Obama wants to nationalize your IRAs and 401ks

Your IRA'S and 401K's ARE STILL At RISK Of Government Confiscation!

The Labor and Treasury department, along with the Obama Administration ARE MOVING FORWARD with The Nationalization-Confiscate IRA's and 401K's.

Why do they Want Your Retirement Accounts?

YOUR equity will be used as collateral; in an attempt to balance the Trillion Dollar U.S. Deficit.

This will be done in an effort to once again make the United States credit worthy to China and other buyers of our debt.

The Most Recent meeting held on September 14th and 15th, between the Labor and Treasury Departments outlined the Course of Action.

The agenda is called "Lifetime Income Options for Retirement Plans".

Under this course of action, the Federal Government will Control an estimated $3.613 Trillion Dollars in IRA's and $2.350 Trillion Dollars in 401ks.

Your equity will be placed in U.S. Treasury Bonds, that will Pay out an estimated 3% annually.

One major clause is that upon retirement, the value of the Your Retirement Account will be placed into Annuities. Once an individual Dies, the Value of the Account will Automatically become property of the Government. The Program will be Structured much like Social Security Accounts (the biggest Ponzi Scheme ever created).

The Only way Government would get away with what will be "The Largest Heist Known To Man" is by Allowing or Creating a Major Financial Market Meltdown!

An aging person who sees his or her Retirement Account Drop 50%-60%in a matter of Days.... Is More willing to take a Conservative Approach... Even if it means "Government-Guaranteed Income".

The move toward Nationalization of IRA's & 401ks will Initially be Offered as an Option. Those who are Unwilling to accept Government Run Retirement Accounts, will be Stripped of their Current Account Tax Benefits...

You'll be Forced to Pay Taxes on your Holdings, Automatically Wiping Out One-Third of your Wealth!

This will Take place After the Stock Market Drops an Estimated 40-60%!

If the Following Indicators are Right... A Stock Market Crash is imminent!

Unsustainable U.S. Debt
Real un-employment continues to Rise
Housing market continues to Drop
Failing Banking System (2-7 Banks Fail Weekly)
Lower Quality of Life (1 in 8 Americans are now on Food Stamps)
A Massive Crisis is Brewing!

Remember The Government Phrase: "Never waste a good crisis"

The Taxman Cometh!

To those who voted for CHANGE, YOU GOT IT. And it looks SCARY!!

In less than six months, on January 1, 2011, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect.

They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves.

On January 1, 2011, here’s what happens... (read it to the end, so you see all three waves)...



1. First Wave:


Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families.

These will all expire on January 1, 2011.

Personal income tax rates will rise.

The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed).

The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent.

All the rates in between will also rise.

Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates.

The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
The 25% bracket rises to 28%
The 28% bracket rises to 31%
The 33% bracket rises to 36%
The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family.

The "marriage penalty" (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income.

The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child.

The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level.

The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax.
This year only, there is no death tax. (It’s a quirk!) For those dying on or after January 1, 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes, a business, a retirement account, could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones. Think of the farmers who don’t make much money, but their land, which they purchased years ago with after-tax dollars, is now worth a lot of money. Their children will have to sell the farm, which may be their livelihood, just to pay the estate tax if they don’t have the cash sitting around to pay the tax. Think about your own family’s assets. Maybe your family owns real estate, or a business that doesn’t make much money, but the building and equipment are worth $1 million. Upon their death, you can inherit the $1 million business tax free, but if they own a home, stock, cash worth $500K on top of the $1 million business, then you will owe the government $275,000 cash! That’s 55% of the value of the assets over $1 million! Do you have that kind of cash sitting around waiting to pay the estate tax?

Higher tax rates on savers and investors.The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011.

The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011.

These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.



2. Second Wave:Obamacare


There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

The "Medicine Cabinet Tax"

Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

The "Special Needs Kids Tax"

This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.

There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States , and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.

Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington , D.C. ( National Child Research Center ) can easily exceed $14,000 per year.

Under tax rules, FSA dollars can not be used to pay for this type of special needs education.


The HSA (Health Savings Account) Withdrawal Tax Hike.This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.




