CBO: You Can’t Double-Count Medicare Savings
Dec 29, 2009
Double-Count Medicare Savings
Democrats in Congress are claiming that cuts in Medicare spending will both pay for health reform and add to Medicare’s long-term solvency. But a new CBO report says it’s either/or, but not both. [Of course, this also implies that the Medicare and Social Security trust funds are not holding anything of value — Congress has been double-counting there since the inception of those programs.]
Five Steps to Rationing Health Care
| Step One | The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services…will be given the authority to unilaterally write new rules on when medical devices and drugs can be used, and how they should be priced…when a cheaper medical option will suffice for a given problem and, in turn, when Medicare only has to pay for the least costly alternative. |
| Step Two | The Senate health-care bill also exempts Medicare’s actions from judicial review, taking away the right of patients to sue the government. |
| Step Three | Primary-care doctors who refer patients to specialists will face financial penalties under the plan. Doctors will see 5% of their Medicare pay cut when their “aggregated” use of resources is “at or above the 90th percentile of national utilization.” |
| Step Four | [The plan] imposes new costs on doctors who remain solo, mostly by increasing their overhead requirements [and] the plan offers doctors financial carrots if they give up their small practices and consolidate into larger medical groups, or become salaried employees of large institutions such as hospitals or “staff model” medical plans like Kaiser Permanente… The idea here is that Medicare can more easily apply its regulations to institutions that manage large groups of doctors than it can to individual physicians. |
| Step Five | The impact of these provisions won’t be confined to Medicare. Private insurance sold in the federally regulated “exchanges” will take cues from Medicare, since they’re both managed from the same bureaucracy. |
Cash for Cloture
Dec 28, 2009
The Louisiana Purchase: $100 million in extra Medicaid money for the Bayou State, requested by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).
The Cornhusker Kickback: $100 million in extra Medicaid money, this time for Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).
U Con: $100 million meant for a medical center in Connecticut for Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.)
Gator Aid: A grandfather clause will allow Floridians to preserve their pricey Medicare Advantage program from cuts imposed in the other states.
Handout Montana: Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) secured Medicare coverage for anybody exposed to asbestos — as long as they worked in a mine in Libby, Mont.
Iowa Pork: Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) won more Medicare money for low-volume hospitals of the sort commonly found in Iowa.
Omaha Prime Cuts: Nebraska’s Nelson won a “carve out” provision that would reduce fees for Mutual of Omaha and other Nebraska insurers.
Dakota Payoff: Sens. Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad, both North Dakota Democrats, will enjoy a provision bringing higher Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors in “frontier counties” of states such as — let’s see here — North Dakota!
Hawaii Aloha: Hawaii, with two Democratic senators, will get richer payments to hospitals that treat many uninsured people.
Wolverine Bonanza: Michigan, home of two other Democrats, will earn higher Medicare payments and some reduced fees for Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
What socialism means in Vermont: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) is getting larger Medicaid payments for his state (neighboring Massachusetts will get some, too).
show me the dollars
Where's our million's or billion's in gift money for Colo. after all we had two traitors errr I mean Senators vote for the Healthcare bill
JOE LEGAL vs. JOSE ILLEGAL
JOE LEGAL vs. JOSE ILLEGAL
You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California .
Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.
Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".
Ready? Now pay attention...
- Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.
- Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.
- Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.
- Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
- Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
- Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
- Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.
- Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.
- Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.
- Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.
- Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.
- Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
- Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
- Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
- Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.
- Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.
- Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
- Do you get it, now?
The downfall of Argentina
Don’t Cry For Me, America
posted at 6:45 pm on November 21, 2009 by directorblue
[ Congress ] printer-friendly
In the early 20th century, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world. While Great Britain’s maritime power and its far-flung empire had propelled it to a dominant position among the world’s industrialized nations, only the United States challenged Argentina for the position of the world’s second-most powerful economy.
It was blessed with abundant agriculture, vast swaths of rich farmland laced with navigable rivers and an accessible port system. Its level of industrialization was higher than many European countries: railroads, automobiles and telephones were commonplace.
