Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Quote of the Day, Stimulus Edition

Wednesday, September 22nd, 2010

“We’ve gone from a country whose population instinctively knew there was no free lunch to one whose population has convinced itself that the consumption of free lunches is a revenue generating activity.”

(found in comments here)

“You have my disgust and disdain forever….”

Monday, December 21st, 2009

An open letter from Dr. Becky Hollibaugh of Friend, Nebraska to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.):

Dear Senator Nelson:

I send this message under ?Tort Reform? because the current monstrosity you have pledged your support to says nothing whatsoever about Tort Reform. You have sold the physicians of Nebraska for zilch (zilch for us, but beaucoup federal bucks for you and the liberal partisans in this state). As a family practice physician in Small Town, Nebraska, I was counting on you to be the lone voice of Democratic sanity on this issue, but you sold me out. I will dedicate every spare minute of my time and every spare dollar I have to defeating you, should you run for re-election. The long hours I spent on my medical education and the long hours I spend treating my patients are nothing but chump change to you and your Democrat colleagues in Washington. I especially can?t wait for your equivocation and milquetoast evasion when your ?compromises? on the abortion language in the bill are silently erased or quietly (on-little-legislative-cat?s-feet) eviscerated in the House/Senate give-and-take. Go on: Bet me that you won?t wuss-out on this issue!

I know you won?t give two-seconds to this letter, but I had to write it. I?m a primary care doctor in YOUR state, and you sold me out. I didn?t slog through 4 years of college and 4 years of medical school and 3 years of residency just to have you hand my career and my patient/doctor relationships over to government lifers. Your gutless acquiescence to Obama and Harry Reid and ?Nanny? Pelosi will NOT be forgotten.

Thank you, Ben, for forcing doctors like me to earn less than the repairmen who fix our appliances. Case in point: We recently had our dishwasher fixed. The repairman who came to our house charged $65 just to come and ?diagnose? the problem, then charged another $180 to ?fix? the problem. You and your fellow lawmakers have fixed MY going rate (Medicare) at $35 per-visit. Thank you for securing such a ?lucrative? rate for me! Thank you so much for making me?someone with 8 years of education!?make less than a mechanic or appliance repair technichian. And thanks especially for falling in line with Obama and the rest of the Democrats to make such a socialist system permanent.

You have my disgust and disdain forever, you socialist-coddling coward.

Sincerely,
Becky F. Hollibaugh, D.O.
Warren Memorial Hospital
Ziimmerman Clinic
Friend, NE 68359

Good on you Doc!

Dr. Hollibaugh follows up with:

?To those who would accuse me of greed: I don?t make as much as you think I do. I give every one of my patients the very best care I can offer, regardless of their ability to pay. And I do NOT begrudge my mechanic or my appliance repairmen their salaries. Not one bit. I gladly pay them what I owe them. What you leftist idiots don?t understand is this: I am forced to accept $35 for an office visit by a medicaid or medicare patient. I. Can?t. Afford. It. On that enforced wage, I can?t pay my nurses. I can?t pay my billing secretaries. I can?t pay my receptionist. I. Can?t. Survive. On. Obamacare. Get it?! I. Can?t. Pay. My. Nurses. On. Ben. Nelson. Wages. Get it? I hope so. You think I?m greedy? I went to medical school as a former nurse at age 36. I have over $180,000 dollars in student loans. I. Can?t. Survive. On. Obamacare. I hope this helps. I don?t make as much as you might think. And most of what I earn goes to repaying my student loans. I love my little family medicine clinic in Friend. I love being a doctor in rural Nebraska. I love my patients and I love rural family medicine. But Ben Nelson sold me out. Thanks again for letting me vent. I?m not greedy. I don?t envy the wages of my blue-collar friends. But I can?t survive or pay my employees on Uncle Sam?s reimbursement rate for my services.

Personally I don’t care if the dictated price is enough for her to make a living. The government, flat out, has no place dictating how much money a citizen should be permitted to charge for their services. The government, flat out, has no right to dictate what products or services a citizen is required to purchase. Either of these is the illegal seizure of private property (money) by government fiat.

Obamacare doesn’t really kick in until 2013 or so. I personally will support and vote for any candidate who vows to repeal this monstrosity before then; and it appears to be about 60% of the populace who agrees with me. Goodbye, Democrats — you have dug your graves with this legislation.

Found at Michelle Malkin, via Matteo.

Charity and the efficiency of Government

Thursday, April 2nd, 2009

I came across an article yesterday touting the grand efficiency of government over that of private charity(!) and thought that it was as eminently fisk-worthy as anything I’ve seen in many moons. Let’s get started, shall we?

