the daily dan

month

July 2012

232 Amtrak riders board buses after being stranded | News from The Associated Press → hosted.ap.org

PRINCE, W.Va. (AP) — A storm that knocked down trees across several states stranded 232 Amtrak passengers for more than 20 hours at a West Virginia station before they were picked up by buses on Saturday night.

Amtrak spokesman Steve Kulm said all the passengers were loaded onto buses that will ferry them to their eventual destination. They departed by 8:20 p.m. Saturday and will stop at train stations along the original route from New York to Chicago.

The riders had been stranded near the town of Prince since about 11 p.m. Friday because fallen trees were blocking the tracks in front of the train and behind it.

Kulm said the train had power, lights and air conditioning. Passengers could get in and out because they were parked at a station. The train was also stocked with food.

Brooke Richart, a 26-year-old teacher from New York City, said she spent more than 20 hours stranded. She said she read half a book, talked to the people around her and took walks outside the train.

“We tried to walk up the side of the mountain to see if anyone could get cell service. We didn’t have cell service the entire time we were down there,” she said.

She was traveling to her hometown of Cincinnati. She said the ride had mostly been smooth, with a few delays, before they stopped in Prince. The storm had already passed through by the time they stopped there. She fell asleep on the train not knowing how long they’d be stuck there.

She said the train attendants and her fellow passengers were extremely nice - watching each others’ children and sharing food.

However, she said her family had a hard time figuring out where she was in conversations with Amtrak customer service representatives. By the time the buses arrived, her father had also come to pick her up and drive her the rest of the way.

“It gets a little trying,” she said. “Thankfully we could go in and out of the train because we were there so long. If you wanted to stretch your legs or take a walk, you could do that.”

The stranded train was first reported by the transportation blog Jalopnik.

Jun 30, 20120 notes
Reaganite Republican: Bachmann: 'Don't Let Anybody Tell You We Need 60 Votes to Repeal . . . We Don't' → reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com

‘It’s like a knife was stuck into us and twisted’

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said last night on The Factor that the good guys only need 51 Senate votes to 
repeal ObamaCare, provided we’ve got a GOP president:

 ’People are angry. They’re shocked. 


What Americans must realize is there’s one option left, it’s a powerful option- the ballot box in November.


I think more than ever Democrats and independents are going to be looking at Mitt Romney for president. Because it’s a very clear contrast. It’s Barack Obama and you keep Obamacare or it’s Mitt Romney and you repeal it… 


And people should’t be fooled to think that we need to have 60 Republican seats in the senate. We don’t. We need fifty plus one. That’s all we need. That’s what the Democrats had with the reconciliation bill and we can repeal Obamacare.


 Don’t give up hope. We can get this done’

Jun 30, 20122 notes
Play
Jun 30, 20120 notes
Obamacare: Seven New Taxes on Citizens Earning Less than $250,000 | Breitbart → breitbart.com

While we were all debating the cost to our liberty due to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), we were ignoring the cost to our pockets.  If there ever was a reason for bipartisan rage about this law, it should be on the twenty - yes, twenty - hidden new taxes of this law.  Making matters even more relevant is that seven of these taxes are levied on all citizens regardless of income.  Hence, Mr. Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 is just another falsehood associated with this legislation.

The first, and best known, of these seven taxes that will hit all Americans as a result of Obamacare is the Individual Mandate Tax (no longer concealed as a penalty). This provision will require a couple to pay the higher of a base tax of $1,360 per year, or 2.5% of adjusted growth income starting with lower base tax and rising to this level by 2016.  Individuals will see a base tax of $695 and families a base tax of $2,085 per year by 2016. 

Next up is the Medicine Cabinet Tax that took effect in 2011.  This tax prohibits reimbursement of expenses for over-the-counter medicine, with the lone exception of insulin, from an employee’s pre-tax dollar funded Health Saving Account (HSA), Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or Health Reimbursement Account (HRA).  This provision hurts middle class earners particularly hard since they earn enough to actually pay federal taxes, but not enough to make this restriction negligible.

The Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Cap, which will begin in 2013, is perhaps the most hurtful provision to the middle class.  This part of the law imposes a cap of $2,500 per year (which is now unlimited) on the amount of pre-tax dollars that could be deposited into these accounts.  Why is this particularly hurtful to the middle class?  It is because funds in these accounts may be used to pay for special needs education for special needs children in the United States.  Tuition rates for this type of special education can easily exceed $14,000 per year and the use of pre-tax dollars has helped many middle income families.

Another direct hit to the middle class is the Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle which is currently 7.5% of adjusted gross income.  This is the hurdle that must be met before medical expenses over that hurdle can be taken as a deduction on federal income taxes.  Obamacare raises this hurdle to 10% of adjusted gross income beginning in 2013.  Consider the middle class family with $80,000 of adjusted gross income and $8,000 of medical expenses.  Currently, that family can get some relief from being able to take a $2,000 deduction (7.5% X $80,000 = $6,000; $8,000 –$6,000 = $2,000).  An increase to 10% would eliminate the deduction in this example and if that family was paying a 25% federal tax rate, the real cost of that lost deduction would be $500.

The fifth new tax on the middle class, and all Americans, is the Health Savings Account (HSA) Withdrawal Tax Hike.  This provision increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% currently to 20% beginning in 2013.  This provision actually sets these accounts apart from Investment Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and other tax advantaged accounts, all of which remain with a 10% early withdrawal tax.

Another regressive tax that is part of this law began in 2010 and that is the Indoor Tanning Services Tax, which places a 10% excise tax on people using tanning salons.  While some may regard this as insignificant, the broader implication is that this act of taxation is a blatant move by the federal government to control the behavior of citizens.  This provision, as does the Individual Mandate and as Justice Kennedy said during the oral arguments on the constitutionality of the law said, “….fundamentally changes the relationship between the federal government and the citizen.”

The seventh new tax that directly impacts the middle class, along with all citizens, is the Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans or the “Cadillac” Health Insurance Plan Tax.  These are plans that provide extensive coverage and that are generally fully paid for, or largely paid for, by employers.  This provision imposes a 40% excise tax on the employer-paid premium on taxpayers who are covered by such plans, beginning in 2018.  The reason it begins in 2018 is because most unionized workers are covered by plans that fall under this definition and a deferral was made to spare union members from this tax for at least a period of time.

