Monthly Archives: September 2012

Is AARP Tax-Exempt?

Posted on by
Reply

The short answer is yes—it’s a 501(c)4 non-profit.  Follow-up question: should it continue in that status?

If the information outlined in Kimberly Strassel’s Wall Street Journal article last Friday is accurate, I suggest the follow-up’s answer should be “No.”

…AARP worked through 2009-10 as an extension of a Democratic White House, toiling daily to pass [Obamacare].  We know that despite AARP’s awareness that its seniors overwhelmingly opposed the bill, the “nonpartisan membership organization” chose to serve the president’s agenda.

71 pages of emails tell the story.  For instance,

As early as July 2009, Mr. Sloane [AARP Senior Vice President David] was sending the administration—”as promised”—his “message points” on Medicare.  Ms. DeParle [an Obama senior aide Nancy-Ann] assured him “I think you will hear some of your lines tomorrow” in President Obama’s speech—which he did.  Mr. Rother [AARP Policy Chief John] advised the White House on its outreach, discouraging Mr. Obama from addressing seniors since “he may not be the most effective messinger [sic]…at least to the McCain constituency.”  Better to manage these folks, he counsels, through the “authoritative voices of doctors and nurses.”

And

Ms. LeaMond [AARP Executive Vice President Nancy] worried that the Medicare spin wasn’t working against public criticism of the bill.  She emailed Mr. Messina [another Obama senior aide Jim] and Ms. DeParle that she was “seized” with “concerns about extended coherent, strong messaging by Republicans on the Medicare savings.”  To pull off the legislation, she mused, “we”—the White House and AARP—will need a “concerted strategy.”

And so on, including AARP internal polling passed on to DeParle and Messina that indicated AARP’s membership opposed the developing Obamacare by 98%.  This last isn’t legally relevant to AARP’s tax exempt status; it just shows how…out of touch…AARP management was with its membership.

Plainly, the aggregate of these emails demonstrates violation of the non-partisan requirement for such non-profits.

RTWT.

Controlling Religion

Posted on by
Reply

Last Sunday on CBS’s 60 Minutes, reports The Weekly Standard, the Democratic Party’s Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama, was asked this question by Steve Kroft:

Have the events that took place in the Middle East, the recent events in the Middle East given you any pause about your support for the governments that have come to power following the Arab Spring?

Obama gave this answer, in part [emphasis mine]:

…I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road because—you know, in a lot of these places—the one organizing principle—has been Islam. The one part of society that hasn’t been controlled completely by the government.

So, in this man’s eyes, Islam—and by extension, all religion?—must be under government control, and not left to the individual consciences of the men and women involved?

He seems to have implemented this view with his attacks on religion here at home—his HHS ruling on contraceptives and abortifacients, for instance; his VA’s attacks on prayer in our National Cemetery System; his Justice Department’s lack of support for (if not outright obstruction of) defending military memorials because some of the symbology looks like religious icons; his attempted omission of any reference to God from the Democratic Party platform, until public outcry forced him into a square-filler insertion of a passing referent; and so on.

Hmm….

Taxes

Posted on by
Reply

Now we’re getting this, via Yahoo!News:

[Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt] Romney and his wife, Ann, donated roughly $4 million to charities last year, but they only claimed a deduction of $2.25 million on their tax return, filed with the Internal Revenue Service on Friday.

…

Democrats quickly leaped on the documents, saying Romney had claimed fewer deductions than he was entitled to just to keep his rate at such a level.

Let me see if I understand this.  The Party of Tax the Evil Rich now is whining that one of those Evil Rich paid too much tax.

Hmm….

Leave it to Stephanie Cutter, the Obama advisor of questionable integrity, to put this spin on it:

[P]eople like Mitt Romney pay a lower tax rate than many middle-class families because of a set of complex loopholes and tax shelters only available to those at the top.

But reform our tax code so as to eliminate some or all of those loopholes?  Nope.  Can’t have that—that’s a Republican idea, so it can’t be any good.

More About Jobs

Posted on by
Reply

Last week, in a presage of the nearby future, Alpha Natural Resources, a major coal producer, announced that it would be forced to reduce production by 16 million tons of coal per year, which will force the closure of eight mines in Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, and the elimination of some 1200 mining jobs—400 of these miners right away.

There are two reasons for this trouble.  One is long-run beneficial and is simply part of the creative destruction that a free economy goes through—quickly and with greater strength on the other side, including for those whose jobs are lost in the near-term, if the economy is free from government interference.

This reason is the improving technology that makes natural gas more cheaply extractable than coal.

But the other reason is government interference.  Kevin Crutchfield, ANR’s CEO, puts it plainly and simply at the feet of the government’s

regulatory environment that’s aggressively aimed at constraining the use of coal.

And make no mistake about it; this is a deliberate policy.  Here’s what the then-and-now Democratic Presidential Candidate had to say about coal production back in 2008:

If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them[.]

It’s important to note that Obama’s policies really are anti-coal—and so, intended or not, anti-job—and not just ANR’s bad fortune or failure to operate cleanly.  As Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito (R, WV) points out,

The president’s extreme policies are crippling entire towns and making it harder for workers to find jobs.  Because of  the president’s War on Coal, thousands of West Virginia families have to worry about where their next paycheck is going to come from.

Is the EPA well-intended, but misguided?  Not a bit of it.  The timetable for meeting its new standards is virtually impossible to meet, and the standards themselves unattainable.

But it’s alright.  All those unemployed coal miners will have clean air.  Just no money for food on their families’ tables, or for rent/mortgage payments with which to keep roofs over their families’ heads.

Promises and Policies

Posted on by
Reply

Fox News reports this from the CBO:

Nearly 6 million Americans—most of them in the middle class—will face a tax penalty for not carrying medical coverage once President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law is fully in place, congressional budget analysts said Wednesday…a 50 percent increase [over CBO’s report from last year].

Recall Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama’s solemn promise from his 2008 campaign, repeated constantly over these last four years.  He’s not going to raise taxes on any one of us with less than $200,000 of annual income, or on couples of us with a combined annual income less than $250,000.

The CBO said why this sharp increase had occurred, too.

…most of the increase in its estimate is due to changes in underlying projections about the economy, incorporating the effects of new federal legislation, as well as higher unemployment and lower wages.

How’re those several promises

  • that promised no-tax-increase
  • unemployment held under 8%
  • everyone pays their “fair share”
  • failure to achieve would produce a one-term presidency (yet he’s running for a second term)
  • and so on

and our “recovery” working out for you?

With all this government “help,” we’re having trouble building anything anymore.