Europe under Islamic Sharia – While Obama funds Muslim Brotherhood

Freedom or Sharia?  The two ideologies cannot co-exist.

European capitals repeat the decline into Islamic authoritarian Sharia.. History simple being repeated.  In America, Obama buys favors by funding Muslim Brotherhood operations all across the world using money America has borrowed from China, adding to the debt of America’s future generations.  We need another four years of this?  Watch the video to learn more about how Obama administration policies are designed to destroy America (or, in his words, “transform”).

 

Advertisements

IRS Already Gearing Up for Health-Care Crackdown | Fox Business

  • Health Care Bill Stethoscope

The rest of the country may be waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the fate of President Barack Obama’s health-care law, but the Internal Revenue Service is wasting no time.

It wants to add new agents to hunt down tax cheats and still plans to spend $303.5 million building a system to oversee the effects of the health law even though its future is unclear.

As for the new IRS workers, the Government Accountability Office said the total will be about 4,500, with nearly 4,000 (3,997) slated for enforcement.

On the $303.5 million for health care, the GAO said the IRS will “continue the development of new systems and modifications of existing systems required to support new tax credits,” as well as other IRS enforcement systems for health reform.

And that’s where the health reform law gets really tricky for taxpayers.

IRS WATCHDOG: HEALTH REFORM RAISES PRIVACY ISSUES

Nina E. Olson, who runs the Taxpayer Advocate Office {TAO}, a federal IRS overseer, has warned the new health law may require more IRS intrusions on taxpayer privacy, to determine whether individuals got appropriate health coverage, and whether small businesses provide “affordable” coverage, all of which is defined by the government.

That’s because the health-reform law’s individual mandate requires almost all legal residents of the United States to have “adequate” health-care coverage, as determined by the federal government. And it requires businesses of all sizes to provide “affordable” coverage as defined by the federal government.

Health reform’s insurance mandate says if you do not have “adequate” insurance, you’ll have to pay a fine as part of your tax return. If your business doesn’t provide “affordable” coverage,  you’ll have to pay a fine to the IRS, too, as part of your tax return filing.

The IRS must collect these mandate penalties, as well as determine whether individuals buy “adequate” health coverage, and whether small businesses provide “affordable” coverage to workers under the new law.  

WHAT YOU NOW MUST TELL THE IRS UNDER THE HEALTH LAW

The TAO has noted Americans must now tell the IRS under the new law, according to a report obtained by FOX News analyst James Farrell:

*Insurance plan information, including who is covered under the plan and the dates of coverage;
*The costs of your family’s health insurance plans;
*Whether a taxpayer had an offer of employer-sponsored health insurance;
*The cost of employer-sponsored insurance;
*Whether a taxpayer received a premium tax credit; and
*Whether a taxpayer has an exemption from the individual responsibility requirement.

The TAO has warned: “This is different from the type of information the IRS typically deals with, and some taxpayers may feel uncomfortable about sharing it with the IRS.”

Olson added: “As a result, some taxpayers could be tempted to not file a tax return or file a return with incorrect or incomplete information, creating problems for both the taxpayer and the IRS.”

WITH WHOM THE IRS GETS TO SHARE YOUR INFO

In the TAO report obtained by Farrell, the TAO has also reported that “obtaining this new information will also require the IRS to communicate with entities and government agencies that it may not deal with now,” including:

*New state-run insurance exchanges;
*Employers;
*Insurance companies; and
*Government insurance programs.

CAN THE IRS HANDLE IT?

The TAO has warned that the IRS may not have the necessary skill sets, budget, or staffing to adequately enforce the new health reform law.

Olson notes that the federal tax code is already so complex that even the IRS makes numerous mistakes in administering it. In the TAO’s 2010 annual report, the service’s overseer says that Congress has been forcing the IRS to oversee more and more social benefit programs, including the Affordable Care Act.

“As part of the recent health-care legislation, the IRS will face a number of decisions and guidance projects unrelated to its employees’ traditional expertise and skill set,” the TAO has said, and now, with the new law, “the IRS must administer the following health care provisions: the Premium Assistance Credit, the Individual Penalty for Lack of Coverage, the Employer Penalty, and the Small Business Tax Credit.”