3. Third Wave:

The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and Employer Tax Hikes

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they'll be in for a nasty surprise-the AMT won't be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired.

The major items include:


The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year.

According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center , Congress' failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families-rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.


Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear.

Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or "depreciate") equipment purchases up to $250,000.

This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can currently expense half of their purchases of equipment.

In January of 2011, all of it will have to be "depreciated."


Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses.

There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the "research and experimentation tax credit," but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.


Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced.

The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available.

Tax credits for education will be limited.

Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses.

Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut.

Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed.

The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.


Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed.

Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA.

This contribution also counts toward an annual "required minimum distribution." This ability will no longer be there.



PDF Version Read more: <;; http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171#%23ixzz0sY8waPq1


And worse yet?


Now, your insurance will be INCOME on your W2's!

One of the surprises we'll find come next year, is what follows - - a little "surprise" that 99% of us had no idea was included in the "new and improved" healthcare legislation . . . the dupes, er, dopes, who backed this administration will be astonished!

Starting in 2011, (next year folks), your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or governmental body of some sort.

If you're retired? So what... your gross will go up by the amount of insurance you get.

You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year.

For many, it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse.

This is how the government is going to buy insurance for the 15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases.

Not believing this??? Here is a research of the summaries.....

On page 25 of 29: TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec. 9001,
as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002 "requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross income."

- Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters.
- Go to Kiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what is above.

Obama: the Prince of Fools

49% of the people in this country pay no tax. Do you think they care if some of us pay 90%? We are doomed because they are part of the electorate. A Czech writer recently said:
"The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince."

Radicals Wrote Stimulus Bill

No congressman read and perhaps no congressman even had a hand in writing the much-criticized stimulus bill. It’s largely the creation of a coalition of leftwing organizations called the Apollo Alliance, whose primary interests are the earth and environmental justice and redistributing wealth. They are not friends of job-creating capitalism.

On Apollo's Web site, Sen. Reid, whose state also leads in foreclosures, is quoted praising the group of which former green czar Van Jones was a board member.
"We've talked about moving forward on these ideas for decades," Reid is quoted as saying. "The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them."

Jones, the former Oakland, Calif., community organizer and self-avowed communist, was on the board of the Apollo Alliance when he accepted the position in the Obama administration as green jobs czar.

As Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity told Glenn Beck, Jones has "described the Apollo Alliance mission as sort of a grand unified field theory for progressive left causes" that would tie elements of organized labor with community organizers and environmental groups into an outfit that would restructure American society.

Wade Rathke, founder of Acorn, was also on the Apollo board, as is Gerald Hudson, vice president of the Service Employees International Union, which provides the shock troops in the movement to pass government-run health care.

John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Clinton and now president of the leftist Center for American Progress, also sits on the Apollo board. Each day his group sends out talking points to the left side of the blogosphere. Mark Lloyd, diversity czar at the Federal Communications Commission, was a senior fellow at CAP.

According to Kerpen, the Apollo Alliance put together a draft stimulus bill in 2008 that included almost everything in the final $787 billion package. Little did the voters know that the congressmen and senators they would elect would pass a bill written by activist outsiders.

Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of all this is that an even more radical Jeff Jones (no relation) has a relationship with the Apollo Alliance. Jeff Jones was a domestic terrorist in the '60s and a fugitive from justice throughout the '70s who, with Bill Ayers, helped found the Weather Underground in 1969.Ayers, Jones and the Weathermen participated in the violent Days of Rage riots in Chicago and a nationwide anti-government bombing campaign. Like Ayers, Jeff Jones has no regrets, saying: "To this day, we still, lots of us, including me, still think it was the right thing to do."

Today, Jones finds himself director of the Apollo Alliance's New York affiliate and a consultant to the national group. One of his clients is the Workforce Development Institute, a union-controlled organization.As a consultant to WDI, Jones helps write the grant proposals for federal stimulus dollars — funds authorized in the bill that Apollo helped write — all to ensure that taxpayer dollars end up in the hands of groups that share Apollo's political agenda.