In 1916, a new president was elected. Hipólito Irigoyen had formed a party called The Radicals under the banner of “fundamental change” with an appeal to the middle class.
Among Irigoyen’s changes: mandatory pension insurance, mandatory health insurance, and support for low-income housing construction to stimulate the economy. Put simply, the state assumed economic control of a vast swath of the country’s operations and began assessing new payroll taxes to fund its efforts.
With an increasing flow of funds into these entitlement programs, the government’s payouts soon became overly generous. Before long its outlays surpassed the value of the taxpayers’ contributions. Put simply, it quickly became under-funded, much like the United States’ Social Security and Medicare programs.
The death knell for the Argentine economy, however, came with the election of Juan Perón. Perón had a fascist and corporatist upbringing; he and his charismatic wife aimed their populist rhetoric at the nation’s rich. 
This targeted group “swiftly expanded to cover most of the propertied middle classes, who became an enemy to be defeated and humiliated.”
Under Perón, the size of government bureaucracies exploded through massive programs of social spending and by encouraging the growth of labor unions.
High taxes and economic mismanagement took their inevitable toll even after Perón had been driven from office. But his populist rhetoric and “contempt for economic realities” lived on. Argentina’s federal government continued to spend far beyond its means.
Hyperinflation exploded in 1989, the final stage of a process characterized by “industrial protectionism, redistribution of income based on increased wages, and growing state intervention in the economy…”
The Argentinian government’s practice of printing money to pay off its public debts had crushed the economy. Inflation hit 3000%, reminiscent of the Weimar Republic. Food riots were rampant; stores were looted; the country descended into chaos.
And by 1994, Argentina’s public pensions — the equivalent of Social Security — had imploded. The payroll tax had increased from 5% to 26%, but it wasn’t enough. In addition, Argentina had implemented a value-added tax (VAT), new income taxes, a personal tax on wealth, and additional revenues based upon the sale of public enterprises. These crushed the private sector, further damaging the economy.
A government-controlled “privatization” effort to rescue seniors’ pensions was attempted. But, by 2001, those funds had also been raided by the government, the monies replaced by Argentina’s defaulted government bonds.
By 2002, “…government fiscal irresponsibility… induced a national economic crisis as severe as America’s Great Depression.”In 1902 Argentina was one of the world’s richest countries. Little more than a hundred years later, it is poverty-stricken, struggling to meet its debt obligations amidst a drought. 
We’ve seen this movie before. The Democrats’ populist plans can’t possibly work, because government bankrupts everything it touches. History teaches us that ObamaCare and unfunded entitlement programs will be utter, complete disasters.Today’s Democrats are guilty of more than stupidity; they are enslaving future generations to poverty and misery. And they will be long gone when it all implodes. They will be as cold and dead as Juan Perón when the piper must ultimately be paid.
TABOR
Background
Nestled at the foot of Pikes Peak on the western flank of the Great Plains, Colorado Springs is one of the prettiest cities in the United States. The poem and song America The Beautiful immortalizes our vistas.
But, like most of our country, we lie under a heavy burden of fools and incompetents in government whose answer to every problem, real or imagined, is more taxes.
Formerly, any collection of dimwits in city, county, or state government could raise taxes at their whim. But one crusty curmudgeon (yes, there is more than one here) took exception and in 1992, after several tries, managed to amend Section X of the Colorado Constitution by means of a voter referendum. That amendment, known as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR, requires any governing body in the state that wants to raise taxes to submit the question to the citizens within their jurisdiction for a vote up or down.
Voluntary tax increases are not nearly as popular with citizens as politicians would like. Since TABOR passed they have been trying every slimy dodge imaginable to wriggle around this constraint. The current depression has renewed their vainglorious efforts.
In 2008 a local county commissioner (an attorney of course) threatened to sell the county parks if citizens rejected his proposed tax and spend increase that was, in his mind, absolutely essential for "public safety." Predictably, citizens didn't take kindly to the threat and the tax increase failed by a wide margin and he is looking for another government job next year. Turned out the parks did not need to be sold and crime rates remain among the lowest in the nation.
