought to contradict any of these assertions, which were patently and demonstrably false.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
Rick Ungar, the “Token Lefty”, usually comes very well prepared for his appearances on Forbes on Fox. But it is disappointing to watch when he regurgitates the same absolutely misleading statistics, despite the fact that he’s been corrected so many times before.
Mr. Ungar argues that the changes which President Obama continues to make to Obamacare are not a significantly harmful to the economy, since “the Obamacare mandate excludes 96% of businesses”.
One might ask: if Obamacare only affected 4% of businesses, how could it be such a major program? The answer is simple. Those 4% of businesses include the vast majority of employees in this country. Most businesses have zero to very few employees, with the total number of employees for all businesses that have 100 or fewer employees making up a relatively small number of the total employees in this country.
This statistic-fib is reminiscent of the exact same tactic that the Democrats were using when pushing to raise the income tax margins of the highest earners making above $250,000. Democrats continuously argued that “only 3% of all small businesses made above $250,000”, a seemingly low percentage.
What they purposely failed to disclose, however, is that that figure accounted for more than 50% of all small business income — most of which would be taxed at individual rates due to the structure of the company. So when the Democrats raised taxes on those upper income brackets, through the process of letting the tax cuts expire, they willfully and quietly were raising taxes on small businesses. Now, high earning non-corporate entities pay more in taxes (39.6%) than even their corporate counterparts (35%).
We have the same chicanery going on here. Nothing could be more intentionally misleading, for those who don’t know better, than Mr. Ungar’s statement that only 4% of businesses are affected by Obamacare. “It’s the number of employees, stupid”.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, POLITICS, TAXES
Democrat politicians and “economists” have found a wonderful populist issue for the the current election cycle – raising the minimum wage. The economists (including Krugman, Goolsbee, etc) make the argument that the most obvious, serious problem — loss of entry level jobs and non-hiring at new entry level positions — is not a significant factor, and they have even been able to marshal some studies to support this.
They then argue that the higher minimum wage puts more money into needy families and therefore strengthens the economy. This argument just happens to have a wonderful political effect for these Democrats: it makes them seem sensitive to the plight of the needy, while making Republicans look like shills for those greedy Republican businessmen who are only trying to squeeze every last dollar out of their poor employees.
Just one problem — the Democratic position is baloney, and the economists know it, because it is simple economics 101. No businessman would be willing to pay an employee more than the economic value of the employee.
Let’s assume that the rise in the minimum wage puts the cost of employee in excess of the value of that employee. The employer may then 1) terminate the employee (saving the excess of cost over productivity) or 2) buy equipment which, at that price, becomes cheaper than the employee.
But let’s say the employer keeps the employee, just paying him more for the same work he did before. The employer will then either a) earn a smaller return on his investment, reducing the amount he will be able to invest in the business in the future; b) he will raise his prices, which will maintain his profit margin, but will reduce his sales volume, or c) some combination of a) and b). In either case, economic growth of the economy will be hurt.
By citing narrow studies where short-term noise could easily hide the effects of small changes in the minimum wage, these political “faux-economists” are abusing economic appearances to serve a political end.
Furthermore having a national minimum wage when price and wage levels vary so markedly across the country is truly nonsensical.
The country will be better off when economists remain true to their profession.
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, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK, OBAMA, POLITICS
The new pre-school plan presented by Mayor de Blasio reveals just how politically disingenuous he really is.
In his effort to push the progressive agenda he put forth during his campaign, de Blasio has vowed to have universal pre-school in New York State to be paid for only by the wealthiest New Yorkers.
Here’s the logical inconsistancy: If universal pre-school is the all-important and necessary step for all children in their educational development (the merits of which is fodder for another article entirely), then the only logical conclusion is that the cost should also be borne by all taxpayers the way K-12 already is — not just a select few. If “everyone” is not willing to pay his or her fair share of this “necessary” project, then maybe that tells us that it should not be done.
This line of thinking clearly echoes the Obama Administration’s sentiment that the rich “pay just a little bit more”, and it is not welcome in New York.