Welcome to government of the activist, by the activist and for the activist. Sounds like corruption to me.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Subtle Disingenuosness

You lie? No. Barack Obama doesn't lie. He's too subtle for that. He ... well, you judge.

Herewith three examples within a single speech -- the now-famous Obama-Wilson "you lie" address to Congress on health care -- of Obama's relationship with truth.

(1) "I will not sign (a plan)," he solemnly pledged, "if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future. Period."

Wonderful. The president seems serious, veto-ready, determined to hold the line. Until, notes Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, you get to Obama's very next sentence: "And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize."

This apparent strengthening of the pledge brilliantly and deceptively undermines it. What Obama suggests is that his plan will require mandatory spending cuts if the current rosy projections prove false. But there's absolutely nothing automatic about such cuts. Every Congress is sovereign. Nothing enacted today will force a future Congress or a future president to make any cuts in any spending, mandatory or not.

Just look at the supposedly automatic Medicare cuts contained in the Sustainable Growth Rate formula enacted to constrain out-of-control Medicare spending. Every year since 2003, Congress has waived the cuts.

Mankiw puts the Obama bait-and-switch in plain language. "Translation: I promise to fix the problem. And if I do not fix the problem now, I will fix it later, or some future president will, after I am long gone. I promise he will. Absolutely, positively, I am committed to that future president fixing the problem. You can count on it. Would I lie to you?"

(2) And then there's the famous contretemps about health insurance for illegal immigrants. Obama said they would not be insured. Well, all four committee-passed bills in Congress allow illegal immigrants to take part in the proposed Health Insurance Exchange.

But more importantly, the problem is that laws are not self-enforcing. If they were, we'd have no illegal immigrants because, as I understand it, it's illegal to enter the United States illegally. We have laws against burglary, too. But we also provide for cops and jails on the assumption that most burglars don't voluntarily turn themselves in.

When Republicans proposed requiring proof of citizenship, the Democrats twice voted that down in committee. Indeed, after Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" shout-out, the Senate Finance Committee revisited the language of its bill to prevent illegal immigrants from getting any federal benefits. Why would the Finance Committee fix a nonexistent problem?

(3) Obama said he would largely solve the insoluble cost problem of Obamacare by eliminating "hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud" from Medicare.

That's not a lie. That's not even deception. That's just an insult to our intelligence. Waste, fraud and abuse -- Meg Greenfield once called this phrase "the dread big three" -- as the all-purpose piggy bank for budget savings has been a joke since Jimmy Carter first used it in 1977.

Moreover, if half a trillion is waiting to be squeezed painlessly out of Medicare, why wait for health care reform? If, as Obama repeatedly insists, Medicare overspending is breaking the budget, why hasn't he gotten started on the painless billions in "waste and fraud" savings?

Obama doesn't lie. He merely elides, gliding from one dubious assertion to another. This has been the story throughout his whole health care crusade. Its original premise was that our current financial crisis was rooted in neglect of three things -- energy, education and health care. That transparent attempt to exploit Emanuel's Law -- a crisis is a terrible thing to waste -- failed for health care because no one is stupid enough to believe that the 2008 financial collapse was caused by a lack of universal health care.

So on to the next gambit: selling health care reform as a cure for the deficit. When that was exploded by the Congressional Budget Office's demonstration of staggering Obamacare deficits, Obama tried a new tack: selling his plan as revenue-neutral insurance reform -- until the revenue neutrality is exposed as phony future cuts and chimerical waste and fraud.

Obama doesn't lie. He implies, he misdirects, he misleads -- so fluidly and incessantly that he risks transmuting eloquence into mere slickness.

Slickness wasn't fatal to "Slick Willie" Clinton because he possessed a winning, near irresistible charm. Obama's persona is more cool, distant, imperial. The charming scoundrel can get away with endless deception; the righteous redeemer cannot.

Dr. Krauthammer Speaks

Dr. Krauthammer is an M.D. and a lawyer and is paralyzed from the neck down. He is a fiscal conservative and has received a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post.

