Obama almost jumped over the desk at George when he proposed that the Health Care Mandate was a tax.

I covered this when it happened. It was so absurd I couldn't believe it then. Now it gets even worse.

Well apparently George was right! Not only is the mandate a tax, but that's the government's argument in its defense to law suits declaring the mandate unconstitutional!

WASHINGTON — When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.

In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a “penalty” rather than a tax. The Justice Department brushes aside the distinction, saying “the statutory label” does not matter. The constitutionality of a tax law depends on “its practical operation,” not the precise form of words used to describe it, the department says, citing a long line of Supreme Court cases.

Moreover, the department says the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

In addition, the department notes, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.”

Because the penalty is a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.

I have a question. Does anyone in the Obama administration have any respect for the Constitution? Do they not understand that the Constitution's purpose is to stop/limit arbitrary federal action? Didn't the president swear an oath to protect the Constitution? "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States; and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend, the Constitution of the United States."

We have a president who has knowingly given inaccurate information to the American people on national TV. I won't use the word "LIE" because I don't have to. What Obama said was not just "factually inaccurate"; Obama knew he was not telling the truth at the time he told George that the mandate was not a tax.

The Justice Department, who's head was appointed by Obama (Eric Holder), says that the federal government can tax outside of its Constitutional bounds! What's next? Does this mean that the federal government can tax any activity or inactivity with no bounds --literally?

What more can this president and his administration do to show the American people that they have NO RESPECT for the citizen's of this country, or this country's founding!?

But we needed "Change" right?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

I fear that there may be a perfect storm brewing. Our economy is so complex and includes so many different factors; determining the future is mind numbing. With that in mind there are a few basic things that must be present for the economy to flourish.

* Individual freedom is at the top of the list. Without individual freedom there is no force by which producers can base their output.

* Capital (money/wealth) must flow freely through the private sector; it must NOT be directed by the government. Because the government cannot create capital; it makes no sense for the government to attempt to distribute it. Government has no idea what the value of anything is, because the government produces nothing.

* Regulations must be logical and have as little effect on the private sector as possible. Regulation should be limited to fraud prevention, legitimate environmental protection (not activism) and breaking up monopolies. Regulations, if found to be an economic burden, should be immediately removed.

* Taxes should not interfere with business decisions. In other words, the tax environment should be such that businesses are encouraged to grow. Taxes should not penalize productivity.

Those are just a few things I could come up with off the top of my head. The problem is that most people have absolutely no idea how the economy works, not even in the slightest since. This is not a good thing.

Most people these days are worried that when they take their car for service or repairs that they might be taken advantage of. Why? Because they are not very well educated about the internal workings of an automobile. It's funny to me that those same people who question an auto repair facility have absolutely no questions when the government steps up and says that they're going to overhaul the economy. There is nowhere you can go to get a second opinion, or is there?

The government has passed legislation with new restrictions on economic freedom. A bill that is more than 2000 pages. A bill that is so large it will take months for businesses and their legal teams to determine what effects the regulations will have on their economic activities. A bill of restrictions. More than 2000 pages of what businesses CAN'T DO! This makes the private sector shrink (or at least hold on to their money). Why would anyone invest when they don't know what future activity will be productive because of new restrictions?

This is like a city announcing that they might allow hot dog vendors on their streets. If they do allow hot dog vendors, the vendors hours of operation will be limited. You hot dog cart must be a single axle vendor cart. You must be 50ft or more from an intersection. Your cart must not be highly reflective, as to cause a distraction. You are not allowed to have an awning attached to the cart which is more than 10 feet wide. Now imagine is this list went on for 2000 pages! How many people are going to buy vendor carts for use in that city? Get the picture?

Economic freedom is the force that drives The United States of America; plain and simple. Without economic freedom, the economy slowly dies.

So why, when the economy is not doing well, would the government want to reduce economic freedom (through regulation)? That would imply that the level of economic freedom prior to this new regulation was "too much". I have one question for you.

Do you accept this premise? The government needs to correctly determine the amount of economic freedom required to "fix" the U.S. economy.

To assume that the government can determine some magical "correct" level of economic freedom is absurd. But that is what the current government claims is necessary.

To add to this ALL taxes are about to increase. Taxes will increase in 2011 without congress even lifting a finger.

These two things combined; decreased economic freedom and increased taxes are the perfect storm. 2011 is going to be one wild ride. I just hope we can weather the storm.

Voting is the only viable answer. Vote against people who wish to limit your freedom economically or otherwise!

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

I love stories like this, because they help to bring things into perspective. Anyone want to guess how much money was spent on signs declaring the use of Stimulus Money?

On the road leading to Dulles Airport outside Washington, DC there's a 10' x 11' road sign touting a runway improvement project funded by the federal stimulus. The project cost nearly $15 million and has created 17 jobs, according to recovery.gov.

