While we were away....

Our little min-blogging vacation over the weekend did not stop the bad news from rolling in with respect to the “new” federal healthcare law aka ObamaCare that will kick in starting October 1st.



First, the law continues to poll badly even while having many of the favorable benefits of the law front-loaded.



This unpopularity and the um, uneven, roll-out of the law, however is somehow the fault of the GOP.




Doctor rationing to begin in California:

The doctor can't see you now.

Consumers may hear that a lot more often after getting health insurance under President Obama's Affordable Care Act.
To hold down premiums, major insurers in California have sharply limited the number of doctors and hospitals available to patients in the state's new health insurance market opening Oct. 1.
New data reveal the extent of those cuts in California, a crucial test bed for the federal healthcare law.

Healthcare Company to Lay Off Over 100 Because of Obamacare:

A Georgia health care company will lay off over 100 employees due in part to Obamacare, according to a WSB-TV report:

"We have confirmed more than 100 Emory health care employees are going to lose their jobs in part because of the Affordable (health) Care Act," said a local anchor.

"I think it's bad it's affordable health care and people are losing their jobs," said a man interviewed by the reporter.

"It's sad. It really is," said another man. "A lot of people are going to lose their homes and cars and everything they worked all their life for."

Progressive darling Trader Joe’s to eliminate health care plans for part-time employees:

After extending health care coverage to many of its part-time employees for years, Trader Joe’s has told workers who log fewer than 30 hours a week that they will need to find insurance on the Obamacare exchanges next year, according to a confidential memo from the grocer’s chief executive.

In the memo to staff dated Aug. 30, Trader Joe’s CEO Dan Bane said the company will cut part-timers a check for $500 in January and help guide them toward finding a new plan under the Affordable Care Act. The company will continue to offer health coverage to workers who carry 30 hours or more on average.

Mickey Ds looking to get out from under ObamaCare’s onerous regulations:

Franchise restaurant owners have come to Washington seeking a change to ObamaCare that they say could prevent them from having to cut their employees’ hours.

The healthcare law requires large employers to provide insurance to employees who work at least 30 hours per week.

Franchise owners say the employer mandate threatens to erase their narrow profit margins and are telling lawmakers they need to overhaul the law before it’s too late.

“Employees won’t have the hours they need, and they won’t get employer-sponsored healthcare, either,” said Steve Caldeira, president and CEO of the International Franchise Association (IFA).

“[Franchisees] are dealing with high commodity costs, high energy prices, higher taxes from the ‘fiscal-cliff’ deal, and now they are trying to work through ObamaCare,” he said.

More than 300 members of the franchise association are making the rounds on Capitol Hill to lobby for the ObamaCare changes. Monday’s visitors included IFA members from Mr. Rooter, McDonald’s and Dunkin Donuts.

So, if Congress and Big Business are getting breaks from the law, why not the fast food sector? After all, now that health care in this country has been sufficiently politicized, the law will not be about “care” rather picking winners and losers.

The amount of lobbying being done on Capitol Hill by entities looking to get away from this law should tell you everything you need to know about it.





Finally, the President's BFF, Warren Buffett says it's time to scrap the law and start over and we whole-heartedly agree:

"Healthcare costs in the United States are like a tapeworm eating at our economic body.

"Those words come from famed investor Warren Buffett, who said he would scrap Obamacare and start all over.

"'We have a health system that, in terms of costs, is really out of control,' he added. 'And if you take this line and you project what has been happening into the future, we will get less and less competitive. So we need something else.'

"Buffett insists that without changes to Obamacare average citizens will suffer.

"'What we have now is untenable over time,' said Buffett, an early supporter of President Obama. 'That kind of a cost compared to the rest of the world is really like a tapeworm eating, you know, at our economic body.'

"Buffett does not believe that providing insurance for everyone is the first step to take in correcting our nation's healthcare system.

