Saturday, August 29, 2009

The problem with the Health Care Debate: GOP Getting it Wrong... Again

There is a real problem for Republicans who are against "Health Care Reform".

The problem?

They are saying "health care reform" when discussing the Obama/Pelosi health care reform bill (HR 3200). This sends the message that the GOP, conservatives, grass roots protesters, and conservative talk radio are against reforming health care in America. I believe this to be false and that the legacy media and Democrats who support ObamaCare are benefiting from this confusion.

The term they should be using for ObamaCare is closer to "government health care", or "nationalized medicine", "competition killer", or "expanded government nanny state" when describing HR 3200.

Why? Simply because the characterization of Republicans and average Americans being against "reform" is ludicrous. Everyone wants health care to be less expensive and more available to the poor. The problem with HR 3200 and the debate about it is that includes nothing that would reduce the cost of health care. Instead, it has pages and pages of requirements that will only make it more expensive.

Somehow, I believe the Democratic politicians want it that way.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Fraudulent Green

In the beginning, it was hydrocarbons causing smog, and we paid extra to omit the process of adding lead to gasoline. Then we learned that there are many, many, substances in the air and water that is going to kill us, such as CFCs and acid rain. But don't panic because we paid even more, so that was being fixed. Then, our food was killing us: more cash. But it has all morphed into the number one problem of the 21st Century.

Global climate change caused by man's Killer Carbon Dioxide footprint.

Now, don't misconstrue what I'm saying here. I believe the climate is changing, but I do not believe the cause is man-made CO2. And especially not American made CO2. I believe it is a combination of factors, such as solar activity and the normal cycling that the planet goes through.

According to the smartest people in the room Carbon dioxide, CO2, is public enemy number one. It has caused the average global temperature to go up most of a degree Fahrenheit in the last half century and it is caused, mostly, by the American way of life. To defeat this evil, it's going to be expensive, so open your wallet you self-absorbed American. Never mind that the average temperature has leveled off for the last decade.

The pushers of the green agenda would have us believe that we (Americans) consume too much of the world's resources and in doing so, produce the most unnecessary CO2. (I know that's not true, but the green salespersons are not fact-checked by their followers) They paint an America lusting for unnecessarily large individual vehicles, large air conditioned homes and generally, our very wasteful ways. Then saying we insist on fancy imported delicacies, such as bananas from Brazil, pineapples from Hawaii and oranges are transported all over the USA from Florida to California and the other way around. Let's not forget importing Italian marble and granite, diamonds from South Africa and steel from Japan. Then there is oil. Big oil, from all over the world. All of that requires CO2 producing oil, and lots of it, to move it around and even to produce the fuel itself. It's horrible, I tell ya.

Well, all that prosperity has to end. We must cut back and stop being so, so... American. We must go GREEN. President Obama says so and he is the president. Just ask him.

I have some real problems with whole man-made-climate-change, or green, agenda and the extent of the intrusion of green in our lives has become enormous and promises to undermine our way of life. And I'm not talking about the perception that Americans are living lavishly at the world's expense. That's just nonsense. I'm talking about having our individual freedoms chipped away until we look like Brazil. There is big money and big payoffs in the green agenda. But not for average Americans. We are the source of the big money for the big payoffs to the Al Gores of this world.

Just look at those who are cashing in on the green religion. Many environmentalists and entertainers, and now entrepreneurs, government (Cap & Trade) and big business, have latched on to so-called "global climate change", formerly "global warming". It has become big business and big restrictive government.

There is not a half hour segment in broadcast television that does not have commercials for companies pushing their green compliance and products or telling us what is right and what is wrong. Moreover, our children are indoctrinated into green in preschool. Heck, the green agenda types even have their own network, ENN. At the same time, the automobile industry is continually lambasted for pollution and failing to produce more energy efficient/alternative fuel vehicles (we know they can, they are keeping it secret due to big oil's demands, right?). It's all part of the indoctrination.

Honestly folks,
green is an overly expensive technology that does very little in actuality to reduce public enemy number one, carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere, but benefits a very few.

Here is how the fight is shaping up.

While some claim the climate change debate is over, such as former Vice President Albert A. Gore Jr.:
The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ issue,” he said. “It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake,
It is very hard to find anyone who is pushing the green agenda that is willing to, or has ever, debated anyone with opposing views. This makes his claim very suspect to me.