In a recent talk he held his audience spell bound. He is forthright and careful in his analysis and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is neither a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views. . A friend went to hear him speak and the following is a 1st hand report of what he said. The ramifications for us, our children, and their children are staggering. Even two Democrats at my friend’s table agreed with everything Krauthammer said!
Summary of Dr. Krauthammer’s comments:

1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's behind the mask. The taking down of the Clinton dynasty by a political neophyte was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.

2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS;
rather, watch what he DOES!

3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can’t be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada.

4. His three main goals are federal government control of ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION and HEALTH CARE. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got control of them as an early bonus. Cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Free college education
fir everyone is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it free or low cost and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive rationing of services, like in Canada.
5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic sycophants. No one around
him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking, energy, education, health care, and other industries. This obviously can’t work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.

6. Obama doesn’t really see himself as President of the United States, but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate and coordinate various countries and
their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!

7. He is now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not come due until after
he is reelected in 2012. He would like to blame all problems from the past on Bush, and on whoever is his successor in the future. He has a huge ego and Dr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.

8. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don’t
have. This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent itself into prosperity.
9. The media is giving Obama, Reid, and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn’t work, nor
will the stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama’s allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.

10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people were in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Democrat would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.

11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's less than 8%, the Democrats continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy.
I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. According to Krauthammer, there is a left-wing revolution going on and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we’re right on most issues and we must reclaim our country, before it's too late.
Do yourself a long term favor; send this to all who will listen to an intelligent assessment of the big picture. All our futures and children's futures depend on our good understanding of what is really going on in D.C. and our action pursuant to that understanding!! It really is up to each of us to take individual action!! Start with educating your friends and neighbors!!!

Health Care Expansion

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
July 4, 2009

Dear Mr. President:

Today is Independence Day. We Americans have always valued our independence which is why I take note of this date. The value we place on independence applies to health care today as much as it did on other matters when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Many Americans are concerned that the proposed health care expansion will make a bad situation worse when it comes to the national debt and the projected multi-year deficits. Most people believe that health care costs need to be constrained and the uninsured need some short-term help with their insurance premiums. However, the reform revenue and cost estimates are another matter entirely. The cost of adding the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions is certain to be underestimated and obviously will increase rather than reduce the overall costs of health care in America. More thought needs to be given to promoting HSAs and catastrophic health insurance as the best alternative for those who cannot afford more expensive plans.

Critics say the public health care insurance alternative, which is being promoted as a way to drive down costs, will force private insurers out of business. This criticism has the ring of truth and therefore is another major concern about a public program. Finally, I needn't remind you of the unfunded liability or insolvency of another public health insurance plan, Medicare. The cost of Medicaid has also ballooned to unanticipated levels. These programs deserve to be fixed before any new program is entertained.

Instead of another potentially insolvent public program, why not simply establish realistic cost goals and guidelines for drug companies, doctors, and hospitals that would achieve the same objective as competition from a public-funded program? Hospitals and drug companies have already come forward with plans to reduce costs by a substantial amount. Perhaps doctors will also step up with similar concessions. We do, of course, need to keep in mind that adequate drug company profits are needed to drive research on new drugs and attract investors. Similarly, adequate compensation for doctors, after their long and arduous training, is an important factor in determining the quality of the health care we receive.

The Public is appropriately skeptical about how health care reform will be funded. They have heard similar fairy tales too many times before. Government estimates are rarely worth the paper they are written on. I know, I used to be a government cost analyst. All too often political appointees overrule legitimate cost estimates because they do not support the programs they favor.

Social Security and Medicare are good examples of programs that have grown beyond their means. Congress has added new benefits and new recipients without commensurate increases in the contribution rate and base necessary to cover the additional costs. Although faulty estimates of revenue and expense may have been a factor, the Congress has never had the political will to take the steps necessary assure full funding of the programs it enacts.

It’s time to remove Social Security and Medicare from the political arena by establishing a Board of Trustees with full authority to increase the contribution rate and base as necessary to both eliminate the unfunded liabilities of both programs over time and assure their long term viability. Congress should chip in a significant amount from the general revenues of the Treasury. This amount could be based on a CBO estimate of the amount needed to make up for the portion of the current unfunded obligation or liability that is attributable to past failures of Congress to properly fund these programs. Congress should not be able to overturn the Board’s decisions except by a 60% vote in both houses.