"'Attack the costs first, and then worry about expanding coverage,' he said. 'I would much rather see another plan that really attacks costs. And I think that's what the American public wants to see. I mean, the American public is not behind this bill.'"

This common sense approach to overhauling our healthcare system is precisely why it doesn't stand an ice cube's chance in hell in Washington D.C.

Noted "Patriotic Millionaire/Billionaire" out pedaling his distortions again

.

Warren Buffett is back in the news again calling for higher taxes on the super-rich like himself.*





From Yahoo News:

Warren Buffett, the legendary investor who changed the debate about U.S. tax reform in 2011 with a call for the rich to pay more, is now calling for minimum tax rates for millionaires.

In a New York Times editorial printed on Monday, Buffett suggested Congress move immediately to implement minimum taxes of 30 percent on incomes of $1 million to $10 million and 35 percent above that.

"A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultra rich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours," Buffett wrote.

"Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy," he added.

The new push is in keeping with the one he made in the same newspaper in August 2011, in which he decried the "coddling" of the super-rich. He used himself and his secretary as an example, noting that her tax rate was much higher than his even though her income was just a tiny fraction of what he made.

"Warren Buffett's secretary" became a political meme following that editorial, and the said secretary, Debbie Bosanek, was ultimately a guest of President Barack Obama at this year's State of the Union address.

If this tired chimera of Buffet's secretary paying more in taxes is going to be trotted out again, we're going to shoot it down again because it is misleading and given the context of it being a presidential campaign meme that it was in 2012, shamelessly cynical.

You see, the reason Buffett's secretary pays more in income tax is because she makes more income (salary) than does Buffett. Buffett, nobly, allows himself an income salary of only $100,000 where he grants his secretary a salary far greater than that (we've heard it rumored anywhere from $250,000 to $400,000).

Naturally, then, his secretary is going to be paying more taxes on her salary income. Obviously, where Buffett derives the majority of his income is in capital gains and dividends that are taxed at far lower rates than the highest marginal income tax rates that hit his secretary's salary (15% vs. 33-35%).

So, we don't need higher taxes on the rich. What we need and what Buffett would do voluntarily if he wasn't being so dishonest in making his argument, is billionaires to start paying themselves salaries of, well, billionaires. Start paying themselves salaries commensurate with what they are worth. Instead, these so-called patriotic millionaires and billionaires are merely acting in the rational manner that any of us would in shielding their income from getting gouged by the man in a manner totally in keeping with the law.

That Buffett wraps himself in the flag, however, reveals Buffett to be merely a tool... and a tool of the President in his continuing class warfare.

Besides, the President himself acknowledged raising taxes on the rich would do nothing to close the deficit gap or pay down the debt thus implicitly admitting to his own stoking of resentment of the rich.




* We've blogged about this issue several times before, so if it seems old hat, we apologize. Sometimes, however, it's good to remind ourselves and others of just why it is an idea like Buffet's doesn't pass the sniff test and which also sets off our highly tuned and calibrated B.S. alarm.

Some not so random thoughts

.

The GSA/Las Vegas scandal and now the Secret Service/Columbian hooker scandal... they really can't come soon and large enough as welcome relief to the administration in keeping Fast and Furious off the front page... if the legacy media ever bothered putting on the front page this wildly successful government-operated gun running scheme which has claimed the lives of two U.S. agents and hundreds if not thousands of Mexican agents and civilians all for the shamelessly self-serving and cynical purpose of promoting a narrative of an unchecked flow of guns southward across the border and into the hands of ruthless drug cartels.

Watch for GSA and Secret Service to continue trending over Fast and Furious.







More election year gimmickry, to be sure:

President Obama on Tuesday urged Congress to help strengthen federal supervision of international oil markets, amid pressure from U.S. voters to take action on rising gasoline prices.

The president wants Congress to increase penalties for market manipulation and empower regulators to increase the amount of money energy traders are required to put behind their transactions.