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.
by | ARTICLES, POLITICS, QUICKLY NOTED
Sad but true:
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS
Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former Yukos CEO and Russian billionaire, has just recently been released from jail. If I were him, my first act of new-found freedom would be to sue Goldman Sachs for billions of dollars. Watch out, Goldman Sachs investors!
I am a liberty-loving free market individual, which means I am generally pro-business. But as I have indicated so many times before, crony-capitalism is not free market, and thus it should be called out. Unfortunately, that cronyism does not entirely escape the upper echelons of the finance world and a horrific lack of integrity sometimes seeps into Wall Street. The story of Mikhail Khordorkovsky and Goldman Sachs is such an example.
First, a parallel story: in the late 1980’s, the State of Washington issued Washington Power Public Service bonds (commonly called “WPPSS”) to finance a number of nuclear power plants. The bonds were considered very high quality as they were guaranteed 1) not only by the project, but 2) also unconditionally by the State of Washington, and 3) even regardless of whether the plants ever actually got constructed.
First Boston was a lead underwriter of this issue.
When oil and gas prices dropped sharply a few years later, the State of Washington decided to renege on its guarantee and default to the tune of $2.25 billion. It argued (incredibly) that they didn’t have the right to make such a guarantee. The Washington Courts upheld this point of view (naturally), and the Supreme Court (ridiculously) claimed that it was a state matter, despite the fact that many little old ladies — like my mother — pension funds, and other investors from all around the country were devastated by this “fraud”. This was undeniably gross negligence.
The most frustrating part of the matter, however, happened after the decision was issued. The State of Washington needed to raise money by issuing new bonds. And who do you think was the lead underwriter this time around, despite the scam that had cost their customers hundreds of millions of dollars….
You guessed it — First Boston again, a stunning lack of integrity from world of government and finance. But this fraud pales in comparison to that of Mikhail Kordorkovsky and Vladmir Putin.
I was reminded of the WPPSS affair (also known as “Whoops”) when in 2003, in a brazen act of thievery, Vladimir Putin “confiscated” the controlling interest in shares of the Yukos Oil Company held by Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Khordorkovsky built a company that grew in wealth and stature upon the collapse of the Soviet Union. Shortly after Kordorkovsky was named “Person of the Year” by the Russian business magazine “Expert”, he was arrested.
There were laughable “criminal” and “tax cheating” charges leveled against Khodorkovsky, for which he has been in jail for a decade until just last month.
As Khordorkovsky’s popularity grew while in prison, Putin suddenly and obviously made a public relations decision in connection with the Olympics to release the famed Khordorkovsky. (Indeed, just in the last week, Khordorkovsky’s business partner was also released from his prison sentence.)
Everyone knew that the criminal charges were just a very thinly veiled justification for President (Dictator) Putin to steal the company for himself and the Russian people. I get it – that is his nature. But what has this to do with integrity, finance, or even WPPSS?
Underwriters.
Just as First Boston underwrote the first WPPSS project that fraudulently defaulted and was able to (incredibly) underwrite for the State of Washington again, Putin was able to perform his grand confiscation with the help of a major underwriter.
Upon restructuring the oil company following the arrest of Khodorkovsky, that fact that Vladmir Putin could then go to Goldman Sachs, who would gladly orchestrate the largest underwriting of stolen goods and fraud the world has ever seen, is utterly staggering.
Just as incredible, First Boston — later known as Credit Suisse during the time of the confiscating and beyond — also got in on the action (among others).
But the coziness between Putin and Goldman doesn’t end there. Just last winter, Goldman Sachs renewed its relationship with Putin by signing a three-year agreement with Russia’s Economy Ministry and the Russian Direct Investment Fund.
During that time, Goldman Sachs will be paid $500,000 to help Putin attract foreign investors. This latest partnership has been slammed by the Human Rights Foundation.
Now that Khodorkovsky is a free man once again, it wouldn’t take much for him to highlight the close relationship between Vladmir Putin and Goldman Sachs. I’m not a lawyer, but one would think that Goldman might have reason to be concerned about a potential lawsuit from Mr. Khodorkovsky for aiding and abetting the confiscation of his company.
