Last week the Obama administration released its first official headcount of ObamaCare enrollments since…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
ObamaCare’s 7.3 Million Enrollments May be False

Last week the Obama administration released its first official headcount of ObamaCare enrollments since applauding itself for 8 million initial sign-ups.

The current enrollment is 7.3 million, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

But there’s reason to be suspicious.

“Under ObamaCare, after a person has paid their first premium, a health plan can’t cancel anyone until they have gone three months without making a payment,” writes health care policy expert Bob Laszewski.

By saying that the 7.3 million number includes all enrollments that have occurred through mid-August, CMS is “effectively double counting by including the ‘adds’ while also keeping the ‘deletes’.” That means the 7.3 figure “also still includes every person who has…[more]

September 22, 2014 • 06:49 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Raising Taxes on “The Rich” Will Harm the Economy Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, July 29 2010
The question of whether to raise taxes on income earners over $200,000 is quickly becoming the central debate as the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are set to expire on January 1. On that date, Americans will suffer the single largest tax increase in the nation’s history unless Congress and the White House intervene.

Consumer spending fuels two-thirds of the massive American economy. 

Meanwhile, the top five percent of income earners account for fully one-third of that consumer spending. 

So remind us again, Obama Administration:  Since that critical income segment supports such a disproportionate share of the nation’s vitality, how does suddenly raising their taxes energize the struggling economy? 

The question of whether to raise taxes on income earners over $200,000 is quickly becoming the central debate as the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are set to expire on January 1.  On that date, Americans will suffer the single largest tax increase in the nation’s history unless Congress and the White House intervene. 

For their part, Obama and his Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner – who had difficulty paying the same taxes he wants others to pay – claim that they want to maintain the lower tax rates for earners under $200,000, but allow taxes to rise for filers over that threshold. 

Here’s the irony:  Obama and Geithner suggest that we cannot afford to increase taxes on the middle class during this period of economic difficulty.  Yet somehow, it’s harmless in their minds to raise taxes on the income segment that accounts for an even greater share of consumer spending? 

Here’s another irony:  Obama, Geithner and others on the left also claim that the American economy is weak enough to necessitate another “stimulus” atop the failed $1 trillion they’ve already wasted.  Yet somehow, the economy is nevertheless strong enough to increase taxes on the very category that disproportionately propels that same economy? 

The liberals’ cynical gamble is that the American electorate will buy their “soak the rich” agenda.  Between that and “George Bush did it,” they don’t seem to possess many alternatives.  But there are a few other worrisome facts they should consider. 

First, the Obama Administration’s claim that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts somehow created budget deficits is simply nonsense.  Incoming federal revenues actually increased some 44% between 2003 and 2007, transcending historical averages to reach 18.5% of gross domestic product (GDP).  Incoming federal revenues, in fact, reached their all-time high in 2007.  The problem wasn’t with tax scarcity, but even higher rates of government spending growth.  Of course, Obama, Pelosi and Reid have injected steroids into that spending growth. 

Regardless, to ascribe the deficit to depleted revenues and tax cuts is either dishonest or ignorant. 

Here’s an even more alarming reality.  Many small businesses, which create most new jobs in America, file taxes as “individuals” under our tax code for various technical reasons.  According to IRS data, most small business profits fall within tax brackets exceeding $200,000.  In 2008, 30 million small businesses reported a cumulative net profit of $631 billion.  Approximately 75% of that income - $457 billion – fell within the over-$200,000 tax segment. 

That’s not the end of the story regarding small businesses, however.  In 2008, according to the IRS, 22 million sole proprietorships reported total profits of $264 billion.  Some $90 billion of that – over one-third – was taxed at the over-$200,000 individual rate.  Furthermore, 8 million partnerships that file under subchapter S of the tax code reported $367 billion in net profits in 2008, almost all of which was taxed at the individual rate over $200,000. 

In other words, a large majority of small business income is subject to the Obama Administration’s demonization campaign against “the rich.”  When that income increasingly shifts on January 1 toward federal bureaucracies and Obama’s effort to “spread the wealth around,” does any serious person doubt the negative impact on hiring, investment and small business growth? 

We must cultivate consumer spending and small business income, not impair them.  Unfortunately, Obama, Pelosi and Reid are desperate to save their Congressional majorities.  Economic reality and honesty apparently take a back seat to their campaign of demonization and divisiveness. 

On a positive note, even notable Democrats are beginning to break ranks.  Senators Ben Nelson (D – Nebraska), Evan Bayh (D – Indiana) and even Kent Conrad (D – North Dakota) express concern about “raising taxes in the midst of a downturn.” 

Perhaps these Democratic leaders can catch Obama between daytime television appearances and golf outings to explain that he would be better served by a healthier economy than by his class warfare agenda. 

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following is considered the father of the U.S. Constitution?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"NEW YORK — It's hard to make a really big protest march about just one thing. Back in the days of giant rallies against the Iraq war, all sorts of groups wanted in on the action. There were communists. Anarchists. Protesters mad about the Florida recount. Katrina justice groups. Civil rights organizations. And more. The crazy quilt of aggrieved demonstrators made it hard to keep the focus on…[more]
 
 
—Byron York, The Washington Examiner Chief Political Correspondent
— Byron York, The Washington Examiner Chief Political Correspondent
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you agree or disagree with Congressional approval for arming and training some factions of Syrian rebels as the U.S. strategy for combating ISIS in Syria?