The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for May 13th, 2010

More hidden costs and mandates discovered in ObamaCare…

Posted by iusbvision on May 13, 2010

1. First the CBO said that ObamaCare would raise insurance costs per family by $2100 a year, then the Oliver Wyman study said it would raise rates by up to 54%. So what happened? The Administration and the elite media said that bloggers like me were liars and they called us all sorts of names and accused us of spreading disinformation.

2. Business both large and small started issuing reports on how much ObamaCare mandates were going to cost them and some of them told us how it would have an impact on jobs.

3. Then all of the sudden the elite media largely went silent on the issue (for a while till…).

4. The New York Time starts running a series of articles admitting many of the problems and costs with ObamaCare legislation as if they had discovered them anew. The NYT basically admitted that blogs like this one were right all along; without giving us credit of course.

5. The Medicare Actuary of the HHS published a report that the administration had managed to delay in its release till after the final vote admitting that the costs were much more than the Democrats admitted and they knew it. The House Ways & Means Republican Staff published a report with the new taxes that came with the legislation and the CBO published another report stating that the Obamacare tax increases would very much impact those who make less than $200,000 a year – LINK.

6. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted that the administration  has no clue how much the ObamaCare ‘High Risk Pools’ will actually cost – VIDEO

7. The Cato Institute reported on a little known,  burdensome and expensive reporting mandate in the new ObamaCare bill. Every company that spends more than $600 to vendors and suppliers will now have to submit to them and the IRS a 1099 form every year:

Most people know about the individual mandate in the new health care bill, but the bill contained another mandate that could be far more costly.

A few wording changes to the tax code’s section 6041 regarding 1099 reporting were slipped into the 2000-page health legislation. The changes will force millions of businesses to issue hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of additional IRS Form 1099s every year. It appears to be a costly, anti-business nightmare.

Under current law, businesses are required to issue 1099s in a limited set of situations, such as when paying outside consultants. The health care bill includes a vast expansion in this information reporting requirement in an attempt to raise revenue for an increasingly rapacious Congress.

Basically, businesses will have to issue 1099s whenever they do more than $600 of business with another entity in a year. For the $14 trillion U.S. economy, that’s a hell of a lot of 1099s. When a business buys a $1,000 used car, it will have to gather information on the seller and mail 1099s to the seller and the IRS. When a small shop owner pays her rent, she will have to send a 1099 to the landlord and IRS. Recipients of the vast flood of these forms will have to match them with existing accounting records. There will be huge numbers of errors and mismatches, which will probably generate many costly battles with the IRS.

Tax CPA Chris Hesse of LeMaster Daniels tells me:

Under the health legislation, the IRS could be receiving billions of more documents. Under current law, businesses send Forms 1099 for payments of rent, interest, dividends, and non-employee services when such payments are to entities other than corporations. Under the new law, businesses will be required to send a 1099 to other businesses for virtually all purchases. And for the first time, 1099s are to be sent to corporations. This is a huge new imposition on American business, costing the private economy much more than any additional tax that the IRS might collect as a result.

8. The CBO then tells us that Medicare Payment ‘Doc Fix’ will be more expensive than expected – LINK – which by the way conservatives predicted early on.

9. The State of Indiana hired the consulting firm Milliman Inc. to provide the state with an estimate of what the new ObamaCare mandates on the state will be and how it may impact the Indiana budget. The result is not pretty. Milliman estimates that the new mandates will cost the Indiana $3.6 billion over ten years and will result in approximately 1 in 4 Hoosiers will in some way be subsidized by the program. Imagine what that will do to the state budget and to things such as education funding. But hey, why raise taxes when the feds can pass unfunded mandates on the states and force them to raise taxes to pay for it.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Democrats now telling the courts: Ummm that new illegal health insurance mandate is a tax.

Posted by iusbvision on May 13, 2010

Apparently the confidence that the Democrats had that the new health insurance mandate will pass constitutional muster was merely faux posturing.

Originally their argument was that Congress could used the commerce clause to mandate that everyone buy government approved health insurance; essentially telling people that as a condition of citizenship one must engage in an expensive contract with a private party or pay a fine as punishment.

The Democrat talking point argument was that if even the “most conservative of justices” such as Scalia is willing to rule that a man in California who grows marijuana in his basement and smokes it in his house is engaging in interstate commerce than the power of Congress to meddle in our lives is essentially unlimited and the idea of limited government is out the window.

The argument above has a critical flaw; everyone knows that the Supreme Court is way more political than it should be. So of course Justice Scalia does not believe that such a man growing his plant in his basement is engaging in interstate commerce, rather Scalia did not want to be viewed as “pro-marijuana”.

So where does this leave the court? This case leaves it with an opportunity to reign in the commerce clause which the court likely wants to do, and it falls in line with the court politically because the vast majority of people across the political spectrum oppose the mandate and almost half the states are suing to stop it. The court is likely to say something akin to, “If the government can mandate this it can mandate that you buy a GM car”. Such an argument would be correct.

The brighter legal minds in the Democratic Party have realized this and are now trying to fool the court by saying that the new mandate is a tax. Constitutional law professor Randy Barnett says the court will see right through such a rouse and reminds us that the statute hands the court a ready-made argument to shoot the “its a tax” rouse down because the language makes it clear that Congress used the commerce power to justify the mandate.

Wall Street Journal:

A”tell” in poker is a subtle but detectable change in a player’s behavior or demeanor that reveals clues about the player’s assessment of his hand. Something similar has happened with regard to the insurance mandate at the core of last month’s health reform legislation. Congress justified its authority to enact the mandate on the grounds that it is a regulation of commerce. But as this justification came under heavy constitutional fire, the mandate’s defenders changed the argument—now claiming constitutional authority under Congress’s power to tax.

This switch in constitutional theories is a tell: Defenders of the bill lack confidence in their commerce power theory. The switch also comes too late. When the mandate’s constitutionality comes up for review as part of the state attorneys general lawsuit, the Supreme Court will not consider the penalty enforcing the mandate to be a tax because, in the provision that actually defines and imposes the mandate and penalty, Congress did not call it a tax and did not treat it as a tax.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) includes what it calls an “individual responsibility requirement” that all persons buy health insurance from a private company. Congress justified this mandate under its power to regulate commerce among the several states: “The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section,” the law says, “. . . is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2).” Paragraph (2) then begins: “The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased.”

~

This shift won’t work. The Supreme Court will not allow staffers and lawyers to change the statutory cards that Congress already dealt when it adopted the Senate language.

Mr. Barnett is a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown and the author of “Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty” (Princeton, 2005).

Bingo.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Health Law | Leave a Comment »

Video: Swedish artist attacked by crazed Muslim students.

Posted by iusbvision on May 13, 2010

Via Atlas Shrugs:

Swedish artist attacked during free-speech lecture Associated Press

STOCKHOLM – A Swedish artist who angered Muslims by depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a dog said Tuesday he was assaulted while giving a lecture at a university. Lars Vilks told The Associated Press a man in the front row ran up to him and head-butted him during the lecture.

Vilks says his glasses were broken but he was not injured. It wasn’t immediately clear what happened to the attacker.< n> said a group of about 15 people had been shouting and trying to interrupt the lecture before the incident. Many of them stormed the front of the room after the attack and clashed with security guards as Vilks was pulled away into a separate room, he said.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Israel, Violence | Leave a Comment »

The kids of this generation will be less literate than the last.

Posted by iusbvision on May 13, 2010

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War | Leave a Comment »