Another popular dodge is for politicians to pass a tax and call it a fee. A few years back Colorado Springs decided to tax property owners for the rain that fell on them. Knowing such a tax was quite unlikely to receive voter approval they called it a Stormwater Enterprise fee that applied to rain that fell on every impermeable surface on one's property. Well the same curmudgeon that got TABOR passed didn't take kindly to the bungling city government's "fee" for rainwater and petitioned against it, issue 300 in the November 2009 election.
The current depression has also curtailed tax revenues for the City of Colorado Springs as its citizens incomes dried up and the homeless tents along the creeks multiplied. The answer, of course, as any self-serving politician will tell you, is to once again raise property taxes despite the record number of home foreclosures. And if citizens refuse to bear any burden to support the profligate city government, where an average employee earns around $60,000 a year and the city clerk earns twice that, why it would be necessary to discharge police and firemen and shut down the parks. Sound familiar?
Again that cantankerous old curmudgeon refused to accept the politicians pleas for "More, more, more, no taxation is ever enough to pay for our mistakes and blunders." And so he petitioned against that tax increase as well, referendum 2C on the November 2009 ballot.
Now being a fair, impartial, and unbiased government, with a well-educated and informed law enforcement agency, city attorney, and, of course, courts, the obvious step for the city government to take was to have this unspeakably evil curmudgeon and his crony arrested for exercising their Constitutional right to petition for redress at a local Costco. The Keysone Cops episode that followed is described in their own words below and deftly illustrates how dysfunctional our "legal" system has become.
______________________________________________________________________________
How local government scorned the U.S. Bill of Rights
By Doug Stinehagen and Douglas Bruce
Reproduced with permission of the authors
December 14, 2009, was the 218th anniversary of the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Our city government recently showed how little it respects the freedoms listed there.
Charged with a crime August 15, we demanded a speedy trial, but it was delayed until December 4. We paid a ³fee² for our jury trial. We requested 12 jurors, and got six.
The officer¹s citation first ordered us to court August 8, a week before the alleged crime! It listed Mr. Stinehagen as female. It stated our ³crime² occurred in September, a month later than the day we were charged. The officer meant to charge trespassing, but the citation was for transporting explosives ‹ a felony. Mr. Stinehagen¹s charge was amended two days before trial.
No Costco employee ever asked us to leave, a legal requirement for trespass. Councilman Herpin later called that glaring omission a ³technicality.² We showed printed police policy bulletins promising no trespass arrests of peaceful petitioners. The officer stated we would not be cited.
Armed with handgun and Taser, she ordered three times we erase a photo taken. That forced destruction of evidence was so clearly a felony (18-8-610 C.R.S.) she was advised of her right not to testify against herself.
We signed her citations about 5:30 p.m. and left. After 9 p.m., she pounded on Mr. Bruce¹s door and demanded he return his citation for her to rewrite. He refused. She then tried to coerce his 76-year-old co-defendant in a 10 p.m. phone call. She then altered both tickets, after we had signed them and received copies!
Our motion that the case be heard by a neutral outside judge was denied. Our judge was a loyal city employee whom the council appointed and could fire any time, and whose salary faced a financial impact if our petition, issue #300, passed.
The officer¹s citation first ordered us to court August 8, a week before the alleged crime! It listed Mr. Stinehagen as female. It stated our ³crime² occurred in September, a month later than the day we were charged. The officer meant to charge trespassing, but the citation was for transporting explosives ‹ a felony. Mr. Stinehagen¹s charge was amended two days before trial.
No Costco employee ever asked us to leave, a legal requirement for trespass. Councilman Herpin later called that glaring omission a ³technicality.² We showed printed police policy bulletins promising no trespass arrests of peaceful petitioners. The officer stated we would not be cited.
Armed with handgun and Taser, she ordered three times we erase a photo taken. That forced destruction of evidence was so clearly a felony (18-8-610 C.R.S.) she was advised of her right not to testify against herself.