A Tax Plan Charities Should Back

By Joel Berg
The Washington Post
Saturday, March 28, 2009; Page A13

Some of the nation’s largest charities — and the lobbyists they pay to represent them — have been hyperventilating over President Obama’s proposal to marginally roll back the amount of the tax deduction that the very wealthiest Americans can take for donating to charity.

So far so good; although already he’s taking some random pot-shots by pointing out the existence of lobbyists, as though hiring someone to represent you to government so that you can spend your time doing your job is somehow corrupt….

Of course, conservatives who oppose any tax hikes for the rich also oppose it.

And again with the suggestion that this is somehow sinister. Allow me to translate this sentence: “People who oppose tax hikes oppose tax hikes.” Well, Duh.

While these voices have created the impression that all nonprofit organizations oppose the plan, the reality is that many charitable organizations, especially ones that serve low-income populations, such as the one I run, strongly support it.

A straw man argument. There is no issue, anywhere, ever, that is universally supported or opposed. (Actually, that’s by definition, as if it were either of those, it would not be an “issue”.) So the grand revelation that some people support something is neither grand, nor a revelation.

According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, the proposal would affect only 1.2 percent of U.S. households — those in the top two tax brackets. Nearly 99 percent of households would be unaffected.

Hey, man, we’re just sticking it to the Evil Rich™, so what’s the problem? Just remember, that’s how income taxes got started in the first place — as a 1% tax on the extremely rich. But once the principle was established that such taxes were okay at all, it was easy for the politicians to slowly bump the numbers up.

The plan would merely restore the deduction rate to Reagan-era levels.

This is a lie. Well, okay, it’s a statistic deliberately designed to mislead — same thing.

The top income tax rate at the end of the Reagan years was 28%, and people in that tax bracket could deduct that entire amount — 28% — from their taxes. Today the top tax bracket is 39%, and people can currently deduct the entire amount. Obama wants to change it so people paying 39% income tax can only deduct 28% of charitable giving. He is reducing the deduction for charitable giving from 100% to 72%. Simply put: Obama wants to start taxing that which was previously untaxed.

Both Obama, and Mr. Berg in writing this article, are claiming that Obama is trying to make it the same as it was under Reagan. This would be hysterical if it weren’t so outrageous.

Since the largest donors (such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett) already give more than they can deduct, and numerous studies show that tax deductions are a relatively minor reason that the wealthiest Americans donate to charities, total charitable contributions are likely to decline by only about 1.3 percent if the proposal is enacted, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculates.

Again, it isn’t the specific amount, it’s the principle. This tax is custom-designed to reduce the amount of charitable giving and put more such “charity” under the thumb of government. The basis of the socialist leftist agenda: Make as many people as possible dependent on government.

Combined with other progressive Obama tax proposals, that change would not only start to redress the inequality gap that has engulfed America in recent decades

Again, if you’re a leftist, the fact that someone might make more that someone else is anathema; and it is up to government to determine what income is “fair”, rather than simply allowing people to earn based on what others are willing to pay them.

but would also help to pay for many effective domestic programs, including efforts that fight hunger and improve nutrition; boost public education; improve health care and make it more affordable; and create jobs for low- and middle-income families. In other words, the funding would greatly reduce struggling families’ need for charitable aid.

…by making them more dependent on government. To Mr. Berg here, this is a priori a good thing. Charity is bad, forcible government redistribution is good… if you’re a socialist.

Well, that and the fact that study after study has shown that conservatives give far more to charity than leftists do. This has been a political black eye that they would love to remedy by reducing conservative giving any way they can.

When the wealthiest Americans donate to charities, they are most likely to give to universities, hospitals and cultural institutions from which they and their families may benefit. Such organizations often have budgets and executive salaries equal to or larger than those of mid-size corporations, stretching the definition of “nonprofit group.”

Translation: “Those mean-ol’ rich people aren’t giving to the charities that I want them to, so let’s have the government take money from them at gunpoint, and give that money to the “right” charities. ‘Cuz we all know that only rich people benefit from libraries and hospitals and museums. And… AND!… the guy running a big city museum that employs hundreds and serves millions makes more money than I do running my organization that you’ve never heard of, and that’s not fair.”

While anti-poverty organizations such as mine do receive some funding from the wealthiest Americans (for which we are extremely grateful), the bulk of our private donations comes from middle-income families.

Translation: “I’m the ‘right’ kind of charity, so this new tax won’t affect me much. I’m cool with that.”

