Category Archives: regulation

Obama’s Obamacare Tax Increases

Posted on by
Reply

Here are many of the ones that start this year.  As does President Barack Obama’s war on marriage, using his IRS to prosecute it.

  • top marginal tax rate rose to 39.6% for those at higher incomes
    • $400,000 for single filers
    • $450,000 for married couples filing jointly
    • $425,000 for heads of household
  • itemized deductions and personal exemptions phase out as income increases
    • beginning at $300,000 for married couples filing jointly
    • $250,000 for singles
  • higher capital gains taxes—up to 20% for some taxpayers
  • additional 0.9% Medicare tax
    • on earnings over $250,000 for married couples filing jointly
    • $200,000 for singles and heads of household
  • 3.8% tax on investment income
    • on earnings over $250,000 for married couples filing jointly
    • $200,000 for singles and heads of household

Notice that marriage penalty.

Anti-Religion Mendacity

Posted on by
Reply

Pinellas Park, FL, has a bible that sits on a dais in its city council chambers.  This bothers Randy Heine a very great deal.

The Bible must go.  It doesn’t belong in a government meeting.  Every time I speak, it makes me feel awkward.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has taken up the cause.

Not only is the city council sending a message of endorsement for Christianity over other religions and nonreligion [a letter of theirs to the city council asserts], but display of this King James Bible sends a message of endorsement of one particular Christian sect over all others.

Of course it does no such thing, no more than the ubiquitous references to God in our government documents and on our currency and…does any such thing, nor does our Congress and our Supreme Court opening sessions with prayer does any such thing.

FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel complained that he has written four letters to Pinellas Park, and

They’ve just refused to even deign to answer our issues, so I think that says something about their mindset.

A mindset with which I heartily agree: gangs like FFRF aren’t worth the trouble of answering, except in court to swat down their plaints.

Also, Americans Atheists Inc is bellyaching because there’s a Ten Commandments monument outside the capitol building in Oklahoma City.  In part, their complaint asserts

While at the state Capitol, ([individual plaintiff Aimee] Breeze) is confronted by the Ten Commandments display, which she views as hurtful and exclusive and therefore avoids the area of the display while at the Capitol[.]

Nah.  There’s no push to require Breeze to believe or to think or to behave in a particular way.  There’s no endorsement of any religion.  The only exclusion going on here is Breeze’s exclusion of others’ beliefs.

In fact, the Constitution is not silent on government’s role in matters of religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….

Both of those clauses apply, not just one convenient to anti-religionists.  And they mean that, in a political arena, anti-religionists don’t get to infringe free exercise, either, morally, if not strictly legally.

Of course there’s also no pressure emanating from a Bible or a Ten Commandments monument pushing members of other religious faiths, or atheists, to believe—or not—in a particular way.  Unless there’s something emanating from the Bible or the monument because they’re real.

These anti-religionists know this full well.

Hotel ObamaMart

Posted on by
Reply

You can check in, but they do everything they can to keep you from checking out.

A Missouri citizen had her preferred insurance coverage canceled out from under her by Obamacare.  She was forced by circumstance into the ObamaMart, where she got coverage for $950/mo (that’s $11,400 each and every year, for those of you following along at home).

After that, she found a better plan with coverage that better suited her needs on what’s left of the private market, and she tried to sign up.  No dice; the insurer told her she’d have to cancel her Obamacare policy first (not allowed to buy two policies from two different stores, apparently).

Cancel an Obamacare plan?  Hah.  Wolves have easier times escaping from traps.

  • the citizen tried ObamaMart’s Help line, to be kept on hold “literally…for several hours a day”
  • multiple attempts, with no luck; on to ObamaMart’s online chat facility
  • sent back to the “Help” line where, still, the pseudo-helpers on the ObamaMart end of the line only would read from a script that had no checklist items for canceling plans
  • despite her efforts, a $950 premium was withdrawn from her account
  • finally getting through ObamaMart’s “Help” facility to another bureaucratic layer, the bureaucrat inhabiting that cubicle told her cancellations are handled by a “special department”
  • asked how to contact that “special department,” the bureaucrat claimed, “I’m not allowed to tell you that”
  • drove to Kansas City, hoping her prospective private market insurer could help her get rid of this ObamaMart yoke
  • insurer succeeded in getting the ObamaMart plan canceled—after a total of six weeks from start to finish

When Fox News asked HHS what the proper procedures are for canceling an ObamaMart policy, the spokesman just said to talk to the hand:

Consumers should call the Marketplace consumer call center for assistance at 1-800-318-2596.

