Articles Tagged ‘tax’

Note to Obama: ‘Read the bill’

Monday, September 21st, 2009

If you haven’t read Warner Todd Huston’s quick take on Obama denying the dictionary definition of “tax” it’s worth a visit.

That the president would imply something is a stretch because it has to be looked up in Merriam Webster defies any sense of logic (what because Merriam Webster is some obscure, partisan, slanted source?).

See for yourself:

Perhaps President Obama should have read the bill, which plainly calls the fees an “excise tax,” as Politico reported in Health bill says ‘tax’ when President Obama said ‘not’ by Chris Frates and Mike Allen.

“He could look it up — in the bill,” they write.

Page 29, sentence one of the bill introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) says: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.”

Villainous Company’s Cassandra writes: “if your name is Barack Obama, you can not only make up your own definitions, but you’re entitled to make up the facts, too!”

And over at No Quarter, Larry Johnson glibly pointed out, “It Depends On What Your Definiton Of “Tax” Is.”

Johnson provides the link as well as a full transcript.

Um, aren’t these EXACTLY the same things OBAMA is planning on doing? Let’s see - he attacked Hillary Clinton during the Primaries by claiming she would fine people who didn’t have insurance. She never said that, but now Obama is. Obama claimed in the campaign that McCain was going to cut money from Medicare and tax people on their insurance, and now Obama is planning on doing both! WTF???

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Eye on the Media | Start the Discussion

Move Over, Dr. 90210, and Hand Government that Scalpel

Tuesday, July 28th, 2009

As Americans face a government overhaul of the health care industry, one might wonder how they intend to pay for a program with a more than $1 trillion pricetag. One solution: taxing plastic surgery?

According to “Plastic Surgery Tax Eyed as Revenue Raiser,” an article that appeared yesterday on NationalJournal.com, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), who chairs the Senate Committee on Finance, thought that concept of imposing a tax on plastic surgery offered him some “interesting,” “creative” and “kind of fun ideas.” 

The tax, which has not been officially scored, would plug some of the revenue gap senators are seeking to fill to keep on schedule for a markup the week of Aug. 3. It would target procedures prohibited under Section 213 of the tax code, which deals with itemized deductions for medical expenses not covered by health insurance.

While it is no surprise that a liberal like Sen. Baucus would find a new tax “kind of fun” or “interesting,” they are neglecting the vow of President Obama not to raise taxes on the middle class. A tax on plastic surgery, however elective or luxurious the procedure might be, would assume no constraints based on income level. Therefore, if this measure were to pass, it would be in direct contradiction to how the President promised to pay for the expansion of health care through state-run insurance. The article explains that while most cosmetic procedures would be taxable, surgeries meant to remedy physical detriment caused be an accent or disease would be exempt.

The 1990 deficit-reduction law prohibited taxpayers from taking deductions for cosmetic surgery “unless the surgery or procedure is necessary to ameliorate a deformity arising from, or directly related to, a congenital abnormality, a personal injury resulting from an accident or trauma, or a disfiguring disease.”

The law defines cosmetic surgery as “any procedure which is directed at improving the patient’s appearance and does not meaningfully promote the proper function of the body or prevent or treat illness or disease.”

According to the IRS, deductions for procedures such as reconstructive surgery due to cancer or laser eye surgery would be allowed. But nose jobs, liposuction, teeth-whitening procedures and Botox injections to smooth wrinkles would be prohibited under Sec. 213 and subject to the new tax.

If the standard tax codes are kept in place, cancer patients would not be taxed for reconstructive breast surgery. But, in a medical industry where a public option is in play, what guarantee is there that these “elective” surgeries, providing no physical function aside from the return of some semblance of self-esteem to a breast cancer survivor who endured a mastectomy, would receive any priority? 

Furthermore, how effective could such a tax be? With doctors being discouraged to practice speciality medicine (Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wants more medical students to choose family practice), how many plastic surgeons will still be around? Not to mention the fact that President Obama has rejected tort reform, which would cap the amount for which a doctor can be sued in the event of medical malpractice, one of the largest expenses for plastic surgeons, making it even more difficult for specialty doctors to practice. And if rationing occurs, an all too likely consequence of such a system, how much of a priority would it be for patients, regardless of the nature of their conditions, to be granted the ability to seek plastic surgery? 

It is important to note the mindset of those in favor of a tax on plastic surgery. They see such procedures as an indication of luxury and excess. To them, folks who could pay out of pocket for such surgeries, whether through an insurance policy or in cash (if the latter is even allowed anymore), should sustain a tax that would fund their efforts to insure the uninsured.

And they couldn’t be more wrong. Indeed, most patients who come into a plastic surgeon’s office are not like those you would see when watching E! Television’s “Dr. 90210,” draped in diamonds and driving the finest import cars. 

He also disputed the notion it would be a “tax on the wealthy,” noting most patients earn less than $100,000 a year. “People put money aside for years, sometimes weekly under-the-mattress deductions” to get the surgery they want, he said.

Here is a more realistic example than those provided by advocates of the tax: Say you have a tiny birth defect that has caused you much discomfort or embarrassment, just as President Obama has expressed himself about having large ears. Say that, unlike a wealthy lawyer-turned-Senator-turned-President Obama, you save for years to obtain a simple procedure to pin them back. The government will tax you for being so superficial as to spend your hard-earned money on something so trivial as fixing your ears, even though, just as President Obama, you have been “teased relentlessly” about them your whole life.

Sound fair? For all this talk of the public option competing with private sector, some people just aren’t buying it. After all, when you’re taxing and regulating the private sector to pay for public insurance, ultimately rendering it unable to compete, there’s no level field on which they two can play in the first place.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Policy Alternative | 1 Comment »

Campaign Diaries: At Least 62 House Dems Have Publicly Opposed Some Key Provision of Health Care Bill

Tuesday, July 21st, 2009

In a piece appearing online in Campaign Diaries on Sunday, it is apparent that there are at least 62 Democrats who have opposed at least one major component of the proposed health care reform legislation from Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and President Obama.

While a handful of Blue Dog Democrats wrote a letter that encouraged a public option similar to Medicare, 40 members of that Coalition signed a letter demanding free market changes to the bill.

It is most important to note the Democratic margins in House committees. According to Campaign Diaries, Congressman Henry Waxman’s Energy and Commerce Committee has a Democratic majority of 36 to 23. Unfortunately for Mr. Waxman, 7 of those are Blue Dog Democrats who signed the letter opposing the bill in its current form. That brings it to 29-30 votes, ultimately causing it to fail in committee.

These 7 Democrats are: Rep. Mike Ross (AR), Rep. John Barrow (GA), Rep. Bart Gordon (TN), Rep. Baron Hill (IN), Rep. Jim Matheson (CO), Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA), Rep. Zach Space (OH). All signed last week’s Blue Dog letter. (An eighth Blue Dog on the committee, Rep. Jane Herman, has said she favors a robust public option.)

Other portions that Democrats opposed include abortion and tax hikes. Without some serious reforms, it appears as though there are enough Democrats to stop the bill, whether in committee or on the floor, but there is no guarantee. One might wonder if they remember, or will have to have some angry constituents remind them, why they were in opposition to the bill in the first place.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

Olympia Snowe: An enigma on healthcare reform

Thursday, July 16th, 2009

Senator Olympia Snowe has proven something of an enigma for those following the healthcare reform debate on Capitol Hill. Snowe, who many expect to vote with Democrats to pass comprehensive healthcare reform, emerged from a nearly hour-long White House meeting with President Obama this afternoon urging caution as Democrats look to push a bill through for a vote before the August recess.

“Understandably the president would like to complete this process…before the August recess,” she said. “He’s concerned about returning in Fall and getting this done.” The president told her, she said, that “’this is our window of opportunity.’ I don’t disagree,” she said, but she wants to “make sure we have the best initiative and the best product going forward.”

“It’s important to get it right,” she said, noting that the Finance Committee has yet to hear from the Congressional Budget Office regarding cost estimates. (As reported by ABC News)

(Editor’s Note: Snowe is a member of the Senate Finance Committee.)

Maine’s moderate Republicans Snowe and Susan Collins  are considered critical Senate votes as Congressional Democrats hope to claim bipartisan support for healthcare reform. The two votes may also prove crucial to passage of any bill out of the Senate as Blue Dog and politically-vulnerable Democrats defect over the public option. 

Less than a week after Democrats and Republicans alike said healthcare reform had fallen behind schedule, the House of Representatives released a rare tri-committee healthcare reform bill on Tuesday to be be followed by a second bill out of the Senate HELP (Health Education Labor and Pensions) Committee on Wednesday.

With momentum clearly accelerating, Snowe’s cautionary approach could throw a wrench into Democrat plans to avoid a protracted debate on the more controversial elements of reform - including the proposed public option insurance plan, a House proposal to finance reform through tax hikes on wealthy Americans and small businesses and an emerging debate over whether to include coverage for abortions - and pass legislation in the next couple of weeks.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Players | Start the Discussion

Robbing Peter to pay Paul? House Dems release healthcare reform bill

Wednesday, July 15th, 2009

A day after President Obama called on Congress to pick up the pace and pass healthcare reform legislation, the House released a rare tri-committee bill weighing in at a whopping 1,018 pages. While it will take days to wade through the entirety of the bill, a quick look at the highlights reveals that getting this bill on the President’s desk by October will be an uphill battle for Democrats.

America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would appear to be the most liberal of the bills currently being considered by lawmakers. It includes both individual and employer mandates, requires insurance companies to waive any pre-existing condition clauses they may have in their insurance policies and contains the controversial public option insurance plan which has proven a deal-breaker in the Senate. All of that said, this bill also introduces a “surcharge on high income individuals” as a means of paying for the plan which translates to as much as a 45% tax rate for the wealthiest Americans and small businesses. 

SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

(a) GENERAL RULE. - In the case of a taxpayer, other than a corporation, there is herby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to -

(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modifies adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

(3)  5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000. 

(Note: This language comes from pages 197 and 198 of the bill.)

Key language in the tax clause includes the phrase “other than a corporation” when determining who will pay these extra taxes. This means small businesses are subject to this revenue raising mechanism.

President Obama was quick to praise the bill.

The House proposal will begin the process of fixing what’s broken about our health care system, reducing costs for all, building on what works, and covering an estimated 97% of all Americans.  And by emphasizing prevention and wellness, it will also help improve the quality of health care for every American. (See the full statement here.)

The non-partisan National Taxpayers Union was less enthusiastic.

With their new health care plan House Democratic leaders seem have abandoned the ‘borrow now, spend now, pay later’ philosophy for a mantra that is just as dangerous to our economy: ‘tax now, spend now, and tax again.’ Aside from the disastrous impact of the new income surtaxes, more may be in store for America’s small businesses and entrepreneurs if the savings from the health care bill don’t materialize. The two initial rates of surtax will double if savings targets aren’t met.

Whatever else happens, the maximum combined federal tax rate in the U.S. will surpass those in France, Ireland, Italy, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Our rate will tie or even exceed that which burdens citizens in the People’s Republic of China. The highest rate on ordinary capital gains and dividend income would triple. If this plan passes, say goodbye to a bull market anytime soon. (Quote attributed to National Taxpayers Union Vice President for Policy and Communications Pete Sepp.)

U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue was quick to come out against the new tax, which the Chamber believes puts its nearly 2.9 million small business members at risk.

“Placing a big tax burden on the small business community would rob them of the resources they need to create the jobs that will lead us out of the recession. Since when does our great free market country punish success?  If there’s one sure way to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, this is it.”

To date, the public option insurance plan has been the most controversial measure unveiled in any of five healthcare reform bills under consideration. The public option alone has proven enough to keep a bill from garnering the votes necessary to pass the Senate as a number of Democrats, led by Independent Senator Joe Lieberman, have defected over the past month.

The introduction of this new tax seems likely to send several at-risk Democrats over to the other side if an income tax hike makes its way into bills being drafted out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. Democrats are counting on lower- and middle-income Americans supporting a tax on the wealthiest Americans in exchange for scrapping a plan to tax employer-provided healthcare benefits previously floated by House Ways and Means chairman Charles Rangel.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Horserace | Start the Discussion

Michael Tanner: Obama’s Flip-Flop on Taxing Coverage

Monday, July 13th, 2009

Michael Tanner follows the flip-flop of Barack Obama on whether employer-provided health care coverage for employees should be taxed as income on behalf of employees. Up to this point, health care has exploded in cost and coverage nationwide in part because employers can provide for it without employees having to treat it as income. One of the Left’s proposals for paying for government-run health care is to begin taxing those benefits, likely with a cap.

Roughly 163 million Americans receive health insurance through their employer. While actually a form of compensation, the value of the employer’s contribution to that insurance is not taxed under the federal income or payroll taxes.

This exclusion is a solidly middle-class tax benefit. More than 70% of middle-income, nonelderly Americans have employer-based health coverage. And about half of people with employer-based coverage have family income of less than $75,000.

Now, in a desperate search for $1 trillion to $2 trillion to pay for Obama’s medical insurance reform plan, congressional Democrats are considering proposals to limit or repeal this tax exclusion. And the Obama administration says it may go along.

A continuing theme of the Democratic Party’s campaign to control every aspect of American life is the control over aspects of employment. By forcing businesses and their employees to foot an even larger bill, government is increasing the costs “to play” in the market-system of remaining firms. Naturally, more and more firms that cannot afford government largesse will be rooted out of the system. This is to the Democratic Party’s advantage. They seek to control nearly every aspect about whether a business exists or is ever able to come into existence.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Policy Alternative | Start the Discussion