There are thirteen other taxes that apply to businesses and that apply to high income (over $250,000 per year) households.  While these additional provisions will not impact the middle class directly, they can have serious indirect consequences for middle and low income earners.  Beginning in 2014, the Employer Mandate Tax will impose an annual non-deductible tax on employers with more than 50 employees who do not provide health insurance for their employees. 

The impact of this provision on low and middle income earners, and really all working Americans, is that employers will be confronted with three choices. The first is provide some level of health insurance, as many do today, and there would be no impact on employees.  The second choice is to pay the penalty, which would most likely be less expensive than providing health insurance, and force employees to seek their own health insurance or purchase it through federal government controlled state exchanges.  Studies have estimated that 20 million Americans will lose their employee funded health insurance as a result of this provision and employers electing this option.  The third choice is for employers to lay off employees, or not hire additional employees, because Obamacare forces them to either provide health insurance or pay the new tax. 

Another new tax, the Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers that begins in 2013, places a 2.3% excise tax on all items retailing for more than $100.  This provision will not only drive up the cost of various medical devices ranging from mobility assistance devices to personal testing supplies, but will also impact an industry that employs 360,000 people in 6,000 plants across our country.  This tax, while not a direct tax, would have significant negative impact on the middle class.

The Surtax on Investment Income for households earning $250,000 and more, beginning in 2013, will raise the Capital Gains Tax from 15% to 23.8% on investment income for these households and will raise Taxes on Dividends from 15% to 43.4% for the same households.  Aside from the impact on retired citizens dependent on dividends, this provision will pull income from the private economy.  In addition, the tax rate on Other Investment Income earned by Subchapter S Corporation (which many small business are organized as, allowing the owners to claim all business income as personal income) will rise from 35% to 43.4%.  This part of the provision would place additional pressure on small businesses resulting in more layoffs and less hiring, impacting all American workers.

All but one of the remaining new taxes in Obamacare are directed at health industry businesses and while they will not impact middle income families directly, the additional costs will most likely be passed on to the public.  The last new tax is really interesting, it is a tax on certain biofuels! 

These are the facts.  It does not matter if you support Mr. Obama and his new law or if you oppose it, the new taxes on the middle class or real and all Americans should understand their impact on their families and the economy.  Citizens, regardless of political beliefs, should recognize that Obamacare was passed with almost no sunlight shined on these middle class tax increases and need to understand that the new law was sold with the promise that there would be no new middle class taxes.  This is not partisan, it is simply the reality of politics.

For more information, read ATR’s analysis of the Affordable Care Act’s taxes here.

Jun 30, 20120 notes
GDP Plunges to 1.9% | Breitbart → breitbart.com

On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Commerce released a report chock full of weak growth figures and worrisome economic signals.

The gross domestic product (GDP) dropped from last quarter’s 3.0 percent to an anemic 1.9 percent. Over half of first-quarter growth came from automobile sales. When automobiles are removed from the calculation, the GDP grew at just 0.7 percent.

 Second-quarter growth estimates of 2.0 percent growth, therefore, may be overly optimistic.

From Reuters:

The government lowered its previous forecasts for consumer spending and export growth, suggesting the economy had a bit less momentum as it entered the second quarter than previously thought.

Consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. economic activity, increased at a 2.5 percent rate in the first quarter, rather than the previously reported 2.7 percent pace.

With retail sales falling in April and May, consumer spending for the second quarter may prove softer.

The number of Americans receiving benefits under regular state programs after an initial week of aid stands at 3.3 million, a decline of just 15,000 individuals.

The U.S. Department of Commerce defines the gross domestic product as “the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States.”

Jun 30, 20120 notes
Obama’s gloating continues; Obamacare ‘still a BFD’ | Twitchy → twitchy.com

Still a BFD: OFA.BO/ayPgAZ

—


Barack Obama (@BarackObama) June 29, 2012

The Obama campaign’s gloating continues unabated. How classy.

@BarackObama Mr. President, that language is not appropriate for the public account of the leader of our nation. I’m disappointed.—
Anderson Campbell (@andycampbell) June 29, 2012

@BarackObama thanks for making the office a tad less classy with this—
George (@WickedSmaaaht) June 29, 2012

@BarackObama really? Not sure what audience you’re trying connect to.—
  (@boutcher) June 29, 2012

@BarackObama Are you kidding-STILL SPIKING THE BALL? It’s not a game-it’s America’s future! We will vote yote your ass out in November #tcot—
Ed D’Avi (@oracle_ed) June 29, 2012

yeah and we’ll know just how big in Nov. Stay classy. RT @BarackObama Still a BFD—
ComfyPaws™ (@ComfyPaws) June 29, 2012

@BarackObama how classy. No #BFD—
Michael Roberson (@Nel_Mezzo) June 29, 2012

Remember when presidents were leaders, not tacky t-shirt salesmen? RT @BarackObama: Still a BFD: OFA.BO/ayPgAZ—
Chelsea Grunwald (@ChelseaGrunwald) June 29, 2012

Wow. That just screams class. RT @BarackObama: Still a BFD: OFA.BO/ayPgAZ—
Jeff Emanuel (@jeffemanuel) June 29, 2012

So, which campaign consultant thought this was a good idea…? RT @BarackObama: Still a BFD: store.barackobama.com/obamacare/obam…—
Brent Teichman (@BrentTeichman) June 29, 2012

Demeaning the office daily -> RT @BarackObama: Still a BFD: OFA.BO/ayPgAZ #tcot #p2—
RB (@RBPundit) June 29, 2012

Did you really just tweet this? RT @BarackObama: Still a BFD: OFA.BO/ayPgAZ—
David Freddoso (@freddoso) June 29, 2012

Fuc*ing classy for a President to tweet. RT @BarackObama: Still a BFD: OFA.BO/ayPgAZ—
Heather (@hmfearny) June 29, 2012

Jun 30, 20120 notes
Foul-Mouthed Dem Officials Celebrate ObamaCare Ruling 'Mother******s!!' → breitbart.com

According to his Twitter feed, Greg Greene is the New Media Outreach Director for the Democratic National Committee. He’s since deleted the Tweet, but nothing ever really goes away on the InterWebNets: 

Patrick Gaspard is the Executive Director of the DNC and once served as an Obama Administration official.