The IRS should revise its mission statement to make it clear that it is administering social benefits as well as collecting revenue, TAO said. Already, the IRS enforces and collects Medicare and Social Security taxes, making those federal programs’ overhead costs appear lower than they are.

NOT JUST YOU, BUT YOUR ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD

What does the IRS base your mandate penalty on? This is where it gets hairy. The TAO says that the “IRS will need to determine a taxpayer’s compliance with the individual [insurance purchasing] mandate and assess a penalty if coverage is inadequate.”

And the penalty isn’t based on just your personal net income. The penalty will be based on an entirely different number.

“This determination is based on a concept of ‘household income,’” TAO has said, adding, “this may differ from the income reported on the taxpayer’s return, because it is a composite of all of the income reported by members of a taxpayer’s household — information that may not be readily accessible to the IRS.”

HOW THE HEALTH-REFORM PENALTY WORKS

If the IRS finds you have fallen short of the law, it would hit you with a penalty tied to your household income (which may be that of an individual or several family members). But this is more than just your paycheck earnings. Under the new health law, the IRS penalty would be based on “modified adjusted gross income,” not adjusted gross income that you normally report at the bottom of the first page of your tax form 1040, before you take deductions or personal exemptions.

The modifications add back in things like non-taxable interest and excluded foreign income to this number.

Next, to assess the fine, the IRS would take the total household income divided by the number of household members who must have insurance under the law. This raises questions of responsibility for your other household members to abide by the new health reform law.
All of this could mean a heavier enforcement hand at the IRS.

The IRS will need more training in privacy requirements, in order to avoid a drop in tax compliance, the TAO said, as taxpayers may feel they need to protect their confidential household income information for everyone who lives under the same roof.

WHAT THE NEW REFORM PENALTIES LOOK LIKE

And what would your health reform penalty look like?

The IRS penalty is either a fixed dollar amount, or a percentage of income above the filing threshold, whichever is greater. The law sets the fixed dollar penalty at $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, $695 in 2016, and indexed to inflation thereafter (capped for a family at 300% of the individual amount).

The percentage of income penalty rises at a lower rate than the fixed dollar amount, from 1% in 2014, to 2% in 2015, and to 2.5% in 2016 and after, and then is capped at the national average premium for what’s called “bronze” coverage, which provides the least amount of coverage under the new law, 60% before the patient must chip in for co-insurance, deductibles and co-payments.

There’s more. Small businesses may get hit too. Less than half of small businesses insure workers, says a House Committee on small business. About 60% of America’s uninsured — or 28 million — are small business owners, workers, and their families, it says, adding insurance costs for small businesses have increased 129% since 2000.

The IRS and Treasury have put out for public feedback a new rule to help small businesses contend with a big penalty under health reform that could potentially smack them with tens of thousands of dollars in costs, a fine that could hit already cash-strapped small businesses.

Submarined in the new health-reform law is this big onerous penalty, called a “shared responsibility payment,” that the government can slap against businesses with more than 50 workers if they don’t provide “affordable” health benefits to their full-time employees, which the government gets to define.

The health-reform law exempts all small businesses with fewer than 50 employees from the law’s “shared responsibility requirement,” which begins in 2014. But beginning in 2014, employers with 50 or more employees that do not offer health insurance coverage will pay a fine of $2,000 per full-time worker if any of their employees turn around and get premium tax credits through the new health insurance exchanges.

Even if the small business has 51 workers, and that one worker gets a tax credit to help them buy insurance — a tax credit provided under health reform — the small business still has to pay a fine.

And beginning in 2014, the government will slap businesses with a higher, $3,000-per-employee penalty if the government finds they provide workers “unaffordable” health insurance.

WHO DEFINES “UNAFFORDABLE” HEALTH COVERAGE?

And who gets to define “unaffordable”? The government. How is it defined?