Even if the largest tax deductions are kept in place only for anti-poverty organizations, a compromise that would directly benefit groups such as mine, there are at least two reasons I still don’t think that would be wise public policy:

First, such tax deductions are a highly inefficient way to fund social programs. It is far more cost-effective for the government to simply increase supplemental nutrition benefits (formerly food stamps) that are immediately redeemed at for-profit food stores than it is to give massive tax deductions that only marginally increase donations to feeding charities, which then have to split such donated money between administrative costs and food purchases.

Because of course the government is not bureaucratic at all, and spends money far more efficiently than private charities do. Right? Hello? I’m pretty sure whatever this guy is smoking is illegal in all 50 states.

Let’s look at government “efficiency” for a moment: Let’s say that I donate $1,000 to Charity A. Charity A will have some overhead, but X% of that money will go directly to the cause that Charity A supports.

Now let’s suppose that the government steps in and takes that $1,000 from me taxes. They, in their infinite wisdom, determine that Charity A is, in fact, a worthwhile program, and gives that money to Charity A — the exact same charity I was going to give to in the first place. It’s a wash, right? Because Charity A got the same money? Well, no it isn’t. See, somebody has to pay the government bureaucrats who collected the money from me, and the ones who decided to give it to whatever program, and the ones who actual did the transfer to that program. Let’s call those expenses Y. Instead of the cause receiving X% of my $1,000, they now receive X% minus Y — government always gets its cut. This is not “more efficient”.

Then again, it’s not really about efficiency — it’s about control.

Second, voluntary private charity is a less equitable way to solve community problems.

According to whose definition? Like much of leftist theory, this is one of those things that only works out “if the right people are in charge” It seems to me that the people in a community have a better idea of how to solve that community’s problems than some bureaucrat in Washington DC.

Oh wait, Mr. Berg did not say it was more effective, he said it was more equitable. Equality of outcome is more important than an effective society. It’s okay if we fail, so long as everyone fails equally.

While many people assume that the rich amass their wealth on their own, the truth is that their business interests are almost always aided by public efforts such as roads, bridges and ports through which they ship their goods or public schools that educate their workforces.

And they pay for it asshole! Gaaaahhh!!! Why are you acting like the rich don’t pay taxes? Charitable giving has absolutely nothing to do with roads and bridges, and you damned well know it. Property taxes pay for schools. In Illinois the tolls alone more than pay for the roads.

Given that even the wealthiest benefit greatly from this modern “public commons,” it is wrong to give them unilateral power to decide whether their taxpayer-subsidized donations should go to, say, well-heeled operas or lavish care of pets rather than to organizations that meet more pressing communal needs.

This doesn’t even need translation: Mr. Berg believes it is wrong to “give” people the power to decide where they want to spend their own money. To a leftist, it’s never, ever your money — anything you have is “given” to you, and government merely “allows” you to keep it. To a socialist, this is good and proper.

It is fashionable these days to say that “the community,” not government, should solve social problems. Yet no nonprofit leader, myself included, was elected by the community as a whole. Elected officials, whether we like them or not, are picked by voting citizens.

Unless your name is Saddam Hussein* no elected official is elected by the community as a whole. The difference is that government is all-or nothing; whereas with charity, you can give to the charity you like, and I can give to the charity I like. It’s called “the free market” — a concept with which you are apparently unacquainted.

In America, the government is the most legitimate voice of the entire community.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *snort* The most legi…. aheh. Pull the other one, Comrade, it has bells!

The Obama administration should stick to its guns in fighting for tax equity, and Congress should support the effort.

Again, you seem to have a funny understanding of the word “equity”. Tax “equity” would mean that everyone pays the same rate. What you are looking for is “income equity”, where everyone is taxed to a point where they effectively all make the same — where the CEO makes the same “fair” rate as the street sweeper. It’s not even socialism at that point; that’s communism.

If charities want to prove that they value the public interest over their self-interest, they, too, should get on board.

Why? If charities value serve the public interest, the public will value them, and those will be the charities that get the voluntary donations. If your organization can only get good donations from the government, that is a sure sign that it is not valued by the public. Charities that are effective get donations, spend them effectively, and thrive. Charities that are *not* effective do not get as many donations, do not spend them as wisely, and fail. This is why organizations such as The March of Dimes have survived for decades — because individual people see the value in what they do, see the effectiveness of their organization, and donate to that cause.

[Hat Tip: Steve B.]

*: Saddam received 100% of the “vote” in the last election before the USA invaded. I suspect that the election might have been just a teensy bit slanted.