You’d think he would’ve heard of this whole War on Women thing:

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

Jun 30, 20120 notes
Jun 30, 20120 notes

June 2012

Obama: Soldiers NEED TO PAY MORE → conservativedailynews.com

Is there any group in this country more deserving of  our help and consideration than the military?  And yet, this week President Obama threatened to veto the Defense Appropriations bill because it did not increase fees charged for medical care to our soldiers and their families.

The Washington Review and Commentary Weekly News From The White House, dated June 28, 2012,contains a laundry list of appropriations with which the administration disagrees. It should be noted, the appropriations bill passed easily in a bipartisan fashion. The president’s budget plan wanted to cut nearly $2Billion in expense from TriCare through increased fees to military personnel. The House passed bill was slightly larger than the administration proposal (less than 1%) but made spending cuts in the non-defense discretionary budget in order to lesson the impact particularly to the military staff.

In February it was reported that the administration planned to cut health benefits for active and retired military while not adjusting benefits of the civil defense workers who are unionized. At the time, congressional aides suggested the move was intended to force service members into Obamacare.

We send our service men and women out to protect us and our country. Does it make sense that we place less value on their services than we do the civil defense force? Or is this another opportunity for this administration to side with unions?

Jun 30, 20120 notes
Play
Jun 30, 20120 notes
Play
Jun 30, 20120 notes
Master sgt. says no to Chinese-made boots - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times → airforcetimes.com

Courtesy of Master Sgt. Steve Adachi Master Sgt. Steve Adachi, minus the Chinese-made boots his unit gave him, says he wants all his military-made clothing to be produced in the U.S.


Master Sgt. Steve Adachi is willing to fight for his country, but not in the Chinese-made boots his unit gave him.

“I’m troubled that the military continues to downsize because of the budget deficits — budget deficits which are in part a result of millions of unemployed American workers,” Adachi wrote in a letter to Air Force Times. “How many American workers are unemployed because military clothing is being produced in foreign countries?”

Adachi is a reservist deployed to Kabul, Afghanistan, with the 438th Air Expeditionary Wing as an adviser to the Afghan air force. His home unit is the 624th Regional Support Group in Hawaii.

Before he deployed, his unit gave him a pair of green boots — standard wear for his airman battle uniform. Much to his dismay, they were made in China. He tried to exchange them at the Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam clothing store, but he was in store for another surprise.

“I was told that the boots were not compliant with the Berry Amendment and I could not exchange them,” Adachi said.

The Berry Amendment requires the food, clothing, fabrics and other textiles the Pentagon buys to be grown or made in the U.S.

Adachi turned red, white and blue.

“I went back to the reserves supply warehouse and asked the supply manager why I was issued Chinese-made boots,” Adachi said. “He told me that they were less expensive as opposed to the U.S.-made ones. I urged him to reissue me U.S. boots, citing that I did not feel comfortable ‘going to war’ wearing boots made in China.”

Adachi refused to let the matter drop, and he succeeded in getting a smaller pair of U.S.-made boots, which he was able to exchange for American boots in his size.

But that wasn’t the end of it. After he got to Afghanistan, he was issued his new uniform — Army Operation Enduring Freedom camouflage, known as OCP — and asked for a pair of the required tan boots. He was told he had to go through his unit, which sent him another pair of boots made in — wait for it — China.

After a flurry of emails, he asked his unit’s supply manager via email how he could exchange the boots for ones made in America. The response: “Good luck.”

So how did we get to this point?

First, Adachi’s boots didn’t come from the Defense Logistics Agency, which supplies troops with just about everything, said agency spokeswoman Mimi Schirmacher.

“Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support has an ample supply of the standard Air Force green boots, as well as tan boots worn with the Army Operation Enduring Freedom Camouflage Pattern (OCP) uniform,” Schirmacher said in an email. “DLA Troop Support purchases products that we provide to the services in accordance with the Berry Amendment, and does not purchase combat boots or other uniform items made outside the United States.”

What happened was Adachi’s unit purchased two pairs of the boots from U.S. Patriot LLC in South Carolina.

Company president Paul Yoo doesn’t know exactly why Adachi’s unit wanted those boots, but they do have some advantages over American-made boots.

The boots are lighter and less expensive than those made in the U.S., Yoo said

Because they are lighter, they can take between 2 and 3 pounds off troops’ feet, he said. That allows them to carry more gear and reduces wear and tear on their bodies.

Yoo offered to exchange Adachi’s boots free for American-made ones.

“Our organization is staffed, managed and owned primarily by veterans,” he said. “I am a 5-year veteran of the United States Army. My second in command in my retail stores, he was a command sergeant major in the Ranger battalions. The husband and wife owners of the company are ex-Army officers. This is the way that we operate.”

Adachi is taking Yoo up on his offer.

“Once I receive these boots, [at a minimum] I believe this to be a victory,” Adachi said in an email.

As for the Berry Amendment, the person who refused to exchange Adachi’s boots for American-made boots may not have been on firm legal footing after all.

Since this was a relatively small order, the Berry Amendment did not apply because the law can be waived for purchases under $150,000, Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Cassidy said.

The law also has an exception for contingency operations, said Jim Schweiter, an attorney based in Washington who specializes in government contracts.

“If the item is to be purchased for use in support of contingency operations, or the purchase occurs outside the U.S. in support of combat operations, the Berry Amendment doesn’t apply, and the item doesn’t have to be produced in the U.S.,” Schweiter said in an email.

So the boots may comply with the law, but Adachi refuses to wear them. Until he gets his new boots from Yoo, he’s sticking with his Air Force ABUs so he can wear his green boots that were made in America.

“I am a career airman with 31 years of continuous service to country,” Adachi said. “My concerns are not borne out of retribution — I am not in some kind of administrative trouble, this is not about sour grapes. This is about the countless Americans who are struggling to feed their families; Americans whose livelihoods have been taken away in this so-called global economy.

