Obama’s Big Lie–No New Taxes For Americans Earning Less Than $250,000–Obamacare Is A Huge Massive Tax Increase–Do Not Believe or Trust Obama–The Liar and Narcissist!–Videos
WSJ Chief Economist: 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs of Those Making $120K or Less
Barack Obama’s version of “read my lips NO NEW TAXES”
OBAMA MANDATORY TAX ON HEALTH CARE IS NOT A TAX
Megyn Kelly: Democrats Committed Fraud By Not Representing Obamacare as a Tax
ObamaCare: Obama’s Regressive Tax on the Middle Class
Just Another Broken Promise
Obama, Which One Did You Vote For?
7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes
Obama will cut deficit in half FEB 2009
Who is the REAL Barack Obama?
Obama: Narcissist’s Reaction to Failure and Defeat
“…Spending has gone up from $2.98 trillion in 2008—the year before Obama came into office—to a proposed $3.80 trillion in 2013. That is a 28-percent increase in five years, which represents a compound annual growth rate of 5.0 percent. Because the economy has stagnated during this period, spending has increased as a share of GDP. …”
Krauthammer: Obama’s debt increase “radical, unprecedented”
President’s Revenue Proposals vs National Debt
Recent US Federal Deficit Numbers
FY 2013*: $901 billion
FY 2009: $1,413 billion
FY 2012*: $1,327 billion
FY 2008: $459 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2010: $1,293 billion
Although the federal deficit is the amount each year by which federal outlays in the federal budget exceed federal receipts, the gross federal debt increases each year by substantially more than the amount of the deficit each year. That is because a substantial amount of federal borrowing is not counted in the budget.
Taxes and Trust – The Achilles Heels of Obamacare and Obama, Part I
By Pat Caddell
“…This November, if President Obama goes before the voters on the defensive–that is, on a rickety platform of defending Obamacare as a tax increase–it is he who has a huge problem. After all, his healthcare program was sold as a boon to the middle class, with a few regulatory sticks included therein. But if Obamacare can be exposed for what it is–a huge tax increase, the reality of which Obamacare proponents did their best to obscure–then the probability of his survival shrinks dramatically. To be sure, such an exposing of Obamacare as the ObamaTax will not be easy; the White House and the Democrats, as well as their handmaidens in the Main Stream Media, will do their best to armor up against any attack on the tax issue.
So Romney must wield that cudgel, and wield it hard. And so must Republicans, because if the campaign against Obamacare–the ObamaTax–is to be truly effective, it must be a top-to-bottom message. Indeed, as we shall see, the anti-ObamaTax message could be even stronger for down-ballot Republicans than for Romney himself.
The challenge is to keep the focus on the tax–the ObamaTax. Obamacare is many things, but the biggest single thing is the thing that they said it wasn’t–the ObamaTax.
The American people have shown that they can tolerate incompetent policy. But what they will not tolerate is being lied to. As a Jesuit might say, incompetence is a venial sin, but deception is a mortal sin. And so if troubling questions about Barack Obama’s incompetence turn into serious concerns about his character, the President will lose.”
Examiner Editorial: Obamacare is loaded with big tax increases
“…If implemented in 2014, the penalty on individuals who don’t purchase health insurance will boost government revenue by $27 billion through 2021, according to an analysis done last year by the CBO. The requirement that certain employers provide acceptable insurance or pay a penalty would raise an additional $82 billion.
Additional destructive tax increases include a $259 billion Medicare payroll tax hike and $148 billion in taxes on medical device makers, drug companies and insurers. Such taxes will not only be inevitably passed on to consumers of all income levels, but will stifle innovation by vacuuming up money that could have otherwise been spent on research and development. The law also includes a 3.8 percent surtax on investment income for households earning more than $250,000, as well as a number of smaller tax increases, such as the 10 percent tax on indoor tanning.
In all, the CBO has identified $813 billion in taxes over the next decade (2012 through 2021). And even this number understates the true cost of the law to taxpayers, because many of the revenue-raising measures don’t go into effect for several years. In the most obvious example, Obamacare is set to impose a tax on benefit-rich insurance policies. At first glance, the CBO report shows this so-called “Cadillac tax” will raise $111 billion over 10 years. But a closer look shows that it isn’t scheduled to kick in until 2018, so that $111 billion number is only for the first four years of its implementation.
Instead of narrowly focusing on the issue of whether or not the mandate should count as a tax, opponents of Obamacare should use this opportunity to make a broader point about the many expensive and punishing taxes that the law piles on businesses and the American people.
What Romney Needs To Say About Romneycare
By Mona Charen
“…Before Romney’s time, Massachusetts had enacted a number of laws that made its health-care system needlessly expensive. All policies offered in the state were required to cover expensive treatments like substance-abuse counseling and infertility. In 1996, the state passed a law requiring “guaranteed issue” and “community rating” — meaning people could wait until they got sick to purchase health insurance. Naturally, rates skyrocketed. In addition, a 1986 federal law required hospital emergency rooms to treat all patients, regardless of ability to pay.
Romney’s idea was to permit Massachusetts insurers to sell catastrophic plans. As Avik Roy explained in Forbes, “Shorn of the costly mandates and restrictions originating in earlier state laws, these plans, called ‘Commonwealth Care Basic,’ could cost much less. Romney also proposed merging the non-group and small-group markets, so as to give individuals access to the more cost-effective plans available to small businesses.” Romney’s plan would also have involved a degree of cost sharing, so that those receiving subsidies would have an incentive to minimize their consumption.
Romney agreed to the mandate believing that Massachusetts citizens would get the opportunity to purchase inexpensive, catastrophic plans. But the legislature, together with Romney’s successor as governor, Deval Patrick, changed the law to require insurers to offer three tiers of coverage — all of them far beyond catastrophic care. Perhaps Romney ought to have foreseen what future legislatures and governors would do — but that’s a far cry from the accusation that Romneycare was indistinguishable from Obamacare.
Romney’s proposed reforms included fraud-prevention measures for Medicaid, requiring the income of both parents to be considered in children’s Medicaid eligibility, medical-malpractice tort reform, and giving individuals the same treatment as small businesses in the purchase of health plans. He envisioned a system of increased competition and choice.
The bill that passed the legislature contained a number of features Romney couldn’t countenance. He opposed the mandate, preferring to permit individuals to post a $10,000 bond in lieu of insurance. The legislature overrode him. He vetoed the employer mandate, coverage for illegal aliens, the creation of a new bureaucracy to be called the Public Health Council, a provision limiting improvements to Medicaid, and another provision expanding Medicaid coverage to include dental care. His vetoes were overridden.
The health-reform law Romney introduced — as opposed to the one that was implemented by his successor — stressed competition, reduced regulation, and expanded choice for the consumer.
It was a mistake for Romney to sign the bill. As Avik Roy put it, “The individual mandate was a loaded gun that Romney handed to his opponents, who used it to force individuals to buy comprehensive insurance they didn’t need.” But Romney’s bona fides as a free-market advocate and critic of Obamacare are not undermined by Romneycare. He can rightly claim that he foresaw, and attempted to prevent, the consequences of heavy-handed government control of the health-care market.”