And the run-around takes another lap.

No word on whether she got her $950 back.  Probably not, though; that’s just part of President Barack Obama’s “spread the wealth around” mandate.

A Second Amendment Victory

Posted on by
Reply

…for the most part.  Larry Bell, of Forbes, has the tale.

Federal Judge Edmond Chang, US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, was blunt in his ruling:

Chicago’s ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms, and at the same time the evidence does not support that the complete ban sufficiently furthers the purposes that the ordinance tries to serve.  …the ordinances are declared unconstitutional.

Some of that evidence includes the homicide numbers for Chicago.  Last year, for instance, both Chicago led the nation in the number of homicides, and Chicago’s raw homicide numbers jumped 15% even though it has the strictest gun control laws in the US—still, after its ban on concealed carry had been struck down earlier.

Beyond that, 80% of the murders and non-fatal shootings in Chicago last year were gang-related, and very few of those members sought to buy the guns used in these endeavors openly and legally.

Chang did grant Chicago six months to draft a new gun sales law, but this new drafting will need to be closely watched.  Chicago City Attorney Drew Worsek wants the new ordinance to address robust regulations targeting illegal sales and transfer practices.  The city’s judgment concerning what the definition of illegal regarding guns has already been shown, repeatedly, to be suspect.

Chang did have one thing at least partly wrong in his opinion, though:

[C]ertain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside government’s reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment.

This is a misreading of the 2nd Amendment, which says quite clearly,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There’s nothing in there authorizing government to declare a purpose for a man to keep and bear Arms, only that his right to do so shall not be infringed.  Indeed, there are two things about this: one is that the government has no role in telling a man what his purposes are; government’s role is in protecting each man’s right to pursue his own ends, his own purposes, and limiting this right only by keeping a man pursuing his own purpose from infringing another man’s right to pursue his.  The second thing is that the history behind the 2nd Amendment, and of the Constitution itself, is the right of every man to protect himself, not only from other men, but from overweening or misbehaving governments.  That is the degree of “self-defense” addressed in this Amendment.

A Lawless Law

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama is at it again.  Now he’s unilaterally, without legal authority, delaying another aspect of Obamacare.  He’s having his IRS—his Un-American Activities Committee (at least the members of HUAC were elected by us)—not enforce through tax collections a provision that prohibits employers from providing better health benefits to top executives than to other employees.  His excuse is that, four years after Obamacare was enacted, the IRS hasn’t bothered to write the rules that would effect the collections.

This isn’t the only section of Obamacare that Obama has chosen to…waive.  He has chosen to waive for an entire year the Employer Mandate.  He has chosen to waive for three months enforcement of the Individual Mandate.  He has chosen to waive, for a time, the Small Business mandate.  He has chosen to waive, for a time, provisions that forced cancelation of existing policies that individuals already had and preferred—and begun browbeating insurers into allowing those plans to be renewed if a customer wishes.  He has chosen to provide hardship exemptions, for a year, for those who find buying an Obamacare policy a hardship.  He has chosen….

The Obamacare law is quite specific on these provisions: each one must occur; there are no caveats or except-fors that say “no need to enforce if it’s inconvenient to do so, no need if it’s politically expedient to do otherwise.”  Similarly, the Constitution is quite specific: Art II, Section 3 requires the President to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.  No weasel words here, either, about picking and choosing those laws or those parts of laws that can be ignored whenever the President feels like it.  If Obama, or any President, doesn’t like a law or a part of a law, he must go to Congress and persuade them to pass appropriate legislation making the desired modification.

Whatever we might think of the “benefits” of any aspect of Obamacare or of the “fairness” of any section of it, it is, as the Democrats are wont to say, the law of the land.  It takes a lawless, arrogant President to choose, on his own recognizance, which parts of a law will not be enforced.

Obama has transformed his own signature law, his very legacy, into a monument to Executive lawlessness.