We signed her citations about 5:30 p.m. and left. After 9 p.m., she pounded on Mr. Bruce¹s door and demanded he return his citation for her to rewrite. He refused. She then tried to coerce his 76-year-old co-defendant in a 10 p.m. phone call. She then altered both tickets, after we had signed them and received copies!
Our motion that the case be heard by a neutral outside judge was denied. Our judge was a loyal city employee whom the council appointed and could fire any time, and whose salary faced a financial impact if our petition, issue #300, passed.
Two weeks later, that judge dismissed the tickets over our objections, letting the city re-file with three weeks delay. Police rewrote the tickets, quietly changing Mr. Bruce¹s charge and other items, while pretending to fix only the date.
City Attorney Patricia Kelly emailed the city council about the new filing and invited them to reply if they wanted the case dropped. Asking politicians whether to prosecute their political foe is grossly unethical. We notified the state bar. The judge covered up that email discussion and council¹s secret and illegal meeting.
City Attorney Patricia Kelly emailed the city council about the new filing and invited them to reply if they wanted the case dropped. Asking politicians whether to prosecute their political foe is grossly unethical. We notified the state bar. The judge covered up that email discussion and council¹s secret and illegal meeting.
Prosecutors proposed gag orders that we not mention ³freedom of speech,² police bulletins, proof of targeted prosecution, etc. The city had secretly changed its petition policy by demand of Costco¹s Denver lawyer. We were ordered not to show the jury his email naming Mr. Bruce as the target of the change. Their new policy, never passed by the council, erased ³First Amendment² 14 times. It specifically protected burning our American flag, but ended previous tolerance of peaceful petitioners.
On a sidewalk outside the courthouse, a man handed out informational fliers noting the historic role of juries as buffers against tyranny. No jurors had been chosen for any case. The city-paid judge went ballistic and orally made up a law that no one could ever post signs or pass out leaflets within 100 yards of the courthouse. He made that area a ³constitution-free zone.² Talk about legislating from the bench! No offering papers to sign on public access property, no distributing papers to read within 100 yards of public property ‹ two insane and illegal city ³rules.³
The judge asked us in open court, ³When WE finish the prosecution, will you be ready with your witnesses?² That gaffe exposed him as a co-prosecutor, rather than an objective arbiter of justice. When we asked for the tape, he said it was not recorded, claiming an electronic ³glitch.²
This city-paid judge blocked testimony from about 30 defense witnesses, 25 of whom had petitioned at Costco without arrest, and many documents proving our innocence.
This city-paid judge blocked testimony from about 30 defense witnesses, 25 of whom had petitioned at Costco without arrest, and many documents proving our innocence.
Jurors were denied the transcript of the star city witness¹s prior sworn testimony showing his many inconsistencies, and his typed statement he signed in August, showing (a third time) he never asked us to leave. We were threatened with contempt of court if we mentioned our evidence.
Verdict: Not guilty.
The city¹s bumbling incompetence was so gross they made the Keystone Kops look like the Bolshoi Ballet. The bias was overt. We would call this a kangaroo court proceeding, but kangaroos might sue us for libel.
³Doug Stinehagen and Douglas Bruce are patriots who will continue to petition.²
_____________________________________________________________________________
I am pleased to note that the citizens of Colorado Springs turned down the property tax increase, 2C, proposed by the (what term describes them?) city council. And that issue 300 passed, ending the city's end run around TABOR with fees on rainwater and other malfeasance.
I'm also confident that most readers will not be shocked to learn that after the 2C tax measure was defeated that certain funds were suddenly discovered to cover the dire shortfalls so alarmingly described before the November election.
The sad thing, though, is that this case represents a cross-section of what millions of Americans endure every day as they pass through our "justice" system. Arrests are made on false allegations without question, children are forcibly taken on imagined charges based on anonymous phone calls, it is often impossible to get a jury trial, coercion and even torture of defendants is routine, courtrooms bear a distinct resemblance to Star Chambers, the outcome is often predetermined by the judge's cronies, transcripts are lost or altered due to recording "glitches," and may god have pity on anyone before the bar who can't afford an attorney at $200-$500 hour or more.