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, OBAMA, POLITICS
Errors and omissions (E&O) is the coverage that protects you from another individual or company that wants to hold you responsible for something that you provided which does not give expected results. Does the President have coverage?
There were many statements made last night during the State of the Union that didn’t seem to match up with reality for many Americans. Going through the transcript of the State of the Union, it was easy to point out problems in Obama’s address. Below, I’ve gone through the speech, and outlined in italics the exact words he said used.
Looks like Obama needs insurance! I’m providing the errors and omissions coverage for Obama for the State of the Union he gave to everyday America.
____________
Tonight, this chamber speaks with one voice to the people we represent: it is you, our citizens, who make the state of our union strong.
>>> This chamber speaks with one voice because of the growing (mis)use of Executive Action used, and threatened to be used, by Obama during his Presidency.
Here are the results of your efforts: The lowest unemployment rate in over five years.
>>> It’s the lowest unemployment rate in over 5 years because of the amount of people who have stopped looking for a job. Obama fails to mention that this is also the lowest number of workers in the workforce since the early 1960s.
Our deficits – cut by more than half
>> Deficits have been cut only this year because of non-policy reasons (Large Fannie/Freddie payments to the Treasury in 2012 and accelerated tax transactions at the end of 2012 that count on this fiscal year). Also, we still have had yearly $1 trillion deficits, which was never seen before Obama became president.
And for the first time in over a decade, business leaders around the world have declared that China is no longer the world’s number one place to invest; America is.
>> No, actually this year, America fell out of the top ten list for the first time in twenty years on the Index of Economic Freedom.
In the coming months, let’s see where else we can make progress together. Let’s make this a year of action. That’s what most Americans want – for all of us in this chamber to focus on their lives, their hopes, their aspirations.
>>> Most Americans don’t want Congress to take action for the sake of action. Most people want Congress to get out of the way so that they can make their own destiny.
Today, after four years of economic growth
>>> Economic growth has slowed to a crawl
and those at the top have never done better
>> Those at the top have lost more wealth than any other income bracket and have also seen their taxes rise due to legislation passed during Obama’s presidency
But average wages have barely budged.
>>> Businesses can’t afford to pay their workers more due to excessive regulations, higher taxes, and Obamacare changes — all which have hindered their ability to operate day-to-day and more importantly, plan long-term.
And too many still aren’t working at all.
>>> This is first true statement of the night<<<
So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.
>>> Bypassing the Constitution is not how American families elected the President to operate.
Opportunity is who we are. And the defining project of our generation is to restore that promise.
>>> Debt is who we are. We can’t restore opportunity with this generation or the next because of the staggering amount of debt — more than $50,000 per man, woman, and child
So let’s make that decision easier for more companies. Both Democrats and Republicans have argued that our tax code is riddled with wasteful, complicated loopholes that punish businesses investing here, and reward companies that keep profits abroad.
>>> Please cite the loophole. American businesses are actually punished with the highest corporate tax rate in the world. They move businesses abroad so that they can keep more of their hard earned money themselves.
But I will act on my own to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process for key projects, so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible.
>>>Is this before or after we start the “Shovel-Ready” projects?
Federally-funded research helped lead to the ideas and inventions behind Google and smartphones. That’s why Congress should undo the damage done by last year’s cuts to basic research.
>>> Federally funded research — like Green Energy companies or NIH “studies”?
Now, one of the biggest factors in bringing more jobs back is our commitment to American energy. The all-of-the-above energy strategy I announced a few years ago is working, and today, America is closer to energy independence than we’ve been in decades.
>> That strategy of subsidizing companies like Solyndra, Satcon Technology, and A123 systems?
One of the reasons why is natural gas – if extracted safely, it’s the bridge fuel that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change. Businesses plan to invest almost $100 billion in new factories that use natural gas.
>>>While shuttering the coal industry by imposing overreaching and impossible regulations to run them out of business.