I suggest a novel approach regarding the funding of the proposed health care reforms. Once we have a sound estimate of the cost based on demographic, actuarial, and other studies, we need to clearly identify the specific sources of revenue that will be dedicated to cover the cost of the reforms. Then let’s limit the maximum cost and scope of the reform program to the actual amount those specific revenue sources produce. (Politically-motivated estimates are certain to be unreliable.) This approach would relieve some of the skepticism about government cost and revenue estimates. The Public could heave a collective sigh of relief knowing that for once the scope of a program would be limited to the actual amount of its earmarked sources of revenue. The funds available could be adjusted throughout the year based on the latest monthly estimate of costs and revenues.

Adjusting the cost to actual revenue could be done by establishing a priority list based on the family income of those who are receiving government subsidized coverage under the new reform program. In times of revenue shortfall, the subsidies for those on the cusp with the highest family income would be reduced or eliminated. These folks would be on notice that they have to be planning for that possibility. In any event, the objective should be to create incentives for people to get off the subsidy rolls and work toward self sufficiency.

Finally, we need to provide the appropriate incentives for the current uninsured to wean themselves from any new government subsidies and to open HSAs as soon as they are able. If promised cost reductions are actually achieved, that should make it easier for them to do so. These subsidies are a form of welfare and should be clearly labeled as such so that all recipients will know that they are imposing their health care costs on their more productive neighbors. They also should be put on notice that they will be expected to seek the education and job training to enable them to fund their own health care plans. Any new government subsidies should never be allowed to become entitlements. We will never be able to control health care costs if a significant number of the participants view health care as a free good or an entitlement. Limiting the available funding to the actual earmarked revenues would be one way to avoid that problem. Steep out-of-pocket co-pays is another.

Finally, it appears that what is being proposed will create a three tier system of health care insurance. At the top of the pyramid is Congress. Second are what I call sub-seniors and third, the seniors and aging baby boomers who are at the bottom of the totem pole. I understand that the already inadequate Medicare funding may be further reduced by $400 billion and the health care for seniors strictly rationed rationed. Many will view the latter as a sort of inverse euthanasia in which seniors are required to endure treatable medical problems and associated pain rather than receive the care they deserve. This sounds like a proposal to deprive one group of citizens of the care they need, so another group can be served. Does this represent equal treatment under the law? Is this the beginning of a "duty to die" program for the elderly?

Promising cost reductions while at the same time adding new coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and those without coverage sounds implausible on the face of it. Let’s not promise more than can be delivered.

Respectfully submitted,

Ultima

SENIOR DEATH WARRANTS

The actress Natasha Richardson died after falling skiing in Canada. It took eight hours to drive her to a hospital. If Canada had our healthcare she might be alive today. In the United States, we have medicalevacuation helicopters that would have gotten her to the hospital in 30 minutes.

In England anyone over 59 cannot receive heart repairs or stents or a bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed. Obama wants to have a healthcare system just like Canada's and England's.

I got this today and am sending it on. If Obama's plans in other areas don't scare you, this should.

Please do not let Obama sign senior death warrants. What if it was you, your spouse, your parents, or your grandparents?

Send this to every a senior citizen or about-to-be senior citizen in your address book.

Most of you know by now that the Senate version (at least) of the
"stimulus" Bill includes provisions for extensive rationing of health care
for senior citizens. It creates a three tier system: congress, sub-seniors and seniors in declining order of health care coverage.

The author of this part of the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited today by Bloomberg with the following statement: Daschle says "health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them." Doesn't that make you feel warm and toasty all over?

If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that our esteemed Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes.

Please use the power of the Internet to get this message out. Talk it up at
the grassroots level. We have an election coming up in one year and nine
months. And we have the ability to address and reverse the dangerous direction the Obama administration and its allies have begun and in the interim, we can make a difference in Obama’s outrageous health care proposal: add all the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions; reduce Medicare for seniors by $400 billion to help pay for it, cutoff treatment for seniors, and stiff those struggling with the costs of private plans with the additional burden.

This is why granny wants Obama to fail!