Of course, the obvious solution in the political mind is to raise taxes and fees and pour more money into child protective services, police, jails, judges, police, and social interventions. Encouraging marriage and families is contraindicated in their world and any curmudgeon who dares challenge their eminences must be done away with. And for any Doubting Thomas may I recommend Barbara Johnson's recent book Behind The Black Robes: Failed Justice.
Bah humbug,
___________________________________
Healthcare bill passes
Democrat version of the health bill passed the Senate. Jammed through and crammed through and down our throats. Not a single Republican vote. Paid off and threatened Senators the old fashioned Chicago way of Politics. When the American people find out about the shyster dealings of this bill they'll be so stupid as to try and blame the Republicans.
Always one of my favorites
At a time when our president and other politicians tend to apologize for our country's prior actions, here's a refresher on how some of our former patriots handled negative comments about our country.
JFK'S Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was in France in the early 60's when
DeGaulle decided to pull out of NATO. DeGaulle said he wanted all US
military out of France as soon as possible.
Rusk responded "does that include those who are buried here?
DeGaulle did not respond.
You could have heard a pin drop.
When in England , at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the
Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of
empire building by George Bush.
He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of
its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom
beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for
in return is enough to bury those that did not return.'
You could have heard a pin drop.
There was a conference in France where a number of international engineers
were taking part, including French and American. During a break,
one of the French engineers came back into the room saying 'Have you
heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft
carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intended to do, bomb them?'
A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: 'Our carriers have three
hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are
nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to
shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to
feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand
gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a
dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and
from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?'
You could have heard a pin drop.
A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included
Admirals from the U.S. , English, Canadian, Australian and French
Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large
group of Officers that included personnel from most of those countries.
Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a
French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many
languages, Americans learn only English. He then asked, 'Why is it that
we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?'
Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied, 'Maybe it's because the
Brit's, Canadians, Aussie's and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't
have to speak German.'
You could have heard a pin drop.
AND THIS STORY FITS RIGHT IN WITH THE ABOVE...
Robert Whiting , an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At
French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on.
"You have been to France before, monsieur?" the customs officer asked sarcastically.
Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously.
"Then you should know enough to have your passport ready."
The American said, 'The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it."
"Impossible. Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in France !"
The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he
quietly explained, ''Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in
1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find a single Frenchmen
to show a passport to."
You could have heard a pin drop.
The EPA, Not Carbon Dioxide, Is Hazardous To The Public
The EPA, Not Carbon Dioxide, Is Hazardous To The Public
NPCA Expert Says EPA Shouldn't Control Greenhouse Gases until Congress Passes Bill on the Specific Issue
Dallas (December 8, 2009) - The EPA's announcement yesterday declaring carbon dioxide a hazard and a danger to public health is the administration's attempt at extortion, according to NCPA Senior Fellow, H. Sterling Burnett. President Obama is telling Congress to act soon or he will, and they won't like the result, he said.
"The administration and the Democratic leadership is basically saying that this bad climate bill will need to be passed or they will enact, purely through regulation, even worse carbon controls on the economy," Burnett said. "This is truly a choice between two evils."
The EPA is considering rules that would restrict emissions from large sources of CO2 such as power stations, chemical plants and refineries. The EPA also has the option to regulate other emitters such as trucks, lawnmowers, airplanes, and large buildings.
"Congress should act to suspend the EPA's rule making authority over CO2 by halting any EPA action on greenhouse gases unless and until Congress passes a bill specifically dealing with this problem," Burnett said. "But, neither the Democratic leadership nor the administration would allow this because it takes away their leverage in negotiating the cap and trade bill."
To read Sterling Burnett's testimony on this topic, log on to http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/031209_WM_Burnett.pdf.