“This is about patriotism. This is about following the [Berry Amendment] set forth over 60 years ago. This is about American soldiers wearing our country’s uniform made by Americans.”

Jun 30, 20120 notes
Doug Ross @ Journal: Super: Chief Justice Roberts mocks conservative critics, jokes that he's leaving U.S. for "island fortress" → directorblue.blogspot.com

Yesterday Constitutional attorney Mark R. Levin rightfully excoriated John Roberts’ ludicrous decision that saved Obamacare, which essentially rewrote the monstrous law in order to save it. For one, Roberts magically ruled the Individual Mandate a tax, “a position that no lower court accepted”.

Facing a barrage of criticism from Constitutional experts, Roberts was on the defensive today, keeping himself in the spotlight and in good graces on the Beltway cocktail circuit.

Chief Justice John Roberts joked today that he’ll escape to an ‘impregnable island fortress’ after opponents slammed him as a traitor for casting the decisive vote to uphold Barack Obama’s healthcare law.

Responding to a question about his summer break, Roberts said he planned to teach a class for two weeks in Malta, the Mediterranean island nation.

‘Malta, as you know, is an impregnable island fortress. It seemed like a good idea,’ Roberts said, drawing laughter from about 300 judges, attorneys and others attending a four-day conference Friday at a posh southwestern Pennsylvania resort.

Roberts appeared today at a conference hosted by the Judicial Conference of the District of Columbia Circuit, one day after the Supreme Court said the federal government can require citizens to buy health insurance.

…The only direct question Roberts got about the landmark opinion upholding most key provisions of President Barack Obama’s health care package came when those at the conference were invited to ask questions… That’s when Roberts was asked what he thought his court’s legacy would be in 50 years and ‘how one recent opinion might fit into that’ - an obvious reference to the health care decision.

‘Well, I won’t answer anything that has to do with the second part of that,’ Roberts said. But he said he hopes that the court under him is remembered as one that ‘did our job according to the Constitution, of protecting equal justice under the law.’
Lamberth hinted at the controversial decision when he asked Roberts if it bothered him that he can’t respond to his critics.

‘No,’ Roberts said, his brief answer hanging in the air to more laughter.
Opponents of Obamacare immediately lashed out at Roberts after the Chief Justice provided the crucial vote which led to the Supreme Court upholding the controversial law yesterday.

…Mr Roberts has been seen as a driving force behind a number of high-profile cases which have infuriated conservatives… The National Review Online published an editorial denouncing ‘Roberts’s Folly’, arguing that the five judges who voted to uphold Obamacare had ‘done violence’ to the Constitution.

…Radio host Bryan Fischer said of the Chief Justice: ‘He is going to go down in history as the justice that shredded the Constitution and turned it into a worthless piece of parchment.’ … Republican senator David Vitter of Louisiana accused Mr Roberts of ‘amazingly rewriting the law in order to uphold it … Georgian congressman Jack Kingston went further with his tweet: ‘With #Obamacare ruling, I feel like I just lost two great friends: America and Justice Roberts.’

…Many liberals, by contrast, went out of their way to praise a man whose reputation with the left has never been very high. Democratic congressman Brad Sherman of California chimed in: ‘Today I am proud to be a member of the Harvard Law School class of 1979, the class that included Chief Justice Roberts.’ New York senator Charles Schumer said Mr Roberts had ‘acted as the umpire he promised to be.’ And left-leaning journalist Jonathan Chait wrote an article in New York magazine entitled ‘John Roberts Saves Us All’, praising the Chief Justice for avoiding a ‘crisis of legitimacy’ for the Supreme Court.


Unless we expand the conservative beachhead in 2010, crushing the Marxist Left in November, John Roberts could very well go down in history as the man who killed the Constitution.

Jun 30, 20121 note
Obama’s gloating continues; Obamacare ‘still a BFD’ | Twitchy → twitchy.com

Still a BFD: OFA.BO/ayPgAZ

—
Barack Obama (@BarackObama) June 29, 2012

The Obama campaign’s gloating continues unabated. How classy.

@BarackObama Mr. President, that language is not appropriate for the public account of the leader of our nation. I’m disappointed.—
Anderson Campbell (@andycampbell) June 29, 2012

@BarackObama thanks for making the office a tad less classy with this—
George (@WickedSmaaaht) June 29, 2012

@BarackObama really? Not sure what audience you’re trying connect to.—
  (@boutcher) June 29, 2012

@BarackObama Are you kidding-STILL SPIKING THE BALL? It’s not a game-it’s America’s future! We will vote yote your ass out in November #tcot—
Ed D’Avi (@oracle_ed) June 29, 2012

yeah and we’ll know just how big in Nov. Stay classy. RT @BarackObama Still a BFD—
ComfyPaws™ (@ComfyPaws) June 29, 2012

@BarackObama how classy. No #BFD—
Michael Roberson (@Nel_Mezzo) June 29, 2012

Remember when presidents were leaders, not tacky t-shirt salesmen? RT @BarackObama: Still a BFD: OFA.BO/ayPgAZ—
Chelsea Grunwald (@ChelseaGrunwald) June 29, 2012

Wow. That just screams class. RT @BarackObama: Still a BFD: OFA.BO/ayPgAZ—
Jeff Emanuel (@jeffemanuel) June 29, 2012

So, which campaign consultant thought this was a good idea…? RT @BarackObama: Still a BFD: store.barackobama.com/obamacare/obam…—
Brent Teichman (@BrentTeichman) June 29, 2012

Demeaning the office daily -> RT @BarackObama: Still a BFD: OFA.BO/ayPgAZ #tcot #p2—
RB (@RBPundit) June 29, 2012

Did you really just tweet this? RT @BarackObama: Still a BFD: OFA.BO/ayPgAZ—
David Freddoso (@freddoso) June 29, 2012

Fuc*ing classy for a President to tweet. RT @BarackObama: Still a BFD: OFA.BO/ayPgAZ—
Heather (@hmfearny) June 29, 2012

Jun 29, 20120 notes
Obama Campaign Sells 'Still a BFD' T-Shirts After Obamacare Upheld → breitbart.com

“Still a BFD …” is what President Barack Obama’s twitter handle tweeted out last night.