"Congress should do all of this right away," the president said Tuesday during a White House speech in the Rose Garden.

Obama said the plan would put "more cops on the street" to catch speculators who attempt to manipulate markets for their own profit. He also chastised Congress for recently voting against ending tax breaks to U.S. oil companies and said passing his proposal would help members redeem themselves.

Still, the president acknowledged such efforts "will not bring down gas prices overnight."

The plan is more likely to draw sharp election-year distinctions with Republicans than have an immediate effect on prices at the pump. The measures seek to boost spending for Wall Street enforcement at a time when congressional Republicans are seeking to limit the reach of federal financial regulations.

Obama was joined Tuesday by Attorney General Eric Holder in spelling out his $52 million proposal.

Good lord... it's the Buffett Rule all over again. The administration has finally admitted that higher taxes on the rich won't actually reduce the deficit or the debt but that it's all about fairness or something. And now, he and the miserable stonewalling (see: Fast and Furious link above) hack that runs the Justice Department all but admit their $52 million scheme to not really bring down the price of gasoline is just about drawing distinctions between themselves and the Republicans. A $52 million campaign ad, in effect.

It's a comfort to know, at least, this guy has no intention of letting the country's business interfere with his own relection business.



Oh, and in case you were wondering what federal intervention into the oil market might look and sound like... folks, we present you Maxine Waters (via Gateway Pundit):





Yep... Barry's big idea is to have the likes of that senile old broad running oil companies. Of course he was wise to admit his $52 million campaign spot wasn't really about lowering the price of oil.

.

Confirmed: it really is about class warfare

.

We knew it all along, however, credit them for their honesty but the White House finally admitted that higher taxes on the rich via the Buffet rule has nothing to do with deficit reduction or paying down the debt.

Introducing a minimum 30 percent income tax on millionaires “was never our plan to bring the deficit down and get the debt under control,” Jason Furman, the principal deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, told reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon. “This is not the president’s entire tax plan. We’re not trying to say this solves all our economic problems, all our budget problems.”

Making the argument for the rule based on billionaire investor Warren Buffett’s argument that it’s wrong for him to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary, President Barack Obama said in the State of the Union address in January that paying the “fair share of taxes” was necessary for a “sense of shared responsibility. That’s how we’ll reduce our deficit.”

If the President is going to keep trotting out the ridiculous "Buffet rule" chimera, we're going to keep knocking it down... with joy in our heart and a smile upon our face.


Buffet only pays himself a salary of $100,000 which is far, far less than what he pays his secretary, so naturally, not only is Buffet paying less in taxes than his secretary he is also paying less of a percentage of his salary in taxes than his secretary.

Buffet receives most of his income from capital gains which is taxed at 15 percent which is far lower than the highest income tax rate. So, Buffet could simply grant himself, say, a salary of $1 million, thus paying more in taxes and he and the President could quit making clowns of themselves. But, no, Buffet is a) acting in his best rational self-interest by shielding as much of his income as possible from taxation and is b) allowing himself to be a pinata for the benefit his BFF's re-election campaign.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) slammed the bill late last month, after the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the rule would generate $46.7 billion in revenues over the next decade.

“It was designed for no other reason than politics — there is no economic rationale for it,” Hatch said in a statement. “I hope the president will stop the class warfare and start leading by putting out real proposals to bring down our debt.”

But in the Monday conference call, Furman said that sum wasn’t too shabby.

“We think $47 billion is a meaningful amount of money to most Americans,” he said.

$47 billion sounds like a big number until you realize that is the alleged revenue generated over 10 years and with the way Obama spends money, that represents less than one percent of the $6.4 trillion in projected deficits during that same time period.

So, yeah, better stick with the "fairness"/class warfare angle because the numbers are laughable.

.

Traitor?

Mark Cuban, bazillionaire and owner of the Dallas Mavericks, has got quite a bit of run from a blog post he put up few days ago where he exhorted everone to get rich so they can pay a lot of taxes.

