Tag Archives: Deficit

News

New York governor unveils one BILLION dollars of new taxes

5 Comments

Story from CBS News. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

Governor David Paterson said Tuesday that the days of profligate spending in Albany are over and that starting immediately lawmakers must participate in an “age of accountability.”

That said, the governor’s new budget has $1 billion in new taxes and nearly $800 million in cuts for New York City.

[…]”Our revenues have crumbled and our budget has crashed and we can no longer afford this spending addiction that we have had for so long,” Paterson said.

[…]”The mistakes of the past have lead us to the breaking point,” Paterson said.

But in addition to the severe belt tightening, the governor said he would need to raise $1 billion in new taxes and fees — some politically controversial.

* A $1 increase in the cigarette tax, raising the state tax to $3.75.

* A new soda tax that will cost consumers 1-cent per ounce — a 16-ounce bottle will cost 16 cents more, a 64-ounce bottle 64 cents more.

* The governor also plans to legalize and sanction cage fighting.

* And allow wine to be sold in grocery stores.

* And introduce 50 speed cameras on highways to catch unsuspecting motorists with fines of up to $100.

How did this happen?

New York legislators voted to tax the wealthy.

Then the wealthy left New York for red states.

And now Albany has no revenues to pay for all of their government spending on social programs, such as paying delinquent teachers to do nothing all day because the teacher unions won’t allow teachers to be fired, no matter how badly they screw up.

Governor Patterson never wanted anything to do with earlier tax increases on the wealthy. At least these new tax increases are on consumption, not on income, and not on corporations. Consumption taxes cost the fewest jobs, in my opinion. Consumption taxes encourage saving, too.

News

Social Security running deficits ten years ahead of schedule

1 Comment

Story from Investors Business Daily.

Here’s the prediction before Obama was elected:

Peter Orszag, now director of the Office of Management and Budget, predicted as director of the Congressional Budget Office in August 2008 that no one needed to worry about Social Security. “CBO projects that outlays will first exceed revenues in 2019 and that the Social Security trust funds will be exhausted in 2049,” we were told.

And then in 2009, Obama began his massive government spending plan:

You know, in public schools the young people are taught by unionized teachers that Social Security is a brilliant economic initiative.  So they’ll keep voting for more socialism because that’s all they know. They’ll only find out much later that they’ve been fleeced by a massive government-run Ponzi scheme. (This is assuming they are even able to get jobs to pay payroll taxes – the unemployment rate among young people is 52%)

We’re doomed!

Commentary

The Wall Street Journal explains what Obamacare will mean to you

Leave a comment

Amazing article in the Wall Street Journal. (H/T ECM)

Here are a few of the points made in the article.

1) The bill is being rammed through behind closed doors, with no Republican input.

Mr. Obama promised a new era of transparent good government, yet on Saturday morning Mr. Reid threw out the 2,100-page bill that the world’s greatest deliberative body spent just 17 days debating and replaced it with a new “manager’s amendment” that was stapled together in covert partisan negotiations. Democrats are barely even bothering to pretend to care what’s in it, not that any Senator had the chance to digest it in the 38 hours before the first cloture vote at 1 a.m. this morning. After procedural motions that allow for no amendments, the final vote could come at 9 p.m. on December 24.

2) Health care costs will increase if the bill passes.

The best and most rigorous cost analysis was recently released by the insurer WellPoint, which mined its actuarial data in various regional markets to model the Senate bill. WellPoint found that a healthy 25-year-old in Milwaukee buying coverage on the individual market will see his costs rise by 178%. A small business based in Richmond with eight employees in average health will see a 23% increase. Insurance costs for a 40-year-old family with two kids living in Indianapolis will pay 106% more. And on and on.

3) Americans will have fewer choices.

Unnoticed by the press corps, the Congressional Budget Office argued recently that the Senate bill would so “substantially reduce flexibility in terms of the types, prices, and number of private sellers of health insurance” that companies like WellPoint might need to “be considered part of the federal budget.”

4) The quality of care will be diminished.

Ultimately, “our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all,” as Harvard Medical School Dean Jeffrey Flier recently wrote in our pages. Take the $2 billion annual tax—rising to $3 billion in 2018—that will be leveled against medical device makers, among the most innovative U.S. industries.

5) Your taxes will almost certainly increase.

Other budget priorities like education will be crowded out when about 21% of the U.S. population is on Medicaid, the joint state-federal program intended for the poor. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman calculates that ObamaCare will result in $2.5 billion in new costs for his state that “will be passed on to citizens through direct or indirect taxes and fees,” as he put it in a letter to his state’s junior Senator.

And it continues on. At one point, you may notice that the article says that private medical insurers will be forced to convert into public utilities administered by the federal government. You can read more about that here. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

One telling sign of the relevance of this analysis comes from the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”). In a recent release, it has treated the proposal as if it nationalizes much of the private health insurance industry, most specifically because it may well require that rebates to customers kick in whenever, in its words, “medical loss ratios are less than 90 percent.”[2] In plain English, the Reid Bill assumes that health-care administration, which is always costly, can be done cheaply even in the new legal environment, so cheaply in fact that these health-insurance rebates kick in whenever insurers’ administrative expenses exceed 10 percent of their premium dollar. As the CBO has concluded, “this further expansion of the federal government’s role in the health insurance market would make such insurance an essentially governmental program …”

In effect, the onerous obligations under the Reid Bill would convert private health insurance companies into virtual public utilities. This action is not only a source of real anxiety but also a decision of constitutional proportions, for it systematically strips the regulated health-insurance issuers of their constitutional entitlement to earn a reasonable rate of return on the massive amounts of capital that they have already invested in building out their businesses.

Yesterday, I posted about the CBO estimates for this bill coming in at 2.5 trillion, with 1 trillion dollars of new taxes. Before that, I mentioned that dissenters like Ben Nelson are receiving special grants of taxpayer money for their states in order to change their vote, despite the fact that the health care bill will use the tax dollars of pro-lifers to perform abortions. Please consider calling your members of the House of Representatives to tell them to vote no on this bill!