Seriously. 

Obama’s campaign proverbially spiked the football in light of Obamacare being held up by the Supreme Court, marketing a t-shirt that says “Still a BFD” on it.  Obama’s @BarackObama Twitter account tweeted a link to where people could buy the $30 t-shirt, if they can spare $30 in a down economy. 

The “BFD,” of course, is a reference to what Vice President Joe Biden said to Obama before Obama signed Obamacare into law in the East Room of the White House. Biden, forgetting there were microphones around him, told him that it was a “Big f****ing deal.” Open microphones caught those words. The moment went viral, and the Obama campaign immediately launched a “BFD” marketing campaign, capitalizing on the Vice President’s crassness that overshadowed Obama’s legislative accomplishment. 

When Obama tweets from his account, he signs his tweets “BO,” so a staffer tweeted the link to the “Still a BFD” t-shirt. Obama’s campaign should have a separate Twitter account for his campaign and allow Obama to exclusively tweet from his personal account to prevent his account — and by extension, the office of the president — from being cheapened by such crass and gimmicky tweets. But with top Democrats on his campaign who tweet vulgarities, this is probably par for the course for Team Obama and will likely spur those opposed to Obamacare to donate even more money to Mitt Romney and conservatives determined to repeal the law.

Jun 29, 20120 notes
Doug Ross @ Journal: Here are the Bombshell Transcripts: Secret Wiretap Applications Prove Eric Holder Lied to Congress → directorblue.blogspot.com

Gee, I wonder if the Democrats and vintage media can keep their fingers in the information dike now:

In the midst of a fiery floor debate over contempt proceedings for Attorney General Eric Holder, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) quietly dropped a bombshell letter into the Congressional Record.

The May 24 letter to Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), ranking member on the panel, quotes from and describes in detail a secret wiretap application that has become a point of debate in the GOP’s “Fast and Furious” gun-walking probe.

The wiretap applications are under court seal, and releasing such information to the public would ordinarily be illegal. But Issa appears to be protected by the Speech or Debate Clause in the Constitution, which offers immunity for Congressional speech, especially on a chamber’s floor.

…the wiretap applications contained a startling amount of detail about the operation, which would have tipped off anyone who read them closely about what tactics were being used…

Holder and Cummings have both maintained that the wiretap applications did not contain such details and that the applications were reviewed narrowly for probable cause, not for whether any investigatory tactics contained followed Justice Department policy… The wiretap applications were signed by senior DOJ officials…


After some searching, I was able to locate the actual details in the Congressional Record, which appear on pages H4409 through H4411 of Thursday’s official register.

…The use of federal wire intercepts requires a significant amount of case-related information to be sent to senior Department officials for review and approval. All applications for federal wiretaps are authorized under the authority of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division

…A central aim of our investigation has been to find out why and how such a dangerous plan could have been conceived, approved, and implemented. Who in ATF and the Justice Department knew about the volume of guns being purchased? Who approved of the case at various stages as it unfolded? Under whose authority did this occur? Who could have—and should have—stopped it? By closely examining this disastrous program, our Committee hopes to prevent similar reckless operations…

…The Committee has obtained a copy of a Fast and Furious wiretap application, dated
March 15, 2010. The application includes a memorandum dated March 10, 2010, from Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division Lanny A. Breuer to Paul M. O’Brien, Director, Office of Enforcement Operations, authorizing the wiretap application on behalf of the Attorney General…

…Before the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 8, 2011, the Attorney General testified:

…I don’t think the wiretap applications—I’ve not seen—I’ve not seen them. But I don’t know—I don’t have any information that indicates that those wiretap applications had anything in them that talked about the tactics that have made this such a bone of contention and have legitimately raised the concern of members of Congress, as well as those of us in the Justice Department. I—I’d be surprised if the tactics themselves about gun walking were actually contained in those—in those applications. I have not seen them, but I would be surprise[d] [if that] were the case…

..At a hearing before our Committee on February 2, 2012, the Attorney General also denied that any information relating to tactics appeared in the wiretap affidavits… He testified:

…I think, first off, there is no indication that Mr. Breuer or my former deputy were aware of the tactics that were employed in this matter until everybody I think became aware of them…

…Contrary to the Attorney General’s statements, the enclosed wiretap affidavit contains clear information that agents were willfully allowing known straw buyers to acquire firearms for drug cartels and failing to interdict them—in some cases even allowing them to walk to Mexico. In particular, the affidavit explicitly describes the most controversial tactic of all: abandoning surveillance of known straw purchasers, resulting in the failure to interdict firearms…

…MARCH 2010 WIRETAP APPLICATION STATES THE MAIN SUSPECT HAD INTENT TO ACQUIRE FIREARMS FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTING THEM TO MEXICO…

…The affidavit acknowledges that while monitoring the DEA target telephone numbers, law enforcement officers intercepted calls that demonstrated that Target 1 was conspiring to purchase and transport firearms for the purpose of trafficking the firearms from the United States to Mexico…

…MARCH 2010 WIRETAP APPLICATION STATES THAT NEARLY 1,000 FIREARMS HAD ALREADY BEEN
PURCHASED, AND THAT MANY WERE RECOVERED IN MEXICO…

…The Probable Cause section of the affidavit shows that ATF was aware that from September 2009 to March 15, 2010, Target I acquired at least 852 firearms valued at approximately $500,000 through straw purchasers…

…MARCH 2010 WIRETAP APPLICATION DESCRIBES HOW SMUGGLERS WERE BRINGING FIREARMS
INTO MEXICO…

…According to the affidavit: The potential interceptees conspire with each other and others known to illegally traffic firearms to Mexico…

…The fact that ATF knew that Target 1 had acquired 852 firearms and had the present intent to move them to Mexico should have prompted Department officials to act…

…MARCH 2010 WIRETAP APPLICATION CONTAINS DETAILS OF DROPPED SURVEILLANCE…

…On December 24, 2009, Straw Purchaser Z bought even more firearms, purchasing 40
AK–47 type rifles from an FFL. All of these rifles were recovered on January 13, 2010, in El Paso, Texas, near the U.S./Mexico border. Although the individual found in possession of all these guns provided the first name of the purchaser, agents did not arrest the individual or the purchaser. Though the wiretap application states that agents were conducting surveillance of known straw purchasers, none of these weapons were interdicted. No arrests were made…