However, there's another number that caught the eye of ABC News: $10,000. That's how much money the Washington Airports Authority tells ABC News it spent to make and install the sign – a single sign – announcing that the project is "Funded by The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act" and is "Putting America Back to Work." The money for the sign was taken out of the budget for the runway improvement project.

Does anyone remember the website put up by the Obama camp right after the election. "The Office of The President Elect," that was it. It was a website designed to look official, while having no actual use. These signs are the same thing; it's like making an announcement to state that you are going to make an announcement.

ABC News has reached out to a number of states about spending on stimulus signs and learned the state of Illinois has spent $650,000 on about 950 signs and Pennsylvania has spent $157,000 on 70 signs. Other states, like Virginia , Vermont , and Arizona do not sanction any signs.

One state brags it posts signs but manages to keep the process cost-effective. The Tennessee Department of Transportation boasts, "There are a total of 324 signs statewide for a total cost of $12,931 and an average of $37.67 each." The reason for the small cost, they say, is that their signs are small-- about equal to a speed limit sign.

In response to questions by ABC News, Jill Zuckman of the Department of Transportation said, "The best estimate is that states have spent about $5 million of the $28 billion spent on road projects on signs – or less than .02 percent of overall project spending."

Wouldn't actual road projects be more effective than signs? I'm just saying...

Congressman Aaron Schock (R-IL) has joined the chorus of Republican outrage over stimulus signs and claims at least $20 million has been spent on them. He told ABC News, "I think it's a bit of an oxymoron to spend tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, borrowed money, on a bunch of signs to tell them how we are spending their taxpayer money."

Schock's office provided ABC News with administration guidance on stimulus signs sent to him from a constituent. The document, dated March of 2009, outlines the "General Guidelines for Emblem and Logo Applications." The Recovery Act logo which was provided not only looks oddly similar to the Obama logo from the 2008 campaign but its stated purpose, according to the document, is to act as "a symbol of President Obama's commitment to the American people to invest their tax dollars wisely and put Americans back to work."

All in all it's not what it seems. To claim that road projects are creating jobs is a misnomer it only creates work. When most people think of job creation, they think of jobs that people will have unless they are fired or quit (careers). The only jobs that can be created from road projects are temporary jobs. Once the road is finished everyone goes home. But in the president's defense; he never said anything about careers, just "jobs".

I wonder if they are going to spend even more money and give the road workers shirts that say, "My job was funded with Stimulus Money and all I got was this T-Shirt".

This is government waste on parade. It's o.k. though because it's just a little waste right?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Environmentalism has reached a new low. Just when you thought the Eco-Nuts had gone too far; now there's a company in Belgium that offers to have your loved one "dissolved" instead of buried or cremated.

Resomator S750

Under the process, known as resomation, bodies are treated in a steel chamber with potassium hydroxide at high pressure and a temperature of 180c (350f).

The raised pressure and temperature means the body reaches a similar end point as in standard cremation — just bones left to be crushed up — in two to three hours.

Six states in America have passed legislation to allow resomation and the Scottish company behind the technology says it is in talks to allow the process in the UK.

Although the ashes can be recycled in waste systems, the residue from the process can also be put in urns and handed over to relatives of the dead like normal ashes from crematorium farewells.

Resomation Ltd was formed in east Glasgow in 2007 and has been in talks with the UK government about using the technology in Britain.

To think that cremation is causing a negative environmental is ridiculous. People have been burned for thousands of years and now, for some reason, it's a problem? What other institution is the next to be attacked in the name of the environment?

People are free to do whatever they want with their deceased loved ones; however, I think that it's a little creepy to base this decision on carbon dioxide output.

Whether it is "really" more eco-friendly or not would depend on whether you think that CO2 is going to destroy the environment. One question would be, how much carbon emissions were produced in the creation of the potassium hydroxide and its shipment? How much energy is required to heat up the "rather large" Resomator to 350ºF for 3 hours? This sounds just like the Toyota Prius all over again. While the Prius might use less fuel than a regular car; the manufacturing process is less environmentally friendly than that of a conventional car. This makes used cars more environmentally friendly than the Prius. The environmental impact of cremation, as a whole, would logically be less than resomation because the cremators are already manufactured and in place.

Here's a link to the company who pioneered this method of postmortem human disposal. The process is known as Resomation.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

We are indeed living in the Twilight Zone. This takes the cake for this years, "...What..." moment.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his "foremost" mission as the head of America's space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.

Though international diplomacy would seem well outside NASA's orbit, Bolden said in an interview with Al Jazeera that strengthening those ties was among the top tasks President Obama assigned him. He said better interaction with the Muslim world would ultimately advance space travel.

I find this hard to believe considering what "interactions with the Muslim world" have done to the airline industry. They are going to have to send the astronauts through security screening before they get on the spacecraft!

On a serious note. What in the world does Obama think Muslim interaction is going to do for space exploration? This just raises all sorts of red flags if you ask me.

Obama just keeps on throwing conspiracy theorists one bone after another. It starts to make you wonder after a while...

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.