Also, since it's become a political and monetary issue, many support the idea of man-made climate change simply because they are positioned to make huge sums of money from the US government (read: tax paying Americans). Congresspersons, this president (and the last president), are more than happy to appear as though they care about green issues by talking it up and pouring trillions of dollars into these programs.

Here is what it is going to cost you.

Then comes Cap and Trade, that has passed by the US House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, after the Herculean effort of reading the 1200 pages with 300 pages of changes in a mere 16 hours. According to the CBO previous estimates, it's going to cost over $846 Billion in new taxes. The Heritage Foundation breaks it down to state and district losses and to personal incomes totaling GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion.

The "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or "Stimulus", includes $43 billion in tax credits, grants and loan guarantees for energy projects." That is billions of dollars in green research, green corporate welfare and green tax incentives. Never mind that it is money we do not have. Spending hope dollars translates to devaluation of the US dollar and higher prices for everyone.

And there is some stupid going on.

The US House of Representatives, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, is one government agency that is proving how stupid the entire green movement has become. She has promised to make the Capital Building "carbon neutral" by the end of the 110th Congress that ended in December 2008, but so far has been unsuccessful (gee, I wonder why?). To make up for this failure, our tax dollars are being used to buy "carbon offsets" to "offset" the carbon dioxide produced by the National Monument of Geniuses. The Washington Post informs us that...
"Daniel Beard, the House's chief administrative officer, will cut a taxpayer-funded check today for $89,000 to buy credits that will offset the impact of 30,000 tons of carbon belched into the atmosphere by the U.S. Capitol's antiquated, coal-burning power plant every year."
This money is to be paid to the Chicago Climate Exchange, a clearing house for your carbon credit needs.

Carbon credits has to be one of the most beautiful scams ever created. First your are convinced by "experts", who are backed by all the smart people, that the world as we know it is going to end soon (When? Real soon.) if we don't pony up and pay extra for the energy we need, pay even more for new energy sources, and cut back on our use of CO2 producing vehicles we're all gonna die. Or, you can just buy yourself and everyone else's safety by offsetting the carbon that is produced when you do anything, such as driving your car, flying on an airplane, or breathing. You give them your money and you absolved of your evil carbon producing ways. You don't even have to think about anymore as they will ensure that your money is going to save the planet by planting trees that convert CO2 into oxygen or investing in some inefficient "green" technology (solar, wind, ethanol) and that will save us... eventually.

Our friend and savior, Al Gore, buys carbon credits as well. Apparently he produces lots of CO2 as he rides around in giant SUV motorcades/caravans, powers his mansion, and jets all over the world, producing many many times more carbon dioxide than your average American.

Who does the king of global warming pay for his carbon offsets? Himself.

Al Gore is part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange. And don't expect that most people will know this because the legacy media is ignoring it.

Smile Al.

Then I find THIS page on the web. The climate map for South America where they are confusing erosion with rising sea levels. In number 45, they say that in...
"Recife, Brazil -- Sea-level rise. Shoreline receded more than 6 feet (1.8 m) per year from 1915 to 1950 and more than 8 feet (2.4 m) per year from 1985 to 1995. The dramatic land loss was due to a combination of sea-level rise and loss of sediment supply following dam construction, harbor dredging, and other coastal engineering projects."
Come on people. This is the type of overstatement and confused "facts" that drive the green agenda. While I can see losing six feet of shoreline each year due to their stated reasons (dam construction, harbor dredging, and other coastal engineering projects), the claimed measurable rise in the sea levels at this point has been 20 centimeters (cm) from 1890 through 2000.

Telling stories.

These two charts tell a story. The first one graphs estimates in sea level rise over a recent 120 year period (20 cm). Number two shows estimates over the last 24,000 years with the sea level rising about 140 meters through 5000 years ago, then leveling off. If you were just rely on these charts, common sense would dictate that the rise in sea levels is actually slowing down to a snail's pace.

As for the plague of human caused CO2 (or is it just a plague of humans that disturbs the greenies?) in the atmosphere and it's affect on climate change, there are many who are breaking away from the herd and acknowledging that CO2 actually may have little, if any, influence on climate change, especially the minimal percentage that human activity produces. (Personally, I believe climate has more to do with planetary cycles, wobble, Earthquakes, volcanoes, and solar activity.)

So let's talk a little carbon dioxide .