Climate-gate
Obama Administration Underestimates Severity of Climate-gate
NCPA: This is a bad time to make hasty decisions about climate change, need to reevaluate science
Dallas (December 7, 2009) - The Climate-gate scandal, which revealed that scientists attempted to suppress inconvenient data, used tricks to change reported outcomes, suppress dissent, and undermine the peer review process, should serve as a major red flag to the Obama administration and other government delegations, according to NCPA Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett."Even though the science used to justify the need for a costly climate treaty is unraveling, the Obama administration is shrugging off the emails, parroting the claim that the science is settled and it's time to act, which couldn't be further from the truth," Dr. Burnett said. "Instead of the administration choosing to slow down and make sure the science is solid, it feels the need to push harder for an agreement to set new greenhouse gas emissions targets."
Supporters within the Obama administration who support moving forward with a climate treaty are underplaying the importance of scientific data and the critical nature that this small group of scientists has played in shaping public perception of the causes and consequences of global warming, Burnett said.
"With literally trillions of dollars at stake, now is not the time to take dramatic action just for the administration to say that they are 'doing something' about global warming," Burnett said. "Rather, we should get the science right, then determine if we need to do anything at all. Surely we can come up with a solution better than the cap-and-trade scam currently dominating the policy discussion."
Burnett has developed several sensible ideas to effectively address global warming. To see the list of "no regrets" policies, log on to http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st321.
New Underground Economy
New Underground Economy
by Richard W. Rahn
The underground or "black" economy is rapidly rising, and the fault is mainly due to government policies.
Here is the evidence. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) released a report last week concluding that 7.7 percent of U.S. households, containing at least 17 million adults, are unbanked (i.e. those who do not have bank accounts), and an "estimated 17.9 percent of U.S. households, roughly 21 million, are underbanked" (i.e., those who rely heavily on nonbank institutions, such as check cashing and money transmitting services). As an economy becomes richer and incomes rise, the normal expectation is that the proportion of the unbanked population falls and does not rise as is now happening in the United States.
Tax revenues are falling far more rapidly at the federal, state and local level than would be expected by the small drop in real gross domestic product (GDP) and changes in tax law that have occurred since the recession began. The currency in circulation outside the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve banks and the vaults of depository institutions - that is, the currency held by individuals and businesses - has grown by 13.3 percent in the last two years, while real nominal (not inflation-adjusted) GDP has not grown at all, and real (inflation-adjusted) GDP incomes have fallen by more than 3 percent. With the growth of electronic means of payment and financial service providers, it would be expected that the currency component of GDP would fall, not rise.
The underground economy refers to both legal activities, such as often found in construction and services industries where taxes are not withheld and paid, and illegal activities, such as drug dealing and prostitution.
Countries such as the United States, Switzerland and Japan historically have had relatively small, nonreporting and/or illegal sectors, a typical estimate being 13 percent of GDP.
Most European countries have had somewhat larger underground sectors (typically 20 percent or so) in part because of the desire to escape higher tax rates. Italy and some of the other Southern European countries are believed to have underground sectors that account for 30 percent or more of all economic activity.
I recall an Italian finance minister telling a few of us at a meeting a couple of decades ago that, for policy purposes, he assumed that "the economy was 40 percent larger than what was reported." In some developing countries and/or highly corrupt countries, underground or "off the books" activities are estimated to be as high as 70 percent of all economic activity.
The FDIC report about the size of the unbanked or underbanked sector in the U.S. should be of concern because those who do not use the banking system often have to pay higher fees to cash checks, pay bills (e.g., money orders, etc.), or transmit funds.
People who keep their savings in cash at home rather than in banks make themselves easier prey for criminals and are more likely to lose their money to fire, flood, or just neglect. Not surprisingly, a majority (71 percent) of the unbanked have household incomes of less than $30,000 per year.
There are many reasons people do not have bank accounts. Banks, because of the "know your customer" and other anti-money laundering regulations, make it difficult for nonestablished people, such as the young and transient, as well as legal and illegal immigrants, to open bank accounts.
Also, many of these same regulations are responsible for the rise in bank fees, which are a particular burden for low-income people. You can be sure that every time Congress passes some new law or the IRS implements some new regulation to "get tax cheats," much of the real burden of these compliance costs will fall on those least able to afford it, while those intent on finding their way around it will do so.