Obama’s success would be a disaster for this country’s health care and for seniors in articular. This hardly a racist sentiment and those who continue to characterize it as such are being disingenuous. They make the gross error of equating an Obama failure with a failure of our country. Instead of a failure it would be a victory and a success for the people who are America.

Another Day Older and Deeper in Debt

Here Comes the Next Fiscal Crisis
Alan J. Auerbach, William G. Gale

Published: July 10, 2009


Los Angeles Times, July 8, 2009
The U.S. confronts not one but two economic challenges: Its worst recession since the Depression and a growing imbalance between federal spending and revenues that makes its underlying fiscal policy unsustainable.

To get the economy going, the Obama administration and Congress have committed trillions of dollars to bailouts of the financial and automobile industries and to a stimulus package of tax cuts and government spending. These measures, on top of our current economic weakness and the imbalance between spending and revenues, have left us with a projected federal budget deficit of $1.7 trillion in 2009, or 12% of U.S. gross domestic product, a deficit share we have not even approached since World War II.

Most economists accept the need to put aside concerns about fiscal balance as we address the recession. But soon enough we will face pressure to shift our focus from the short-term economic problem to our longer-term fiscal problem. And, unfortunately, poor policy choices in the past combined with the enormity of the recession make the second problem worse and reduce the time we will have to deal with it.

The nature of our short-term problem is evident to all of us, as workers anxious about the future of our jobs, as homeowners worrying about the declining values of our houses, and as Californians wondering whether our state government can still function. The longer-term problem, though, is less apparent to most of us, and its more subtle nature has, until now, left our political leaders with little incentive to act.

There are two parts to the problem. First, over the next decade or so, even once we recover from the recession, federal revenues will fall far short of federal spending. Under the policies laid out in the Obama administration's recent budget, for example, the annual deficit will be 5.5% of GDP by 2019, an exceptionally high share in normal times. In the meantime, the national debt will accumulate so rapidly that it will stand at 82% of GDP, its highest mark since 1948, when we were paying off our war debts.

And we will be looking ahead to even larger deficits and faster debt accumulation. That's because of the second element of the problem, the rapid growth of our "big three" entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Due to an aging population and ever-increasing medical costs, these programs are growing much faster than the tax revenues we have to pay for them.

These realities aren't news, although the Bush administration's policies of massive tax cuts and increased spending on all fronts made these underlying problems substantially worse. Recent developments, however, have made ignoring the situation much harder.

The deficits projected over the next 10 years will accelerate our arrival at a debt-to-GDP ratio that for most countries would signal impending fiscal collapse. Indeed, Britain, with a debt-to-GDP ratio not appreciably worse than ours, was just warned by Standard & Poor's that its creditworthiness might be downgraded. The United States has traditionally enjoyed a favored status in this regard, as the supplier of the dollar, the world's reserve currency, and as a perceived haven in times of financial stress. But for how long?

In March, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao publicly questioned the safety of U.S. Treasury debt. Over the winter, prices in credit-default swap markets implied a significant probability of default on U.S. debt in the next five years.

Default on national debt is what happens in failed states and banana republics; such a possibility for the U.S. would have been unthinkable in the past.

All of this will finally force difficult choices on policymakers. Healthcare reform, for example, is crucial if we're to fix entitlement programs. But it alone won't be enough. Spending will have to drop, and taxes will have to rise. And the choices could get harder still. If the economy recovers very slowly, those decisions will need to be faced in the context of a weaker economic situation with demands for further fiscal stimulus.

In the immediate future, policymakers will face a delicate balancing act between encouraging economic recovery and establishing fiscal sustainability. Short-term stimulus can boost an otherwise weak economy, so withdrawing stimulative policies and imposing fiscal discipline too soon could slow the recovery. But delaying fiscal discipline too long could be equally destructive. Success will take new ideas, some luck and uncharacteristic honesty and resoluteness -- from our leaders in Washington and from the rest of us.

Alan J. Auerbach is a professor of economics and law and director of the Burch Center for Tax Policy and Public Finance at UC Berkeley. William G. Gale is vice president of the Brookings Institution and co-director of the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center.