If you look at the Wikipedia page on carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, you can learn that:
"As of November 2007, the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0384% by volume, or 384 parts per million by volume (ppmv). This is 100 ppmv (35%) above the 1832 ice core levels of 284 ppmv"

(I will not be able to prove this, but last year wiki said that CO2 was about 0.0285% of the atmosphere, up from about 0.0250% over the last 100 years.)

They go on to say that:
"Despite its relatively small concentration overall in the atmosphere, CO2 is an important component of Earth's atmosphere because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode), thereby playing a role in the greenhouse effect".
"Relatively small" is an understatement.

This is one of the logical reasons I do not believe that man made CO2 is causing global warming. At 0.0385% it is a very small amount and is about 1/10th of the amount of the water vapor in the air.

The not-so-funny thing is, they never mention water vapor as a contributor or mediator of temperature.

CO2 weighs more than air, so the vast majority of it stays close to ground level where plants can use it to live (you know, growing green plant life that exhales oxygen). Only a small percentage of that small percentage reaches any real altitude in the troposphere, so how much affect can it have? Understand also that CO2 dissolves in water, so whenever it rains, the air gets somewhat scrubbed of CO2 and other pollutants. When it is blown over bodies of water, some is dissolved in the water. If the temperature of the planet were to become consistently hotter, there would be more water vapor in the atmosphere and that would have a cooling affect on the planet. SO it kind of balances out.

The number one location for measuring CO2 in the atmosphere is in Hawaii where they have continuously active volcanoes that do what? Spew large amounts of CO2. That makes me a little apprehensive about the accuracy of the sampling.

If you're looking for a something that affects the climate, check out solar activity. It has far more influence than a little CO2. Moreover, water (liquid and vapor) have the most Earthbound influence on climate at any particular time (Maybe we should study how not reduce water levels, ay?).

We gotta have it

Atmospheric CO2 is necessary for our life to exit. Plants breath in CO2 to live and exhale O2 (oxygen) so the we and other animals can live. It's a balance that has been going on for millions, if not billions of years. Nature spews more CO2 and other pollutants than human activity ever will. When the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines blasted off, it threw more "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere than all of the cars in the history of driving.

Then we have Dr. Richard Lindzen, back in 2006 saying there are doubts and that it may be a career stopper to speak out in opposition to global warming.

A new book by Ian Plimer, "Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science" ,
"an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy"
The vast majority of people who swear that climate change is being caused by the activities of man are those lay people who support their chosen causes and those who are personally profiting from it. They can't and don't know the science. They depend on scientists and "experts" in the news to tell them what is going on. Scientists themselves live and prosper by way of tax dollars and grants support the green agenda. Their livelihood depends on money given to them so that they may conduct research. If the research isn't supported by the money brokers (politicians and wealthy philanthropists) then scientists go to work in patent offices. Politicians believe they will profit by showing they care what happens to "the people", thus ensuring their reelection.

The climate is changing. The climate is always changing and man's activities may have an influence, however small. The biggest problem that I have with the green agenda is that it will cause average and poor Americans to reach even deeper into their pockets to finance an agenda that will only have minimal returns while providing an rich lifestyle to the purveyors of the global warming fear. Our ability to live independently will be reduced, while dependency on government grows. Government is already telling us what we must drive, or ride, what fuel we use, what we should and should not eat and buy our votes with massive Ponsey schemes. There are to be trillions of tax dollars spent or borrowed to work at preventing the oceans from rising 2 feet over the next 50 years.

You have to ask yourself, who will be hurt by a two foot higher sea level? The first thing that comes to my mind are the wealthy people and industry who own waterfront property. It will have no effect on anyone else. Is mortgaging your children's future worth it?

And let's not forget the polar bears. What about their shrinking habitat? Well, the problem with that is that it is another fake crisis. The pictures you are shown of the momma bear and cub seemingly searching for a place to live? That is stock footage of a normal Spring thaw. Something Polar bears have been living with for untold eons. Again, it's a fraud.

Personally, I am looking forward to global warming. I was raised in Northern Ohio and lived in Michigan, Utah, and Germany. I even spent a few weeks of winter in and around Anchorage, Alaska. I know what it's like to be cold. That is why I moved to Florida. Oh, and I bought property that is 26 feet above sea level.

Bring on the global warming and dump the fraudulent green. Mr. Gore and others have made enough off of this scam.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Facts Are Stubborn Things, You Snitch: Update

I received the infamous unsolicited White House email from Senior White House Adviser David Axelrod.