Let’s continue that progress with a smarter tax policy that stops giving $4 billion a year to fossil fuel industries that don’t need it, so that we can invest more in fuels of the future that do.
>> Lets continue with a smarter tax policy that stops giving billions of our taxpayer money to subsidize companies that still manage to go bankrupt
And even as we’ve increased energy production, we’ve partnered with businesses, builders, and local communities to reduce the energy we consume.
>>> By taking away our regular lightbulbs
When we rescued our automakers, for example, we worked with them to set higher fuel efficiency standards for our cars. In the coming months, I’ll build on that success by setting new standards for our trucks, so we can keep driving down oil imports and what we pay at the pump.
>>> So that the price of cars goes up for consumers, and so that state legislatures can imposes fees on hybrids and electric cars because they are not bringing in as much revenue from fuel-efficient cars via the gas tax.
But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.
>>> It’s Global Warming when it is warm, and Climate Change when it is cold. It must be a polar vortex out there
So let’s get immigration reform done this year.
>>> If you want immigration reform done, try doing it through Congress, not by Executive Fiat.
Two years ago, as the auto industry came roaring back
>>> How did it come “roaring back” again? Cash for Clunkers cost taxpayers money, taxpayers had to bail out the auto industry, and production of the “new” electric cars is sluggish or has stopped altogether
And if Congress wants to help, you can concentrate funding on proven programs that connect more ready-to-work Americans with ready-to-be-filled jobs.
>>>What are these ambiguous and undetailed “programs”, and if they are so “proven”, why are record numbers of Americans still not working?
I’m also convinced we can help Americans return to the workforce faster by reforming unemployment insurance so that it’s more effective in today’s economy. But first, this Congress needs to restore the unemployment insurance you just let expire for 1.6 million people.
>>>99 weeks of unemployment isn’t enough?
Five years ago, we set out to change the odds for all our kids. We worked with lenders to reform student loans, and today, more young people are earning college degrees than ever before.
>>Obama’s reform was that the rates on federal student loans just doubled. And more young people are in debt than ever before just out of college with dismal job prospects — thanks to Obama’s economy.
And as Congress decides what it’s going to do, I’m going to pull together a coalition of elected officials, business leaders, and philanthropists willing to help more kids access the high-quality pre-K they need.
>>> Because or current K-12 education system is already leading the world in education, right, so we can focus on pre-K?
Today, women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment. A woman deserves equal pay for equal work.
>>> Unless you work for the White House. Obama’s own White House staff still underpays its women compared to men.
In the coming weeks, I will issue an Executive Order requiring federal contractors to pay their federally-funded employees a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour – because if you cook our troops’ meals or wash their dishes, you shouldn’t have to live in poverty.
>>> That’s giving Federal Workers a 42% pay raise unilaterally with my tax dollars.
Tom Harkin and George Miller have a bill to fix that by lifting the minimum wage to $10.10. This will help families. It will give businesses customers with more money to spend. It doesn’t involve any new bureaucratic program. So join the rest of the country. Say yes. Give America a raise.
>>> Businesses will not be able to absorb a minimum wage hike of up to 42% without cutting jobs to make up the balance sheet. That will give Americans more unemployment.
And if this Congress wants to help, work with me to fix an upside-down tax code that gives big tax breaks to help the wealthy save, but does little to nothing for middle-class Americans.
>>> Please state the big tax breaks to save? The wealthy pay a 39.6% of their income to the government (not counting state and local taxes) plus the Obamacare surtaxes that started this year, also only for the wealthy. That means they save less of their money because more gets taken in taxes to fund the government.
Send me legislation that protects taxpayers from footing the bill for a housing crisis ever again, and keeps the dream of homeownership alive for future generations of Americans.
>>> Americans footed the bill for the housing crisis in the form of TARP (which Obama voted for as Senator) and ARRA (which Obama signed as President). Obama could have paid the mortgage off for every homeowner in America and still have spent less taxpayer money overall. Talk about economic stimulus and the dream of homeownership!