The government will assess the $3,000 penalty if any worker has to take a tax credit or has to enroll in state health exchanges because his or her boss pays less than 60% of the full value of the coverage, or the premium the employee pays is more than 9.5% of household income.

This means more IRS intrusion into small businesses. But the Treasury Department and the IRS have asked for input from the public on a proposed “safe harbor” for 2014 that says small businesses would not have to pay the new fine, so long as they can prove to the government their health insurance is really “affordable.”

So how can companies qualify for this safe harbor? Watch this – because again health reform has raised serious privacy issues about how much the government can know. The small business has to prove to the IRS that its insurance is affordable by showing the government the wages that it paid to employees, instead of reporting to the government the employee’s household income.

Meaning, the IRS would deem a business’s coverage affordable so long as a worker’s premium costs did not exceed 9.5% of his W-2 wages.

The IRS said in a statement: “By allowing employers to base their affordability calculations on each employee’s W-2 wages (which employers know) instead of each employee’s household income (which employers generally would not know), the safe harbor could provide a more workable and practical method for measuring the affordability of an employer’s coverage.”

Want to see the headaches the small business has to go through to figure out the penalty owed to the government? The penalty is $2,000 per employee, but the business must first knock out from the math here the first 30 workers — part-timers don’t count.

Example: If you have 51 full-time employees and 15 part-time employees throughout the year, and one full-time employee is receiving a tax credit to help them buy health insurance, your business will have to pay:
51 (the number of full time employees) – 30 (the first 30 employees are excluded)
21 x $ 2,000 = $ 42,000

Government intrusion into private affairs of American citizens makes the story, “1984”, seem to be a watered down version of the future reality. Is this the direction we want America to go? A police state? Really?

AFP Responds to President Obama’s Budget | Americans for Prosperity


President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2013 Budget

Just another Tax-and-Spend Proposal

On February 13, President Obama released his budget proposal for the fiscal year starting October 1, 2012.  Just like every budget he has offered, this proposal spends too much, taxes too much, uses budget and accounting gimmicks, and fails to address the nation’s biggest challenges.  Last year, the President’s budget was so unserious that the Senate rejected it 97-0; not even a single member of his own party supported the plan.  This year he hasn’t done much better.

Spends Too Much, Taxes Too Much:  Once again the President produced a budget that never balances, creates trillion-dollar yearly deficits and uses campaign rhetoric instead of pro-growth tax policy.

  • The President’s budget envisions over $3.8 trillion in federal spending in 2013.  Over the next five years, his budget runs up $20.6 trillion in government spending.
  • The budget calls for $1.9 trillion in higher taxes while the economy struggles to regain its footing.  Economists of all stripes agree that raising taxes during a recession is bad policy, but the President is more concerned with campaign rhetoric about taxing the rich than using proven policies to restore economic growth.  What’s more, raising taxes only gives politicians more money to spend; it will only undermine efforts to control federal spending.
  • Even with all these new taxes, the President foresees a $1.3 trillion deficit for this year; the forth straight year with a trillion-dollar deficit.  For 2013, Obama’s budget projects a deficit of $901 billion, but if we strip out the budget’s unrealistic assumptions, yet another trillion-dollar-plus deficit is nearly certain.
  • The President uses rosy estimates to make his budget look better than it really is.  The past three years the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued an analysis of the President’s budget.  They found the deficits were actually 20 percent higher than the President claimed.

Budget Tricks and Accounting Gimmicks: The President claims over $4 trillion in deficit reduction in his budget based on either budget tricks or policies that he had nothing to do with.  A few of the gimmicks include:

  • $1.2 trillion in spending reductions from the 2011 debt ceiling debate. However, it was conservatives and House Republicans that pushed and pushed for spending reductions during this debate; the President wanted a debt ceiling increase with no cuts at all.
  • $617 billion in so-called “war savings” from slowing U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Counting money we never planned to spend as savings is disingenuous at best.
  • $1.9 trillion in tax hikes.  No surprise here, he’s just another tax-and-spend politician.
  • $429 in spending on the Medicare doctors fix is buried in the baseline, covering up this additional spending without paying for it with other cuts.