People also avoid having bank accounts because they are vulnerable to asset seizure, judgments, levies, etc. Increasingly, bankers and others who provide financial services are forced by governments to spy and snitch on their own customers, and this is a real turnoff for many people, which causes them to find other ways of maintaining financial privacy.
Many studies have shown that when people believe the taxes they are required to pay are reasonable and the political leaders tend to spend their tax dollars wisely, tax compliance rises, and vice versa. In the United States, there is increased evidence that many tax dollars are not being spent wisely and are often used to pay off political cronies.
Over the past year in particular, the public has become aware that many in Washington who advocate higher taxes and argue that everyone has a responsibility to pay taxes are themselves not complying with the tax laws and regulations.
When you have a secretary of the Treasury and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee (the tax writing committee) accused of cheating on their taxes, it greatly undermines the moral authority of the tax collectors, making the common citizens feel like chumps and, hence, much more willing to try to legally avoid or illegally evade taxes themselves.
The evidence is unambiguous; governments cannot increase tax compliance and decrease the size of the underground economy by ever increasing and more onerous regulations.
It is no accident that those governments that allow their citizens a high degree of personal and financial liberty, including financial privacy, and spend taxpayer dollars wisely, honestly and competently, have much smaller underground sectors than corrupt and oppressive governments. Washington, take note.
National Recovery Act- 1934
This came out of the History column from todays local paper the Gazelle.
"Careful search of National Recovery Act codes reveals little of value
in them to any industry except those monopolistic
privileges which are incompatible with a capitalistic system based on
free enterprise and which ought never to have been granted unless it
were contemplated to make a transition from free competitive capitalism
to state capitalism."
Dr. Charles Roos, former director of research for the national recovery act.
Assailing the Recovery administration, minced no words in an almost
unqualified attack on the code system, Dr. Roos called the NRA "the
greatest hoax ever perpetrated on industry or labor."
Reminds me of todays recovery "stimulus package"
American Jury Institute
November 30, 2009 8:00 PM
In response to the Gazette article titled “Jury tampering delays Bruce trespassing trial,” (Nov. 14), I offer some thoughts.
Most Americans believe that their liberties are safe in courtrooms; that courts will uphold and support their rights. Sadly, in Colorado Springs the opposite is true. This isn’t about jury tampering — it’s about something far worse. It’s about a government bent on suppressing the rights of the people instead of protecting them.
Here are the relevant facts: A man was peacefully handing out leaflets on the sidewalk outside the Colorado Springs Municipal Court building on Kiowa Street. Anyone who received a flyer had it forcefully confiscated, and then the entire jury pool was dismissed for fear of being “tainted.” The judge responsible for the court’s harsh response is The Hon. Spencer Gresham, who then went on to order that no one be allowed to hand out leaflets within 100 yards of the courthouse.
So, what was in the flyers that brought forth such an extreme response by the court? They were “True or False” flyers, designed by the American Jury Institute. They explained that when you sit on a jury, you may use your conscience in determining a verdict. They are not specific to any one case, but apply to all criminal trials anywhere in America.
The flyers discuss “jury nullification,” also known as “jury veto power,” which has been the traditional right of jurors since our nation was founded. Here are some relevant quotes:
“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” — Thomas Jefferson
“Jurors should acquit even against the judges’ instruction… if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.” — Alexander Hamilton
“The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” — John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States.
“It is not only his [the juror’s] right, but his duty… to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though indirect opposition to the direction of the court.” — John Adams, second U.S. President
Jury nullification is an old and vitally important right for all Americans. It is our last peaceful line of defense against a corrupt and power-hungry government. It enables us to defend our fellow citizens from unconstitutional and unjust laws, by exonerating people who stand accused of violating them.