…MARCH 2010 WIRETAP DETAILS HOW FAST AND FURIOUS FIREARMS HAD BEEN FOUND AT
CRIME SCENES IN MEXICO…

…The wiretap affidavit also details the very sort ‘‘time-to-crime’’ for many of the firearms purchased during Fast nd Furious. For example, on November 6, 2009, November 12, 2009, and November 14, 2009, Straw Purchaser Y purchased a total of 25 AK–47 type firearms from an FFL in Arizona. On November 20, 2009—just eight days later—Mexican officials recovered 17 of these firearms in Naco, Sonora, Mexico. Another straw purchaser, Straw Purchaser Q, purchased a total of 17 AK–47 type firearms from an FFL on November 3, 2009, November 10, 2009, and November 12, 2009. Then, on December 9, 2009, Mexican officials recovered 11 of these firearms in Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico, along with approximately 421 kilograms of cocaine, 60 kilograms of methamphetamine, 48 additional firearms, 392 ammunition cartridges, $2 million in U.S. currency, and $800,000 in Mexican currency. Once again, although ATF was aware of these facts, no one was arrested, and ATF failed to even approach the straw purchasers…

…The wiretap affidavit reveals a remarkable amount of specific information about Operation Operation Fast and Furious. The affidavit reveals that the Justice Department has been misrepresenting important facts to Congress and withholding critical details about Fast and Furious from the Committee for months on end.


Buh-bye, Eric.


Related: Top 10 Takeways from the Obama-Holder Coverup

Jun 29, 20121 note
Did Obama Bully Roberts Into Upholding Obamacare? | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier → whitehousedossier.com

Was Supreme Court John Roberts intimidated by President Obama and his allies into writing a startling, incomprehensible opinion that preserved Obama’s signature achievement as president?

Is it possible that the august corridors of the Supreme Court were trampled by Chicago-style political tactics, that the Constitution was shredded by the dog-eared playbook of bullying activist Saul Alinsky, the guiding light of Obama’s political operation?

There is no way to prove that Chief Justice John Roberts was intimidated into upholding Obamacare as constitutional, no way to conjure his thoughts. Even Roberts may not fully understand why he made the decision he did.

But there is evidence to suggest that the brewing outcry that the Court had become a political weapon run by a cabal of Republican legal hacks – the liberal Justices, who walk in lockstep, were under this theory clinging united to “principle” – weighed on Roberts, along with the likelihood that Obama would make this a theme of his reelection campaign.

Back on April 2, Obama helped ignite the recent focus by politicians and commentators on the “politicization” of the Supreme Court when he menaced:

Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.  Well, this is a good example.  And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.

Remarks that could have been written by a Brooklyn Wise Guy: I’m confident you’ll do the right thing, see?

All of this was theater. There’s nothing “unprecedented” or “extraordinary” about the Supreme Court overturning a law, and Obamacare was not passed by a “strong majority.” What was extraordinary was the sight of a president, standing in the Rose Garden, leaning on the Supreme Court.

Obama had inappropriately gone after the Court before, of course, criticizing the Justices to their faces during the 2010 State of the Union for having “reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests” in the Citizens United case and calling on Congress to “pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

Is there anyone who seriously doubts that Obama would have made denigrating the Supreme Court – and promoting himself to fix it with second term appointments – a central plank of his campaign?

The first suggestion that Roberts may have been influenced by all this is that it appears he may have changed his mind after initially supporting the four conservatives who voted to strike down Obamacare.

The Wall Street Journal writes today:

One telling note is that the dissent refers repeatedly to “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent” and “the dissent” on the mandate, but of course they should be referring to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurrence. This wording and other sources suggest that there was originally a 5-4 majority striking down at least part of ObamaCare, but then the Chief Justice changed his mind …

The political class and legal left conducted an extraordinary campaign to define such a decision as partisan and illegitimate. If the Chief Justice capitulated to this pressure, it shows the Court can be intimidated and swayed from its constitutional duties.

And Roberts, indeed, would be uniquely susceptible to such pressure.

Roberts is a creature of Washington and likely less immune than some of the other Justices to its Zeitgeist. He came to Washington 30 years ago, after graduating from Harvard Law School, and has been here ever since.

But Roberts is also a creature of the Supreme Court.

He’s been Chief Justice now for almost seven years. Nut what’s less well known is that he basically started his career at the Court, clerking for then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist from 1981-1982. He worked for George H.W. Bush as Principal Deputy Solicitor General from 1989-1993. Afterward, in private practice, he argued some 39 cases before the Supreme Court.

The chatter in the last 24 hours that Roberts may have been seeking to protect the Court where he’s toiled for a major portion of his professional life makes sense.

Especially when you consider his opinion in Obamacare case.

Roberts imagined passages in the law that weren’t there. He called the penalty for failing to sign up for Obamacare a tax, when it expressly was not a tax. No lower court accepted the argument that it was. Even Obama’s Solicitor General spent little time trying to argue this angle.

The Chief Justice’s opinion is inexplicable in the absence of some other external factor intruding on his thinking. And that external factor may well have been the president and the mobs who threatened to trash Roberts’ Court if it killed their beloved Obamacare.

It’s possible the Supreme Court didn’t rule. The mob ruled.

Jun 29, 20120 notes
Did Michelle Obama just make the Catholic Church argument against the HHS contraception mandate? « Hot Air → hotair.com

Yes she did, although I doubt she intended to do so.  In a speech today to a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the First Lady explained her concept of citizenship by likening it to the ministry of Jesus.  Her explanation corroborates the same point that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops have been making for months about the intrusive nature of the HHS contraception mandate, emphasis mine:

“It’s kind of like church,” Obama said. “Our faith journey isn’t just about showing up on Sunday for a good sermon and good music and a good meal. It’s about what we do Monday through Saturday as well, especially in those quiet moments, when the spotlight’s not on us, and we’re making those daily choices about how to live our lives.