Some excerpts:

Bust your ass and get rich.

Make a boatload of money. Pay your
taxes. Lots of taxes. Hire people. Train people. Pay people. Spend money on rent, equipment, services. Pay more taxes.

When you make a shitload of money. Do something positive with it. If you are smart enough to make it, you will be smart enough to know where to put it to work.
.
.

So be Patriotic. Go out there and get rich. Get so obnoxiously rich that when that tax bill comes , your first thought will be to choke on how big a check you have to write. Your 2nd thought will be “what a great problem to have”, and your 3rd should be a recognition that in paying your taxes you are helping to support millions of Americans that are not as fortunate as you.
.
.

I’m not saying that the government’s use of tax money is the most efficient use of our hard-earned capital. It obviously is not. In a perfect world, there would be a better option. We don’t live in a perfect world. We don’t live in a perfect time. We live in a time where the government plays a big role in an effort to help lead us out this Great Recession. That’s reality.

So I will repeat my point. Get out there and make a boatload of money. Enjoy the shit out your money. Pay your taxes.

It’s the most Patriotic thing you can do.

We like Cuban. We're praying for the day when he will be able to buy the Dodgers from that noxious pair, Frank and Jamie McCourt. And we're glad he appears to realize that private enterprise (such as his own) is far more efficient at taking care of the well-being and livlihood of people than the government (which begs for why it is he wrote this blog post in the first place) but saying paying your taxes is the most patriotic thing you can do? Got it.

After hearing stories of bravery and heroism displayed by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan or remembering 9-11 and sacrifices made by the passengers of Flight 93 and the first responders at the World Trade Center, that has to be one of the most patently ridiculous statements we have heard in quite some time.

Our friend "Sherry" advised us that perhaps Cuban was referring only to the rest of us "civilians". Perhaps... but it's still ridiculous to assert that merely obeying the law is somehow patriotic. Hey there, Patriot, thanks for not jay-walking.

And if paying taxes is the most patriotic thing you can do, then Warren Buffet who grants himself a salary of only $100,000 should be guilty of treason.

Of course, liberals are just eating up what Cuban wrote because it's a narrative that fits quite nicely into the President's call for more taxes on the rich. But Obama’s call to raise taxes on the rich is so shamelessly cynical, it’s pathetic. He knows that he’s not going to come anywhere close to closing the deficit on the backs of the rich. Like Buffet, the rich will alter their behavior and/or use the tax code to legally shelter their assets so they won't have to pay those higher taxes. That is just how things work whether statists want to acknowledge it or not.

At the end of the day, whether the President actually believes taxing the rich will somehow improve our economic outlook and/or reduce the deficit is irrelevant. Like the story of the scorpion and the frog, “class warfare” is just what he does. He can’t help himself.

The rich shall lead the way

Warren Buffet, among others, is uncomfortable in his current tax bracket.

With the US Congress hurtling toward a deadline on expiring tax cuts, a growing number of wealthy people are calling for higher taxes on the rich to help restore America's fiscal health.

One effort gathered over 45 millionaires who signed an open petition calling for the end of the tax cuts adopted since 2001 on those with annual incomes exceeding one million dollars.

Tax breaks for the wealthy should expire "for the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens," the letter said. It was signed by Ben & Jerry's ice cream founder Ben Cohen, hedge fund manager Michael Steinhardt and others.

Guy Saperstein, a retired California trial lawyer who organized the effort, said he was "frustrated" that President Barack Obama appeared to be wavering on his pledge to end tax cuts for the wealthy.

"I think the country's in trouble," Saperstein told AFP. "In hard times, the top strata who have done fabulously well need to sacrifice a bit, and it's not much of a sacrifice... We have among the lowest tax rates of any industrialized democracy."

Saperstein said an estimated 1,500 people have signed the letter although some of them did not want to be publicly identified on the group's website.