You I did the patriotic thing: I reported it to

Here is what I wrote:
Dear flag,

I wanted you to know that I have been receiving fishy emails from the the person below. I believe he may be illegally using email addresses gathered by the government to send spam filled with misinformation concerning health care reform. Thank you for you attention to this matter.

I never thought I could have fun using White House's shenanigans.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Healthcare Reform: Tax Relief

A show of hands. How many people believe the 111th Congress would offer tax cuts as part of a health care reform plan?

Oops, I don't see any hands.

OK, that is because you are right. This congress would never conceive of giving taxpayers a break. It's just not in their genes.

But our government has been using tax law to influence the behavior of Americans as far back as 1862. For example, they give tax breaks for buying a home, having children, charitable giving (for now) and for medical expenses over 7.5% of your adjusted gross income (if you file the long form with Schedule A). It has been this way for many decades.

Why do they not allow you to deduct all of your medical expenses? They allow business to deduct all of the Benefits they offer, which include medical insurance expenses, and they do not even need to use a long form. (IRS Form 1120, line 24). I'm sure this situation has a lot to do with the amount of money lobbyists have to offer.

I believe they should continue using tax law to influence Americans (in the way I would, of course) and enact a dollar for dollar tax credit for medical expenses. That would be all medical expenses including doctor, hospital, laboratory fees, prescription drugs, insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays. This would influence more people to buy their own insurance, maybe start a health care savings account, and pay for their own health care. With a few other reforms, such as tort, Medicare, Medicaid reform and expanding competitive regions, the cost will be reduced, further encouraging personal ownership of health care insurance. Personal ownership would also make portability much easier to realize.

Ya know, I would like to have a tax deductible health care savings account, but government regulation won't allow it due to the health care insurance program I am in. It makes no sense.

Lowering income taxes: Good. Adding new taxes: Bad.

If they wanted to make health care more accessible and save you and I some of our earnings, our representatives could cut taxes on healthcare expenses. As it is, H.R. 3200, includes plans to make everyone, rich and poor, subject to an additional a new tax penalty (Title IV-- Amendments to Internal Revenue Code). It is in the form of a 2.5% fine on individuals without "acceptable" health care coverage. So, congress and the president want to mandate that you spend your money on their committee's version of "acceptable" health care insurance or you will see your taxes go up.

Giving a tax credit, as opposed to the current new tax penalty, would help many more Americans to purchase their own healthcare insurance and remove dependency on bloated government programs. When people pay for goods and services out their own earnings, they are careful to ensure they are getting the most cost effective

I believe government's meddling in the health care arena helps force, I mean "influence", people to move into government sponsored programs, such as Medicare. Medicare looks like a good deal because the true costs are hidden from consumers. Medicare Part B participants only pay about 25% of the actual cost. The other 75% is paid out of the general fund. If we were to ween people off of Medicare that would add 42 - 47 million paying into a private health care insurance plan. Gee another way to lower private sector insurance costs.

Adding people to the government rolls via the "public option", or government option, will only make matters worse.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Healthcare Reform: Competition

In his town hall meeting Tuesday in Portsmouth, NH, the president said,
"I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the post office that's always having problems."
How this remark helps his cause is unknown to me. If anything, he is acknowledging that a government run "business" in competition with private sector businesses, including the health care industry, will fail to be competitive.

'Nuf said.... almost.

Competition is the engine of self sufficiency and wealth in America. It is what created the most advanced living conditions in the history of man. Competition is responsible for the rapid advance of every aspect of American life. This includes the state of modern health care. Some Americans who do not believe that they are "competitive" will always end up in unions, on assembly lines or on welfare, and being dependent on those who are competitive enough to win them any income and benefits they may have. Competition lowers prices and costs as evidenced by the impetus to institute anti-monopoly laws in this country.

The same holds true for healthcare insurance. Competition, fair competition, will lower the cost of healthcare insurance and the cost of healthcare in general. There are some anti-competitive policies in place in this country right now that are causing the costs to skyrocket. Government healthcare programs and state restrictions on out of state insurers.

I found it interesting that some push the "public option" for healthcare insurance, claiming it will be "competitive". If you believe private sector insurers can compete with the federal government, then, answer these questions...

Do private sector companies print their own money?
Do private sector companies use their power to forcibly extract money from others?
Do private sector companies make their own laws and regulations?