One last point on financial security. For decades, few things exposed hard-working families to economic hardship more than a broken healthcare system. And in case you haven’t heard, we’re in the process of fixing that.
>>> After we fix the website, the application process, the security holes, and the healthplans…
That’s what health insurance reform is all about – the peace of mind that if misfortune strikes, you don’t have to lose everything.
>>> Not everything. But you can lose your health plan, and you can lose your doctor
Already, because of the Affordable Care Act, more than three million Americans under age 26 have gained coverage under their parents’ plans. More than nine million Americans have signed up for private health insurance or Medicaid coverage.
>>> Signed up means “Placed in the shopping cart”. And millions more have lost their plans and haven’t signed up with Obamacare
And here’s another number: zero. We did all this while adding years to Medicare’s finances, keeping Medicare premiums flat, and lowering prescription costs for millions of seniors.
>>> Here’s another number: Trillions. Obama added trillions to Medicare’s entitlement deficit and trillions to our deficit to pay for Obamacare
So again, if you have specific plans to cut costs, cover more people, and increase choice – tell America what you’d do differently. Let’s see if the numbers add up. But let’s not have another forty-something votes to repeal a law that’s already helping millions of Americans like Amanda. The first forty were plenty. We got it. We all owe it to the American people to say what we’re for, not just what we’re against.
>>> We’ve polled the American people and the majority of the American people are for repealing Obamacare.
That’s why, tonight, I ask every American who knows someone without health insurance to help them get covered by March 31st. Moms, get on your kids to sign up. Kids, call your mom and walk her through the application.
>>> Because the enrollment numbers are so low, the President has to actually beg the American people to sign up, use millions in taxpayer money to run ads, and use Hollywood to promote Obamacare
It should be the power of our vote, not the size of our bank account, that drives our democracy.
>>> We are a Republic, not a democracy, Mr. President
And I know this chamber agrees that few Americans give more to their country than our diplomats and the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.
>>> Obama cares so much for the military that he just announced a 42% pay increase for federal workers, after just making cuts to military pensions.
But I will not send our troops into harm’s way unless truly necessary
>>> Yes, we saw that policy with Benghazi
That’s why I’ve imposed prudent limits on the use of drones – for we will not be safer if people abroad believe we strike within their countries without regard for the consequence.
>>> What about being safer domestically? Obama fails to mention that the first US citizen was killed yesterday via drones because of a dispute over 3 cows that belonged to a neighbor.
That’s why, working with this Congress, I will reform our surveillance programs – because the vital work of our intelligence community depends on public confidence, here and abroad, that the privacy of ordinary people is not being violated.
>>> Translation: If you like your privacy, you can keep your privacy, just like your health plan and doctor.
And it is American diplomacy, backed by pressure, that has halted the progress of Iran’s nuclear program – and rolled parts of that program back – for the very first time in a decade. As we gather here tonight, Iran has begun to eliminate its stockpile of higher levels of enriched uranium. It is not installing advanced centrifuges. Unprecedented inspections help the world verify, every day, that Iran is not building a bomb. And with our allies and partners, we’re engaged in negotiations to see if we can peacefully achieve a goal we all share: preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
>> That’s not what Iran says. Please show us the agreement signed between our two nations. Obama has yet to do that.
And we all continue to join forces to honor and support our remarkable military families.
>>> Obama honors them by making reductions to their pensions and going after military chaplains’ ability to minister to troops
The America we want for our kids – a rising America where honest work is plentiful and communities are strong; where prosperity is widely shared and opportunity for all lets us go as far as our dreams and toil will take us – none of it is easy. But if we work together; if we summon what is best in us, with our feet planted firmly in today but our eyes cast towards tomorrow – I know it’s within our reach.
>>> As Obama reaches for his pen — not to work together under the Constitution, but unilaterally by Executive Order like he stated repeatedly during this address.
Believe it.
>>> As Obama asked us to believe him on Benghazi, the IRS, Fast and Furious, Obamacare, our doctors, and our health plans, to name a few.
God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
