Posts Tagged ‘taxes’


Cupcakes, and other necessities of life

August 10, 2009

“One-third of the entire Recovery Act is for tax relief for you, for families and small businesses… a third of it is going to tax breaks, to individuals and small businesses. That’s money in your pocket to buy cupcakes and other necessities of life.”

— President Barack Hussein Obama, June 30, 2009


State governors wary of ObamaCare

July 20, 2009

The Boston Globe reported today that the National Governors Association, the bipartisan organization of state governors from around the country, is skeptical of the Obama administration’s universal healthcare tax because of the burden it would place on state Medicaid programs. Even Bill Richardson, the Democratic governor of New Mexico, says he is “very concerned about the cost issue.”

The states are fully aware that they are not prepared to deal with the hellstorm of taxation, spending, waste, and bureaucracy that will rain down upon this nation if the administration gets its way. In fact, ObamaCare would presumably be impossible in many states, as more than half of them have balanced-budget provisions in their state constitutions.

This economic recession may turn out to be a protective shield against the administration’s socialist aspirations. A double digit federal debt is scaring enough people on both sides of the aisle and forcing them to a realization that out-of-control debt-based spending is both unsustainable and disastrous for our nation’s economic stability. The idea of increasing taxes on both energy and healthcare is no longer a viable option to most consumers who can already barely afford to pay for these things to begin with. People are starting to realize that economic recovery is the last thing on Obama’s mind, and he won’t be able to take advantage of this crisis and exploit it to advance his blatantly anti-free market policy program for too much longer, based on what his ambitions and our economic death march are doing to public opinion.


Stossel, Beck and Penn Jillette on healthcare

July 20, 2009

John Stossel and Penn Jillette were both featured guests on Glenn Beck’s Fox News show recently to talk about the new healthcare bill about to be rammed through Congress.

What’s interesting, among other things, is the discussion of the dichotomy between positive and negative liberties, a distinction that too many people have never considered.

Negative liberties–those liberties which restrain government action, such as those in the Bill of Rights–are the only liberties which government can justly protect. Positive liberties–those liberties, such as “the right to a job” or “the right to healthcare,” which require action on the part of the government to fulfill–are about to wreck those few negative liberties which the Constitution protects. Positive liberties require action on the part of the government. And because government possesses nothing which it does not take from others, this necessarily means that in order to provide everyone with healthcare, the government will have to plunder from everyone to make it happen.

The issue of a broken healthcare market is also touched upon, but Penn doesn’t really go into much depth. Healthcare costs so much in America, contrary to what the majority of the public has been led to believe, not because of capitalism, but because the market is not free enough. The existence of insurance has meant that end consumers do not pay the full price of healthcare, and thus the industry is isolated from the natural controls on price that occur as a result of the relationship of supply and demand in a free market. This disconnect between producer and consumer is the reason why college students pay about a dollar per page when they buy textbooks. When you take away the disincentive against raising prices–the possibility that a producer’s prices may be so high that people cannot afford to pay for them–you give producers carte blanche to raise prices.

It is impossible to envision a universal health insurance system that will not make healthcare prices skyrocket. It’s entry-level economics. And we will all suffer if this abomination ever becomes public law.