Philippe Villers, a French-born US businessman who founded Computervision in the 1960s and now heads Grain Pro, says he signed the letter even though it would mean higher taxes for himself.

While we applaud the noble intention of these fine people, we can't help but think it's all just a bunch of hypocritical posturing.

Why wait for a change in the tax code? There is nothing stopping these people from voluntarily giving to the Treasury Department to the tune of their hearts' content.

What's that? They think that everybody making above $250,000 should be paying more in taxes, not just them? Well, that's mighty big of them - requesting the government to take more of their fellow citizens' hard-earned cash.

Since they are so big on nobleness, we believe that they are now morally obligated to lead the way and start giving more to the U.S. government, starting tomorrow, to be a beacon of voluntary giving for the rest of the ingrate fat cats out there.

And speaking of sacrifice, short of a voluntary giving program, why not just sacrifice the job of those tax lawyers and accountants they pay precisely to keep them from paying a minimum on taxes. That would be a great start.

What say ye, Warren?

I Got Mine! Pt. II

Warren Buffet is a big fan of the “estate tax” (aka the “death tax”) reasoning that dynastic wealth is not healthy for a democracy. We had some thoughts on Buffett and the death tax, previously. But is he being hypocritical for the manner of his donations to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?

All of this leaves me perplexed by the way Buffett is contributing the bulk of his assets to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Buffett has received excellent legal advice to guarantee that his contributions will not generate federal tax. This provokes the question: Why?
Buffett could give his fortune to the Gates Foundation in a manner which generates federal tax. This would leave less for the foundation but more for the federal fisc. Indeed, Bill Gates, like Warren Buffett, advocates retaining the federal estate tax. He too could leave his assets to his foundation in a fashion which would share part of those assets with Uncle Sam

On the surface, we’re inclined to give Buffett a pass on this as his reasoning for the death tax was based upon the federal government merely being that instrument which would prohibit the continuance of this supposed dynastic wealth. Buffett’s logic did not seem to account for the death tax serving as a way to line the government’s pocket.

However, given that charities these days often become tax shelters in themselves and which profer their largesse in the form of salaries to its executives (family members?) and board members as well as other goodies via “administrative fees”, any sort of black and white conclusion becomes difficult to attain.

We do however, strongly resent now more than ever, Buffett’s support of the death tax. The fact that the government can take half of what a man who has worked hard for (and which has already been taxed on the front end) and invested wisely in order to leave behind as a down payment on a house for his children or as tuition help for his grandchildren strikes us as the actions of an out-of-control government that needs to be taken out at the knees.

So, again.... Screw you, Buffett!

I Got Mine!

You gotta love it when one of the world’s richest men doesn’t want you to leave too much money behind for your children. Article here reports out on Warren Buffet being in support of the estate tax, the repealing of which is something being bandied about in Congress right now.

Proponents of the estate tax reason that wealth passed down to the next generation unearned is an anathema to democracy and contributes to a widening gap between the haves and have nots. Here’s the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. himself going all poli-sci on us:

"Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy."

Uhhh… whatever. You can dress-up that pig any which way you want but its still just a pig and all that flowery verbage can’t disguise the fact that this “death tax” is just a good ol’ fashioned government money grab. Again, any pro-active attempt by the government to take it upon itself to redistribute wealth in the name equality, justice, income gap, democracy… whatever, is pure folly.

And it hits even closer to home because this “progressive” program was mainly responsible for the O’Malley family, the model of stability and dignity as sports franchise owners, selling our beloved Dodgers to Rupert Murdoch and the Fox empire back in the 90s and which has not coincidentally resulted in over a decade of mediocrity and irrelevance. So screw you, Warren.

We’ll credit Buffett for being perhaps the most unpretentious multi-billionaire in the greater Omaha, Nebraska area but it represents the height of gall for someone who can play “what’s a few hundred million dollars between friends?” opining on the financial legacy we wish to leave our children.