Look at how House Democrats, and Obama, handled the "global warming", "cap and trade" "energy bill"--pushing through a bill that was not even PRINTED (in final form) at the time of the vote, with some 300 pages being added to a 1200 page bill in the dead of night. Needless to say, no person in Congress had actually read the final bill when they voted on it. Aside: Sen. Barbara Boxeer had her hedad handed to her by the head of the blackChamber of Commerce (African-American himself), when she tried to suggest--in as condscending a way possible--that he was a itor to his race because the NAACP had issued a statement supporting the "energy bill"--Barara Boxer being accused by this African-American of playing the "race card" when it was totally inappropriate--reducing her to putting the NAACP statement "in the record" to show the DIVERSITY--racial code word--of opinion on this "global warming" fraud--Boxer showing once again that lieftists are the PRIMARY RACISTS left in our society today).
Now we know central planning does not work, either in theory or practice. What can you say about central planning legislation formulated in this manner--pushed through to meet arbitrary deadlines, with provisions inserted that no one has read in order to buy votes. In fact, the entire bills (e.g. the "stimullus bill") are simplly an amalgam of "goodies" that various Democrats want. Even if massive central plainning, and out of contsrol government, were not already a disaster, this method of legislating is a guarantee of failure. Democrats are trying the very same process with the halth care bill--with Obama demanding a bill setting in motion a Federal takeover of the entire health carfe industry, and helath insurance industry, by the August recess. And this bill has NOT been written!!!!! No one knows what will be in the final bill, because Democrats are putting out several versions in several places (in the House and Senate, and in different committees of the House and Senate). Democrats fullly intend to throw together another massive piece of legislation at the last second (if the bill is even fully drafted when the vote comes). This new method of legislating has to be the worst central planning method of massive changes in our countr--involving massive spending--ever devised. That is why I have tried to indicate that Repubicans should not get bogged down in details here, but need to be attacking the big picture.
The Congressional Budget Office dealt Democrats a blow today by stating the obvious: The proposed House bill (to the extent the 1000 page bill is available to read) will INCREASE costs, rather than a dECREASE in costs "paying" for the bill. Now this was obvious, but think how obvious it had to be for the CBO to say so!
Investors Business Daily red the first 16 pages of the bill, and got to a promvision making private health insurance ILLEGAL. Say what? Yes, Investors Business Daily checked, and they were reading it right. Yes, the bill says (in tyical convoluted, "1984" type language and misleading headings) that you get to keep your prsent insurace. BUT, you can never buy private insurance again. IN other words, if you see a BETTER DEAL, you can't switch. You are FORCED to buy the "government option" if you ever lose your present insurance. If you ever needed proof of waht this blog, and others, have been telling you, this is it. Leftist Democrats want a full government takeover of our health care slystem, and they regard this bill as a step in that process. That will be true even if this particular language is changed (fairly likely, but how will you KNOW what is going to be passed in the rush to SOME bill?).
Yes, I reliied on my brother to try to look into the details of the proposed House bill. Since my brother loses at tennis to GIRLS (bad enough that we have a Prfesident who throws like one!), I should have known better. Thus, my brother told me that businesses with 400 employees would be FORCED to provide helath insurance, or pay an 8% payroll tax penalty. Well, my brother says he misread this, and that businesses with $400,000 dollars in payroll ( a much larger number) are subject to this provision. My brother stands by his assertion (seemingly obviously true) taht his small business trucking company--Shipper's Transport--would have failed at least a year earlier with this kind of burden. Yes, my brother's company provided health insurance, BUT with a high deductible and requiring employees to pay half. This kind of "diversity" (see Barbara Boxer misuse of word above) of approach will no longer be allowed, as one Federal size will have to fit all (no matter how many jobs it costs, and how many busineeses it causes to fail--before the entrie country is bankrupted by the complete Federal takeover that was intended from the beginning).
Oh, there was yesterday's story that high income earners in New York City will pay up to 60% of their income in taxes--that is, they will pay that for a SHORT time until they figure out how not to pay it. There is, of course, also the hefty taxes on much lesser incomes in New York City, including the new tax if you choose NOT to get the government insurance.
The reason I don't feel bad about misleading you on the coverage of this bill is that it DOES NOT MATTER what any version of the bill now says. The final bill that passes, if we are dumb enough to let these people continue this insane process without revolt that even they can't ignore, is going to contain provisons drafted at the last second that no one has read. Who knows what will be in that bill? The only thing we can know with certainty is that it will be a DISASTER. Any bill of the type now being considered would be such a disaster, but this new approach to legislation by Democrats guarantees it belyond any kind of doubt.
My brother (now unemployed, and never above the level the Democrats are (for now) classifying as "rich", suggests a TAX REVOLT: that MASSIVE numbers of people join those kooky tax protestors (like Wesley Snipes) who simply refuse to pay any income tax. Everyone knows that our system depends on voluntary copliance (and a little fear), and that any kind of real tax protest by a large number of people will cause the system to break down.
I have news for my brother (which I think he realizes). I would tend to favor such a revolt. But it does not matter mch, in the long run. Taxpayers WILL revolt, whether they do it that obviously or not. Revenue will NOT be raised (in the long run). People will figure out ways to AVOID the taxes. Thus, the "revolt" WILL happen--whether openly and illegally or less openly and legally.