Saturday, July 11, 2009

Going Galt Over Obamacare

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction and sometimes fiction becomes truth. Expect the phrase "going Galt" to become more common should the Obama administration continue with their soak the rich programs.

The latest installment in the Democratic plan, as reported by the New York Times, is to "ask the wealthiest Americans to help pay for overhauling the health care system." As Stop the ACLU points out, "There is no asking. There will be no check box on their tax forms asking if they would like to pay a slightly higher rate so that grasshoppers, illegals, and people who could afford health insurance but do not feel like paying for it, will get health insurance."

Team Obama has had trouble in the past nailing down exactly what "wealthy" is, but in this current form, "wealthy" defined as individuals earning at least $280,000 in adjusted gross income and couples earning more than $350,000. But it gets better. There's a rolling scale:

"The surtax would be increased for individuals earning more than $400,000 and couples earning more than $500,000, and step up again for individuals earning over $800,000 and couples earning above $1 million. The precise extent of these increases has not been announced. Mr. Rangel’s committee is also planning to insert language that would raise the surtax in 2013 if expected cost savings in the health care system do not materialize."

Read that part again - "Mr. Rangel's committee is also planning to insert language that would raise the surtax in 2013 if expected cost savings in the health care system do not materialize."

I don't expect that those savings WILL materialize, do you? This is the projected deficit for those years.

Fausta points out that "Countries like France that have enacted 'rich surtaxes' have found that the rich moved to friendlier environments, such as Lichtenstein. Any “rich surtax” generates a substantial flight of capital from the country issuing it. During a recession, the Dems generate proposal after proposal making the American economy less competitive in the world market."

But this is what Obama promised us, remember? "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody" he said.

The laws of economics belie this, however. Nobody ever got a job from a poor person. So to punish the wealthy by draining them in order to pay for the others is not a good economic plan. And how many of them will, in fact, Go Galt? I would.

Not that it matters a whole lot, but the numbers the Democrats are using when they refer to the uninsured are misleading. Keep in mind, we already have Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, and SCHIP for the children. Check these ACTUAL figures by Sally Pipes, the president of the Pacific Research Institute:

"Of the almost 46 million Americans counted as uninsured by the U.S. Census Bureau, 14 million of them are eligible for existing government programs but have not signed up. Another 17 million of them are earning over $50,000 a year but do not buy insurance because they feel it is too expensive. Two-thirds are young people between 18 and 31 who consider themselves “invincible.” They would buy insurance if it were cheaper and available to cover catastrophes, which is why one has insurance. Because 64 percent of Americans get their insurance through their employer and insurance is not portable, many of the uninsured are just between jobs and hence counted as uninsured, even if they are only uninsured for a short period of time. There are only about 8 million uninsured that need some assistance."

That's a lot different that 46 million. So the Democrat's plan is to further wreck the economy by soaking the rich to support basically 8 million people who need some assistance with health care. And keep in mind none of those 8 million people would be refused at a hospital in the case of emergency care. Many communities have "charity hospitals," most associated with a medical school.

The Blue Dog democrats and the Republicans are fighting against this nonsense. I hope they hold they line.


Anonymous said...

Great article that I wish was being read by all americans instead of a handful.

There are more points to be made.

1) The US economy is 70% consumer based.

2) The top 10% income earners consume 50% of all US goods and services

Looking at 1 and 2 lets you see that as you take away MORE from the top 10% income earners, they will consume less. Since our economy is consumer based, that directly impacts the economy adversely. Furthermore, those evil "rich" also are the main employers. Continue to soak them, they will work less, hire fewer employees, take away benefits and keep salaries as low as possible. Great liberal policies eh?

Now the REAL problem is that the producers now have no where to go. It's one thing to leave Michigan and California to more tax friendly states, but where do we go now that the US is the most heavily taxed nation on the planet? I mean it is a complete change in culture, values, ethnicity etc. to relocate to Hinduras, Ireland, etc. This is why I believe options number 2 and 3 are more likely, and are closer than people think. Seccession or revolution. Gun and ammo sales are at record levels for a reason.

Anonymous said...

Anon, please move to Louisiana. Bobby Jindal will take care of you.

You all need to sign the petition against health care reform. If you don't, it won't have as many signatures as the impeach Obama petition, which would be sad :(

And yes, let's penalize 1% to help the other 99%. That would be revolutionary. Do you think, Anon, that the "rich" would join you in your revolution?