“We see that in the life of Jesus Christ. Jesus didn’t limit his ministry to the four walls of the church,” she said. “He was out there fighting injustice and speaking truth to power every single day. He was out there spreading a message of grace and redemption to the least, the last, and the lost. And our charge is to find Him everywhere, every day by how we live our lives.”

Obama, who is not a regular churchgoer, said citizenship like the practice of faith is “not a once-a-week kind of deal.”

“Democracy is also an everyday activity,” she said. “And being an engaged citizen should once again be a daily part of our lives.”

Yes, indeed He was.  So do churches to this day, ministering to the sick and the poor, “the least, the last and the lost” that Mrs. Obama references here.  Furthermore, Jesus did not limit His ministry to just those disciples who followed Him, but ministered to many, including Romans, in the course of His evangelization.

However, her husband and Kathleen Sebelius don’t see it that way.  They only allow for activities within “the four walls of the church” to be classified as religious expression exempt from government regulation, and only that activity which excludes those other than believers as participants or recipients, too.  The USCCB and its allies in the Fortnight for Freedom campaign have repeatedly argued exactly as the First Lady does — that the provision of charity, education, and health care to the greater community is an integral component of religious expression, for Catholics and those of other denominations,  just as was Jesus’ ministry of healing, evangelization, and assistance to the poor.  In fact, Mrs. Obama makes that case as eloquently as I’ve seen it made during this debate.

Now that the First Lady has acknowledged that ministry is not limited to the four walls of the church and that it necessarily involves spreading the message of grace and redemption to more than just the choir, can we expect her husband and the Secretary of HHS reach the same conclusion?

Jun 29, 20120 notes
Issa, Grassley release details about Fast and Furious whistleblower retaliation, cover-up | The Daily Caller → dailycaller.com
Issa, Grassley release details about Fast and Furious whistleblower retaliation, cover-up

House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa and Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley are asking the Department of Justice’s internal investigator to hold accountable anyone who retaliated against or threatened to retaliate against Operation Fast and Furious whistleblowers.

In a Friday letter to the DOJ’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Grassley and Issa said they’re now concerned retaliation is much more likely following Thursday’s votes to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal and civil contempt of Congress.

“We just learned that ATF senior management placed two of the main whistleblowers who have testified before Congress about Fast and Furious under the supervision of someone who vowed to retaliate against them,” they wrote before describing how senior political figures have made dangerous threats before.

Grassley and Issa said that in early 2011, right around the time Grassley first made public the whistleblowers’ allegations about Fast and Furious, Scot Thomasson – then the chief of the ATF’s Public Affairs Division – said, according to an eyewitness account: “We need to get whatever dirt we can on these guys [the whistleblowers] and take them down.”

Thomasson also allegedly said that: “All these whistleblowers have axes to grind. ATF needs to f—k these guys.”

According to Grassley and Issa, when Thomasson was asked about whistleblowers’ allegations that guns were allowed to walk, Thomasson said he “didn’t know and didn’t care.”

Grassley and Issa have given Horowitz until July 6 to answer whether Thomasson was “admonished” for those threats against whistleblowers, how he got his job in the first place and how the DOJ and ATF are going to make sure he doesn’t retaliate against whistleblowers moving forward.

The two lead Fast and Furious investigators also released new, never-before-public documents that show officials in ATF’s Washington headquarters were trying to cover up Fast and Furious two weeks before Grassley ever even asked about it.

Grassley didn’t confront the Justice Department or ATF with those questions until Jan. 27, 2011, but ATF headquarters had prepped internal talking points as early as Jan. 12, 2011.

In that Jan. 12, 2011, memo, ATF officials laid out expected questions about gunwalking in Fast and Furious and Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s murder with Fast and Furious weapons – and canned answers ATF officials were supposed to give to press or anyone else asking about it.

For instance, a couple of expected questions include: “Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry was shot and killed after he and his team encountered several suspects near Rio Rico, Ariz. At least four suspects are in custody while one is still being pursued. Was a gun trafficked in this case used in the murder?” and “We understand that a firearm bought in connection with this ATF investigation was used to murder Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry. Can you please comment on this information?”

ATF officials were encouraged to not respond to those questions. Instead, they were told by leadership in Washington to give one of these answers spinning his murder to stress ATF’s need to accomplish its mission with Fast and Furious:

-“The death of Agent Terry in tragic and is a sad and dark day for all of law enforcement. We’ve lost one of our own. This is another example of the dangers faced by law enforcement every day across this country when pursuing these violent criminals.”

-“Agent Terry’s death is the exact reason why we must continue going after those who are determined to destroy the lives of so many innocent individuals in our communities by plying their illicit trade. For those who would say it is Mexico’s problem, I say Agent Terry’s death and all of those who have perished because of this violence prove that this challenge belongs to everyone.”

-“The investigation into the murder of Agent Terry is active and ongoing. ATF has pledged its support and resources to bring to justice the perpetrators who are guilty of that crime. I won’t say anything here today to jeopardize that investigation or the subsequent prosecution of those responsible for this terrible crime.”

-“The murder of Agent Terry is a tragic loss that has been felt throughout the United States and underscores the dangers that law enforcement officers face every day. As the investigation continues into this heinous crime, our hearts go out to Agent Terry’s family and his fellow Border Patrol Agents who continue to risk their lives to protect the citizens of our great Country.”

Grassley and Issa released other internal documents, including emails, with their Friday letter to Horowitz. The documents show that soon-to-be-former Assistant Attorney General Ron Weich – who is resigning to lead the University of Baltimore School of Law – may have been in on this cover-up plan.

Weich was the author of a false Feb. 4, 2011 letter to Grassley, in which he denied – on behalf of Holder – gunwalking ever took place. Holder’s DOJ withdrew that letter 10 months later, in December 2011.

Weich and now former acting ATF director Ken Melson – who was promoted into DOJ leadership after he secretly deposed Congress without DOJ or ATF counsel – were cc-ed on emails from late January 2011.

Those emails discuss how the DOJ and ATF planned to respond to Grassley’s request for information.