Of course not, which makes the argument for a public option irrational. Heck, the government doesn't even have to pay for advertising.

The question to ask is, "Do government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid cause healthcare costs to go up?"

The answer to that is a firm "yes".

There are at least two reasons for this.

- One is that when the government pays the medical bills, those millions are removed from the customer base of insurance companies. According to Health Harbor, "Medicare covers between 42 million and 45 million Americans, making it the largest single payer of healthcare in the nation." That is 42-45 million people who are not buying private sector healthcare coverage, which causes insurance providers to raise fees on others to stay in business.

We all know that the insurance company model is to "spread the wealth" (to steal a phrase), or risk, among their policy holders. More policy holders means the risk is spread thinner and the cost to each would be lower.

- Another is that people using Medicare and Medicaid cannot see how much it is costing everyone. Sure, they see their own charges. But to most, those figures are meaningless. Why? Because the payment isn't coming out of their checkbook. They have no need to be concerned and if they were concerned, they have no way to tell if Medicare or Medicaid are being over or under charged. There is nothing for them to compare it with.

Many believe that Medicare Part B is paid for with payroll taxes, monthly premiums, copays and deductibles.

Not true. In fact about 75% of the payouts to Part B claims comes from general revenue, with payroll taxes, etc., covering the remainder (2007 numbers).

- Medicare and Medicaid limit prices. Logic would say that limiting prices would limit costs and make it less expensive. But Doctors, hospitals and big pharma cannot put an equal limit on their costs. They must earn enough to allow them to pay their bills and stay operational. Remember, no matter who pays for for goods and services, someone must get paid to make that product or provide that service. The government price fixing forces them to look elsewhere to make up the difference between what they need to pay their staffs, office space, utilities, medical equipment, etc. They end up charging more to those patients who use private sector insurance and those who pay cash. For proof, just look at any bill that is paid by Medicare/Medicaid. It will show how much their fee is for the service and how much Medicare/Medicaid allowed.

The bottom line is there is no way possible that a government public option would be competitive with private sector insurance providers and that the federal government's meddling in what should be private sector businesses is what has caused healthcare and healthcare insurance to skyrocket for almost four decades since Medicare and Medicaid stated.

Real competition is the road to lower healthcare and healthcare insurance costs.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Healthcare Reform:: Preexisting Conditions.

Denial of preexisting conditions is one of the talking points the administration and congress are using to try and sell their "public option" insurance plan. The president is using it as I type in his town hall meeting today.

Insurance companies do not refuse the vast majority of applicants because of preexisting health conditions. They require a waiting period before coverage of the preexisting condition starts, usually 12-18 months, and charge more for coverage.

We know this because of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is "a federal law that:
* Limits the ability of a new employer plan to exclude coverage for preexisting conditions;
* Provides additional opportunities to enroll in a group health plan if you lose other coverage or experience certain life events;
* Prohibits discrimination against employees and their dependent family members based on any health factors they may have, including prior medical conditions, previous claims experience, and genetic information; and
* Guarantees that certain individuals will have access to, and can renew, individual health insurance policies."
What can ObamaCare, or DemoCare, do to fix this?

They could expand HIPAA to include individuals who want to purchase healthcare insurance but who were not a member of a group plan. Of course this change would run up the cost of the insurance, but congress doesn't mind. They won't be in that insurance system. And besides, running up costs may just be their plan.

While providing health care is the humanitarian way, providing health care and insurance is not a right, as in a constitutionally protected right, such as free political speech or lodging soldiers in your home. If it were, it would be guaranteed by the US Constitution and given to Americans "free". Of course it cannot be free as the health care providers need to earn a living just like you and I, so they must be paid.

HR 3200's preexisting condition clause ensures the cost of insurance will increase. Ultimately someone must pay for it.

Friday, August 7, 2009

Facts are Stubborn Things: Update

In my last post concerning the White House's attempts to revise the Obama historical quotes, Facts are Stubborn Things, I showed the Obama single payer video, the White House response and the other tactic they want to employ:

Snitching on your fellow Americans.

Well, I had some thoughts on this during my drive home from work yesterday. So, believing that I am rather patriotic, I went ahead and reported myself to the White House for daring to disagree with their health care policies and the government owned solution to the health care shortcomings.

Here is What I wrote.

Subject: Fishy Web Sites

Dear Ms. DeParle,

I would like to report these two web sites. The author seems to be adamantly opposed to the President's healthcare reforms and is spreading his version of the truth.