No Leadership on Nation’s Biggest Budget Challenges: The three big entitlement programs are the main drivers of the nation’s budget woes. The President has once again failed to offer a serious proposal to address these programs.

  • The President has already installed his vision to try to control Medicare costs.  In his health care takeover, the President empowered 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to cut provider reimbursements.  This plan will have the predictable effect of putting bureaucrats between patients and doctors, and creating shortages as even more doctors refuse to take Medicare patients.
  • Enrollment in Medicaid was greatly expanded under the President’s health care law with no plan to control costs.  More than 15 million people will be added to the welfare medicine rolls starting in 2014.  Instead of block granting the program to states so they can use proven cost control mechanisms, the President didn’t offer any serious proposal to rein in spending.
  • The President clung to the failed pay-as-you-go Social Security system that is currently a terrible deal for workers.  Higher taxes, lower benefits or a later retirement age will all make Social Security an even worse bargain for workers. Instead, we should move to an optional private accounts system that will restore the solvency of the system, increase individuals’ rate of return and encourage a personal ownership mentality in a program that is currently at the whim of politicians.

View the forum thread.

This “budget” puts the assault on America’s citizens into focus. The Obama plan suggest 3.8 Trillion in spending. It is a certain recipe for financial implosion, the likes of which the world has never seen. The massive debt accumulated in the past 3 years exceed the debt created over the previous 200 years, combined. Does anyone really believe this is a plan for recovery? Really? This is a radical plan to destroy America from within. There’s simply no other explanation that comes close to explaining this gross and purposeful destruction of America.

Budget? We don’t need no stinkin’ budget! – The Loft — GOPUSA

This is exactly why people are frustrated with Washington politicians. Americans have to work within a budget. When they don’t, things go crazy. It works like that in Washington too, except our elected officials are quite happy letting things go crazy rather than following a budget. Just look at Democrat Steny Hoyer. At a briefing with reporters regarding the fact that it’s been 1,000 days since Congress passed a budget, Hoyer said, “The fact is, you don’t need a budget.” And these guys wonder why Congressional approval is in the toilet?

Hoyer said: “What does the budget do? The budget does one thing and really only one thing: It sets the parameters of spending and discretionary caps. Other than that, the Appropriations committee are not bound by the Budget committee’s priorities.”

He continued: “The fact is, you don’t need a budget. We can adopt appropriations bills. We can adopt authorization policies without a budget. We already have an agreed-upon cap on spending.”

As noted in the report by CNSNews.com, “the last time the Senate passed a budget was on Apr. 29, 2009.”

The federal government has since been operating on funds approved through a series of continuing resolutions (CR), raises in the debt ceiling, and several appropriations bills. The last CR was passed in mid-December 2011, by both the House and Senate, and signed by President Barack Obama.

That $915-billion deal, along with several appropriations measures, will keep the federal government operating though the end of fiscal year 2012, on Sept. 30.

CNSNews.com also noted that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also spoke about not needing a budget, saying, “We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year. It’s done, we don’t need to do it.”

Is this insanity or what? Hoyer talks about an “agreed-upon cap on spending” as if that is a substitute for a budget. Does that “agreed-upon cap” do anything? NO! All these people do in Washington is vote to make it higher. There is no budget, and there is no spending cap.

Sen. Jeff Sessions issued a statement on Friday when Reid announced that “for the third year in a row, he would not bring a budget plan up for public debate and amendment on the Senate floor.”

nation’s fiscal future and the difficult choices we face. He obviously continues in his belief that it would be politically foolish for his members to go on record in support of any long-term vision. But by refusing to lay out a budget plan for public examination–a fact no one can deny–the Democrat Senate has forfeited the high privilege to lead this chamber.

It’s been 1,000 days since our leaders in Washington have passed a budget. 1,000 days! Isn’t it time to get some new people in there? These guys may understand how Washington works, but they sure don’t know anything about how an average American family works. Get a clue!