Jun 29, 20120 notes
Obamacare: Seven New Taxes on Citizens Earning Less than $250,000 → breitbart.com

While we were all debating the cost to our liberty due to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), we were ignoring the cost to our pockets.  If there ever was a reason for bipartisan rage about this law, it should be on the twenty - yes, twenty - hidden new taxes of this law.  Making matters even more relevant is that seven of these taxes are levied on all citizens regardless of income.  Hence, Mr. Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 is just another falsehood associated with this legislation.

The first, and best known, of these seven taxes that will hit all Americans as a result of Obamacare is the Individual Mandate Tax (no longer concealed as a penalty). This provision will require a couple to pay the higher of a base tax of $1,360 per year, or 2.5% of adjusted growth income starting with lower base tax and rising to this level by 2016.  Individuals will see a base tax of $695 and families a base tax of $2,085 per year by 2016. 

Next up is the Medicine Cabinet Tax that took effect in 2011.  This tax prohibits reimbursement of expenses for over-the-counter medicine, with the lone exception of insulin, from an employee’s pre-tax dollar funded Health Saving Account (HSA), Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or Health Reimbursement Account (HRA).  This provision hurts middle class earners particularly hard since they earn enough to actually pay federal taxes, but not enough to make this restriction negligible.

The Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Cap, which will begin in 2013, is perhaps the most hurtful provision to the middle class.  This part of the law imposes a cap of $2,500 per year (which is now unlimited) on the amount of pre-tax dollars that could be deposited into these accounts.  Why is this particularly hurtful to the middle class?  It is because funds in these accounts may be used to pay for special needs education for special needs children in the United States.  Tuition rates for this type of special education can easily exceed $14,000 per year and the use of pre-tax dollars has helped many middle income families.

Another direct hit to the middle class is the Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle which is currently 7.5% of adjusted gross income.  This is the hurdle that must be met before medical expenses over that hurdle can be taken as a deduction on federal income taxes.  Obamacare raises this hurdle to 10% of adjusted gross income beginning in 2013.  Consider the middle class family with $80,000 of adjusted gross income and $8,000 of medical expenses.  Currently, that family can get some relief from being able to take a $2,000 deduction (7.5% X $80,000 = $6,000; $8,000 –$6,000 = $2,000).  An increase to 10% would eliminate the deduction in this example and if that family was paying a 25% federal tax rate, the real cost of that lost deduction would be $500.

The fifth new tax on the middle class, and all Americans, is the Health Savings Account (HSA) Withdrawal Tax Hike.  This provision increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% currently to 20% beginning in 2013.  This provision actually sets these accounts apart from Investment Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and other tax advantaged accounts, all of which remain with a 10% early withdrawal tax.

Another regressive tax that is part of this law began in 2010 and that is the Indoor Tanning Services Tax, which places a 10% excise tax on people using tanning salons.  While some may regard this as insignificant, the broader implication is that this act of taxation is a blatant move by the federal government to control the behavior of citizens.  This provision, as does the Individual Mandate and as Justice Kennedy said during the oral arguments on the constitutionality of the law said, “….fundamentally changes the relationship between the federal government and the citizen.”

The seventh new tax that directly impacts the middle class, along with all citizens, is the Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans or the “Cadillac” Health Insurance Plan Tax.  These are plans that provide extensive coverage and that are generally fully paid for, or largely paid for, by employers.  This provision imposes a 40% excise tax on the employer-paid premium on taxpayers who are covered by such plans, beginning in 2018.  The reason it begins in 2018 is because most unionized workers are covered by plans that fall under this definition and a deferral was made to spare union members from this tax for at least a period of time.

There are thirteen other taxes that apply to businesses and that apply to high income (over $250,000 per year) households.  While these additional provisions will not impact the middle class directly, they can have serious indirect consequences for middle and low income earners.  Beginning in 2014, the Employer Mandate Tax will impose an annual non-deductible tax on employers with more than 50 employees who do not provide health insurance for their employees. 

The impact of this provision on low and middle income earners, and really all working Americans, is that employers will be confronted with three choices. The first is provide some level of health insurance, as many do today, and there would be no impact on employees.  The second choice is to pay the penalty, which would most likely be less expensive than providing health insurance, and force employees to seek their own health insurance or purchase it through federal government controlled state exchanges.  Studies have estimated that 20 million Americans will lose their employee funded health insurance as a result of this provision and employers electing this option.  The third choice is for employers to lay off employees, or not hire additional employees, because Obamacare forces them to either provide health insurance or pay the new tax. 

Another new tax, the Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers that begins in 2013, places a 2.3% excise tax on all items retailing for more than $100.  This provision will not only drive up the cost of various medical devices ranging from mobility assistance devices to personal testing supplies, but will also impact an industry that employs 360,000 people in 6,000 plants across our country.  This tax, while not a direct tax, would have significant negative impact on the middle class.

The Surtax on Investment Income for households earning $250,000 and more, beginning in 2013, will raise the Capital Gains Tax from 15% to 23.8% on investment income for these households and will raise Taxes on Dividends from 15% to 43.4% for the same households.  Aside from the impact on retired citizens dependent on dividends, this provision will pull income from the private economy.  In addition, the tax rate on Other Investment Income earned by Subchapter S Corporation (which many small business are organized as, allowing the owners to claim all business income as personal income) will rise from 35% to 43.4%.  This part of the provision would place additional pressure on small businesses resulting in more layoffs and less hiring, impacting all American workers.

All but one of the remaining new taxes in Obamacare are directed at health industry businesses and while they will not impact middle income families directly, the additional costs will most likely be passed on to the public.  The last new tax is really interesting, it is a tax on certain biofuels! 

These are the facts.  It does not matter if you support Mr. Obama and his new law or if you oppose it, the new taxes on the middle class or real and all Americans should understand their impact on their families and the economy.  Citizens, regardless of political beliefs, should recognize that Obamacare was passed with almost no sunlight shined on these middle class tax increases and need to understand that the new law was sold with the promise that there would be no new middle class taxes.  This is not partisan, it is simply the reality of politics.

For more information, read ATR’s analysis of the Affordable Care Act’s taxes here.

Jun 29, 20120 notes
Next page →
2012 2013
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2011 2012 2013
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2010 2011 2012
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2009 2010 2011
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
2009 2010
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December