Move It Right
Dear Mr. President Letters

I hope this helps and thank you for your support.

PS: I would like to thank Michelle Malkin ("Who's Behind The Internet Snitch Brigade?") for providing the name of the official in charge of this thing.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Facts Are Stubborn Things, You Snitch

The White House gets that right, it's too bad the facts go against what they want you to know. So now, they are demonizing average Americans and calling for American "snitches" to tell them when someone disagrees with them. I just keep thinking that it's a sad time for this country as they are carry on with their Orwellian business model.

This time, they are trying to revise history by responding to a You Tube video that shows the president, in his own words, supporting a government take over of the health insurance industry. (Just as they've taken over banks and automobile manufacturers.)

The White House says,
"In this video, Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House’s Health Reform Office, addresses one example that makes it look like the President intends to "eliminate" private coverage, when the reality couldn’t be further from the truth."
In a lame attempt to counter the opposition video, she points out that the president claims that his reform plan will allow Americans to keep their insurance plan and doctor, if they want to.

In a White house Blog she writes,
"For the record, the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them. He has even proposed eight consumer protections relating specifically to the health insurance industry."
The opposition video

So what is going on?

The people who are satisfied with their insurance (80% of private sector policy holders) do not want to have their insurance become so expensive that they will be forced to sign on the Obama plan. The White House and their surrogates are desperately trying to convince Americans that no such thing will happen.

But the people know that the Obama plan leads directly to government run single payer program that will dramatically increase the cost of health care in America and government bureaucrats would be deciding what doctors, labs, specialists, procedures and hospitals the public plan will allow, and to whom they will allow it. This government has a history of choosing the winners, such as Goldman-Sachs, and deciding who will lose, such as Lehman Bros.

In their efforts to keep the public from turning against their plan (too late), they have requested that if you hear anyone talking down their reform plans you should report them to the White House. This is sort of like the legions of informants some 80 years go in Europe.

From the White House.
"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to"
Who wants to be a loyal lap dog to the government's disinformation machine?

The blatant Orwellian business model that the administration is employing should be a warning to everyone.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Tax, Tax Tax

President Obama wants "Almost $1 TRILLION in New Taxes Over Next 10 years, Starting in 2011." (White House Correspondent Jake Tapper, February 26, 2009 12:00 PM)

The president wants more from you by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, remove itemized deductions from your income tax form, and to raise capital gains (no doubt to further erode the US private sector). ($636 BILLION over 10 yrs)

He wants to slam the business sector with Superfund taxes, tax carried-interest as income, repealing FIFO, reporting on rental properties, an excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil & gas, repealing of the allowance for drilling costs and manufacturing costs for oil and gas, eliminate the advanced Earned Income Tax Credit, and others. ($353 BILLION over 10 yrs).

That's $989 BILLION more that the president wants to take out of your pocket and put in his pocket and the pockets of his supporters.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick's Budget Recommendation - House 1 Fiscal Year 2010
"These blueprints also dedicate new revenues from modestly increased statewide meals and hotel and motel room occupancy taxes to mitigate cuts in Local Aid; eliminate sales tax exemptions for sweetened beverages, candy and alcoholic beverages to protect our children and support public health programs; expand the Bottle Bill to promote and fund recycling programs and water and sewer rate relief; and update and consolidate motor vehicle registry fees to streamline service and strengthen our transportation system."
But wait, there's more...

Taxes may rise to pay health care according to TS Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers this past Sunday. They are saying the President has not "ruled out" tax increases. So, keep your eyes pealed for this one.

The President does not count the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) tobacco tax increase from $32B to $71$ over 5 years, as a tax increase on people making under $250K per year (Politico - Josh Gerstein). Barry fails to note that 54% of smokers are poor (28%) or "near poor" (26%), with 18% "not poor" (Heritage Foundation). Well, unless the poor in America make over $250K per year, then I'd say Barry has some 'splainin' to do.

Let's not forget Cap and Trade (labeled Cap & Tax by conservative talk radio). There we find an additional $1.6 TRILLION according to the Heritage Foundation, by Loris and Lieberman.

I'm sure there are more that I've left out, such as locally increased fees for utilities, license plates, park access and for other services. All design to prove to average Americans that they cannot stay afloat without government holding them up.

The paradigm: Spend, Spend Spend, then Tax, Tax, Tax.