A government run by charlatans who refuse to take responsibility for many, many problems. When Harry Reid refuses to come up with a budget, he snorts that America doesn’t need a budget. Friends, that kind of insanity is designed to destroy the financial foundation of our country. It’s simply a full on assault on the remaining remnant of American Patriots by Obama and his Liberal comrades- war by other means.

Economic Collapse of Oregon Rural Counties

Oregon State Rep. Richardson’s Newsletter
October 10, 2011


Ending Federal Timber Payments to Oregon;
Economic Collapse of Oregon Rural Counties,
A Statewide Concern

I am Dennis Richardson, a Co-Chair of Oregon’s Joint Senate-House Ways & Means Committee, and I write this newsletter on issues of significance for all Oregonians.

If you aren’t hungry or worried about your next meal as you read this, be grateful.  One of every five Oregonians is now receiving food stamps.

If you aren’t checking Craigslist for a job or sending out resumes, be thankful.  Almost ten percent of Oregon’s workforce is in the unemployment line. 

Somber statistics, but the real tragedy, the deepest devastation lies in Oregon’s rural counties. And it’s about to get worse, much worse. 

Notwithstanding the bipartisan coalition of Oregon’s federal elected officials who are working to extend federal timber payments, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack predicted extending benefits is not likely to occur.  Secretary Vilsack during his recent visit to Oregon stated that the federal program that provided as much as $253 million a year in payments to rural Oregon counties, the Secure Rural Schools Act, will not survive the Congressional super committee’s work to cut $1.5 trillion from the federal budget deficit.

If you live in an urban area and you still have a job and a home, maybe you don’t care that this will likely bankrupt at least two Oregon counties.  Maybe you don’t have time to worry about rural unemployment rates that have hovered near 20 percent for almost two decades. 

But if you do care, then before you leave for work or go out for lunch, take a close-up look at poverty in our state; take a moment to google Curry County or Coos County, or for that matter just view the sweeping satellite image of our state – nearly half of which is blanketed with riches, deep green forests—Oregon’s richest natural resource. 

And yet these are Oregon’s poorest areas, where methamphetamine destroys already broken lives, where hopelessness evicts the young and ambitious, where urban idealism has outspent and outlawed rural initiative.  Where generations of hard-working timber families once labored and thrived, depression now is a way of life.

Imagine if you lived in the midst of the natural resources necessary to save yourself and your family, and were ordered to abandon your tools, your dreams, and your community. Consider how demoralizing to be a fourth generation logger, out of work because of legal challenges to timber sales, who must stand by and watch Oregon’s forests in thick, black, carbon-laden smoke, as millions of acres are consumed in raging forest fires.  It wasn’t intended to be this way.

Rural Oregonians acted in good faith and believed in their elected leaders when they helped negotiate President Clinton’s 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, but since then teams of environmental lawyers have blocked the timber sales, closed the mills, and thwarted alternative recreation plans, leaving rural Oregon underemployed and dependent on government hand-outs.  
 
How could the urban elected officials who set the agenda for our federal forests turn away from our most plentiful renewable resource?  How could they ignore our comparative advantage over other states?  Who is responsible for Oregon’s rural poverty, high unemployment rate and declining income?  How did this happen? 

During the 1980s and 90s timber revenues from federal forests in rural Oregon counties plummeted.  Well-funded “eco-elites” [If this term offends you, see Note below.] shut down Oregon’s timber harvests by obtaining federal court rulings over the endangered species listing of the spotted owl.  More than 100 mills closed.  Thousands of family wage jobs were eliminated, drying up incomes and businesses in small mill towns across our state.  Annual timber harvests now hover at around 10 percent of levels associated with a more thriving Oregon.  Ironically, Oregon’s population of spotted owls continues to dwindle.

Faced with economic disaster from the loss of timber harvest revenues, rural counties turned to Congress for a solution.  Rather than correcting the misuse of the Endangered Species Act, Congress approved the Secure Rural Schools Act, which temporarily supplanted the lost income that once funded rural schools, government, and other essential services.  
Instead of continuing to fund county services from timber harvest revenues, rural counties were paid hundreds of millions of dollars in federal welfare payments.