Sadly, many judges in the Colorado Springs Municipal Court hate this right, and Judge Gresham is abusing his power to suppress our rights. This isn’t just about jury nullification. It’s also about our First Amendment right to inform our fellow Coloradans about their power as jurors. Judge Gresham knows that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in UNITED STATES v. GRACE, 461 U.S. 171 (1983), protects our right to hand out flyers on sidewalks outside government buildings. Grace held that: “ …they [sidewalks] …are public forums for First Amendment purposes,” and “…the public sidewalks surrounding the Court grounds are no different than other public sidewalks in the city.”
In spite of this, Gresham is denying this right to the people of Colorado Springs. It should serve as grounds for his removal from the bench.
During a recent motions hearing, Doug Bruce asked for some water. Judge Gresham said he had no water, and he offered Bruce an empty cup. How perfectly symbolic: A cup devoid of water in a courtroom devoid of liberty.
If you are disgusted by Gresham’s lawless actions, write to: Mayor & City Council, PO Box 1575, CS CO 80901, or submit an online complaint at https://secure.springsgov.com/crm/crm.asp, or call a City Council member and lodge a complaint against Judge Spencer Gresham.
—
Alexander Daube is an Area Coordinator for the American Jury Institute, www.FIJA.org. Readers may contact him by e-mailing: patriot1701@yahoo.com
Most Americans believe that their liberties are safe in courtrooms; that courts will uphold and support their rights. Sadly, in Colorado Springs the opposite is true. This isn’t about jury tampering — it’s about something far worse. It’s about a government bent on suppressing the rights of the people instead of protecting them.
Here are the relevant facts: A man was peacefully handing out leaflets on the sidewalk outside the Colorado Springs Municipal Court building on Kiowa Street. Anyone who received a flyer had it forcefully confiscated, and then the entire jury pool was dismissed for fear of being “tainted.” The judge responsible for the court’s harsh response is The Hon. Spencer Gresham, who then went on to order that no one be allowed to hand out leaflets within 100 yards of the courthouse.
So, what was in the flyers that brought forth such an extreme response by the court? They were “True or False” flyers, designed by the American Jury Institute. They explained that when you sit on a jury, you may use your conscience in determining a verdict. They are not specific to any one case, but apply to all criminal trials anywhere in America.
The flyers discuss “jury nullification,” also known as “jury veto power,” which has been the traditional right of jurors since our nation was founded. Here are some relevant quotes:
“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” — Thomas Jefferson
“Jurors should acquit even against the judges’ instruction… if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.” — Alexander Hamilton
“The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” — John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States.
“It is not only his [the juror’s] right, but his duty… to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though indirect opposition to the direction of the court.” — John Adams, second U.S. President
Jury nullification is an old and vitally important right for all Americans. It is our last peaceful line of defense against a corrupt and power-hungry government. It enables us to defend our fellow citizens from unconstitutional and unjust laws, by exonerating people who stand accused of violating them.
Sadly, many judges in the Colorado Springs Municipal Court hate this right, and Judge Gresham is abusing his power to suppress our rights. This isn’t just about jury nullification. It’s also about our First Amendment right to inform our fellow Coloradans about their power as jurors. Judge Gresham knows that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in UNITED STATES v. GRACE, 461 U.S. 171 (1983), protects our right to hand out flyers on sidewalks outside government buildings. Grace held that: “ …they [sidewalks] …are public forums for First Amendment purposes,” and “…the public sidewalks surrounding the Court grounds are no different than other public sidewalks in the city.”
In spite of this, Gresham is denying this right to the people of Colorado Springs. It should serve as grounds for his removal from the bench.
During a recent motions hearing, Doug Bruce asked for some water. Judge Gresham said he had no water, and he offered Bruce an empty cup. How perfectly symbolic: A cup devoid of water in a courtroom devoid of liberty.
If you are disgusted by Gresham’s lawless actions, write to: Mayor & City Council, PO Box 1575, CS CO 80901, or submit an online complaint at https://secure.springsgov.com/crm/crm.asp, or call a City Council member and lodge a complaint against Judge Spencer Gresham.
—
Alexander Daube is an Area Coordinator for the American Jury Institute, www.FIJA.org. Readers may contact him by e-mailing: patriot1701@yahoo.com
.JPG)