The counties were ordered to develop alternative economic plans.  Having achieved their goals of making Oregon’s rich forests of renewable timber legally off-limits and unavailable to be managed or harvested, Portland’s urban eco-elites promptly turned their backs and abandoned the counties to fend for themselves with meager resources.

For the past decade, politicians and the environmentalists have allowed rural Oregon counties to deteriorate and become ever more dependent on government handouts.  Now, in the face of massive federal deficits, nobody wants to defend any longer what are essentially welfare payments to counties in 40 states.

Portland and Oregon’s other major cities should wake up.  The last federal timber welfare payment checks are being issued, and they will mark the end of the primary source of revenue to some of Oregon’s rural counties.  There will be consequences felt in Portland, Salem and Eugene from the bankruptcy of Oregon rural counties.  As the urban eco-elites watch placidly from the sidelines, they should realize this rural economic meltdown will financially affect their schools, their county services, and their tax rates. State government is already being asked to intervene.  What will be the cost and how should we respond?

The solution is clear.  Ignoring Oregon’s vast timber resources is a failed policy and must be reversed.  Democrat leaders now must “man-up” and face their coalition of environmental supporters and say, “No more lawsuits.  Our neighbors are suffering; our rural communities are collapsing; our rural counties must be saved.  We must moderate our forest policy.” 

Action is needed now.  Words are not enough. The federal government controls 53 percent of Oregon land, and rural counties depended on effective and productive management of those resources. They have been abandoned and betrayed.

The truth stares rural folks in the face day and night. There are no alternatives. There is no replacement economy. There is only the forest—one of the richest, greenest, fastest growing forests in the world.

There is only one solution – it’s vast, green, and sustainable.  Oregon needs a new forest timber policy.  The particulars of a new Oregon timber policy must be hammered out between the state and federal government.  It is not working to have the future of Oregon’s rural counties controlled three thousand miles away in Washington, D.C. 

What should Oregon’s new timber policy look like?  One proposal is to place control of Oregon’s federal forests with the counties in which they are located.  In addition, to provide funding to Oregon’s revenue-starved timber counties Oregon’s Congressional Representatives Peter DeFazio and Greg Walden have proposed offering long-term leases on up to 1 million acres of Oregon’s federal timber land that is currently managed by the Federal BLM. A third idea is to have Oregon’s federal forests placed in a trust with Oregon assuming management and control of the timber assets.

Regardless of the final terms of the new Oregon timber policy, safeguards must be included that will stop the use of our federal courts as an eco-elitist weapon against responsible timber harvesting.

The time has come to reopen Oregon’s forests in a responsible manner. The time has come to reclaim our bounty, our birthright, and rebuild Oregon’s natural resource-based economy.  The economic future of both rural and urban Oregon depends upon it.

Sincerely,

Dennis Richardson
State Representative

P.S. If you have comments to share, please do so at: www.oregontransformation.com

P.P.S. Thanks to the Editors for publishing this article in the October 9, 2011 edition of The Oregonian

NOTE:  It is difficult to find an acceptable term for those environmental/ecological activists whose focus is on maintaining pristine forests regardless of the economic consequences or the forest conflagrations such policies may cause.  Since those included in the term “eco-elites” were likely to be offended by any appellation I might use, this one will have to do until I can find a more suitable term.  Suggestions are welcomed.


Oregon Transformation: The Oregon Transformation Project (OTP) continues to serve as a clearing house for ideas to help promote Oregon’s economic recovery.  With the right ideas and enough concerned citizens to help implement them, we can rebuild a robust private sector, which is essential to maintaining Oregon’s quality of life.  OTP has just released a new T.V. commercial to help recruit interested Oregonians in joining OTP’s visionary efforts.  If you are interested in seeing it, Click here

To hear real Oregonians tell their stories, and to sign up for OTP’s weekly Flashfacts, please visit www.oregontransformation.com.

Stay informed about Oregon Legislature: To keep up on what is going on at the Oregon Capitol and in District 4, please subscribe to my newsletters by email and YouTube, like my Facebook page, and follow me on Twitter for regular updates.

%d bloggers like this: