Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Coming: '$3 trillion tax increase on middle class'
“This is just the first act of a two- or three-act play,” Norquist said in an exclusive interview with WND.
Norquist, president and founder of Americans for Tax Reform, said the first act “is to get congressional Republicans to put their fingerprints on what amounts to a minor tax increase.”
“After raising taxes on the rich a little bit, the Democrats will come back for serious tax revenue,” he said.
“In acts two and three, the Democrats will come back for the real money – an energy tax and a value-added tax that will impact everybody, especially the middle class.”
Norquist insisted Democrats in Congress and the establishment press are playing an elaborate game designed to blame Republicans for budget deficits and keep serious discussion of spending cuts and entitlement reform off the table.
“Congressional Democrats know raising taxes on the rich will not produce enough tax revenue to reduce significantly the trillion-dollar annual budget deficits being run by the Obama White House,” he said.
“The reason the Democrats scream ‘tax the rich, tax the rich,’ is because they are going to pivot very soon to place a 3 trillion-dollar tax increase on the middle class, and they want ringing in the public’s ears that there wouldn’t have had to do this if the Republicans in Congress had acted right away to place a decent size tax on the rich.”
Norquist believes the Democrat strategy risks a tax revolt.
“The size of Tea Party Two is going to dwarf Tea Party One,” he predicted.
Norquist contends Obama is “overstating his mandate.”
“Four years ago, he was convinced he was king,” Norquist said.
“He took a 70-percent approval down to 50 percent and lost a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives in the process. Now, Obama starts at 52 percent and he is going not only to spend too much but also too tax too much.”
Nevertheless, in the current “fiscal cliff” negotiations regarding the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, Norquist has been criticized in the establishment press as a hindrance to reaching an agreement.
At the center of criticism is the anti-tax pledge that Norquist has persuaded 95 percent of Republican lawmakers to sign.
“Attacking me and the anti-tax pledge is the same old tactic the Democrats used two years ago in the debate over the debt ceiling,” he said.
The difference this time, however, is that Democrats “have no intention, whatsoever, in seriously talking about spending restraint.”
“So this time,” he said, “it becomes even more important to misdirect the attention of the American people, to say the only reason Republicans preventing a grand bargain by opposing tax increases is because Grover Norquist is telling Republicans what to do.”
In a front page article last Tuesday, Washington Post reporter Aaron Blake claimed Norquist and his anti-tax pledge are “in danger of becoming Washington relics as more and more defectors inch toward accepting tax increases” to avoid going over the fiscal cliff.
“Week after week, Democratic leaders have bashed Republicans for pledging fealty to Norquist rather than working independently,” Blake wrote.
Norquist dismissed such statements as an attempt to misdirect the attention of the American public from the real issue at hand:
runaway federal spending, not a failure to raise taxes.
He doesn’t see any evidence his anti-tax pledge is losing its potency. The Washington Post article, he noted, produced as evidence a claim House Majority Leader Eric Cantor had suggested that the anti-tax pledge would not dictate GOP strategy on the fiscal cliff.
“So we get this headline, ‘Cantor Denounces Pledge,’ but that’s not what Cantor said,” Norquist countered. “What Cantor really said was that even without the pledge, the Republicans in Congress would be against raising taxes. Why? Because raising taxes would be bad for the economy.”
Norquist argued Republicans in Congress learned it is risky to increase taxes when President George H. W. Bush went down to defeat in 1992 after violating his “read my lips” pledge.
He insists the anti-tax pledge he promotes through Americans for Tax Reform is not the real issue in the fiscal cliff debate.
“If I became a Buddhist monk, it wouldn’t change anything,” he said, arguing it’s a pledge congressional Republicans make to voters, not to him.
“Republicans in Congress would still be against raising taxes because raising taxes never works,” he said.
Democrats are playing a game of three-card monte, Norquist asserted.
“Because the Democrats in Congress have no intention of talking about entitlement reform,” he said, “the liberal press rolls out the usual list of Republican compromisers who will say raising taxes would be acceptable if the Democrats engage in spending cuts the Democrats have no intention of ever making.”
Norquist predicts Congress will not raise taxes to avoid going over the fiscal cliff, because the Republican majority in the House is the last line of defense.
“The Republicans in House of Representatives are survivors,” he said. “The Democrats have already thrown at them everything you can imagine, and the Republicans in the House are still a majority, serving in districts that will not be redrawn for another 10 years.
The Republicans in the House can defend themselves against everything the Democrats throw against them.”
Norquist suggested in the final analysis, the House Republicans could simply pass the plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., proving to the American public that federal budget deficits can be reduced without raising taxes on the rich.
The Ryan plan was passed by the House April 15 by a vote of 235 to 193, with no votes from Democrats. The Democrat-controlled Senate voted it down a month later, 57–40. The bill sought to reduce the 10-year federal deficit by capping discretionary spending and dismantling Obamacare.
There is no nation that has ever reverted from a nationalized, government-run health service back to a free market system!
Call a Code Blue! Medicine in America is in cardiac arrest.
If the election results are to be believed, the majority of Americans do not trust themselves and their highly trained physicians to make decisions about their health. Rather, they have relinquished total control of their medical care, including 14 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product to the same crew of incompetents who crashed the housing market, who poured billions into business failures such as Solyndra and who see food stamps as supporting a jobs-growth program.
I am a practicing physician and surgeon, with over 30 years experience in hands-on patient care. I have seen firsthand the march to socialism, and the systematic destruction of the noble profession of medicine. And, believe me, we are at the end game.
None of this is by accident. Government control of health care has nothing to do with the purported goals of improving quality, expanding access and decreasing cost – when has government ever improved these in any business? No, this is about power. After all, what is more precious than a person’s health? Politicians who seek power, therefore, see “health care” as a fast track to their goal.
The first government-run health system was introduced in the late 19th century in Germany by Kaiser Wilhelm, for totally self-serving reasons. At the time, his regime was threatened by the Social Democrats, and the Kaiser’s advisors suggested beating the leftists at their own game by giving the average German something that would make him dependent on the crown. The choice? They instituted government funding for doctors. Young physicians could supplement their income by applying to be a “panel” physician and would be paid for treating the rural poor, for giving vaccines and generally dealing with public health issues (think Medicaid).
For nearly 40 years the system worked well. Kaiser Wilhelm remained in power, and these stipends encouraged doctors to practice in underserved areas of the country.
But predictably, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, the monarchy ran out of other people’s money. Between the cost of World War I, reparations and the worldwide stock market collapse, by 1930 little was left of the medical reforms except paperwork and regulations (which seem never to go away, even in hard times).
The worst result of this venture, however, was the destruction of the ethics of private practice. Physicians, instead of acting in the best interest of individual patients, became partners of the state.
They were used to taking orders and filling out forms for government functionaries, so it was a very small leap for them to work under the Nazis and to become integral players in the Nazi death machine.
Across the Baltic, the Russian communist Vladimir Lenin, too, understood the role of medicine when he opined, “Medical care is the keystone in the arch of socialism.”
One of the first acts of the new Bolshevik government was to nationalize health care – again, not out of altruistic concern for the masses of Russian peasants, but to centralize control over the population and over physicians, who tended to be free thinkers and well respected by the citizens.
Historically, however, in the absence of governmental collapse (e.g. war-torn Germany or the fall of the Soviet Union), there is no nation that has ever reverted from a nationalized, government-run health service back to a free market system. Once adopted, single payer, government health care becomes the sacred cow of a nation’s legislature. They may debate funding allocations, i.e. who gets what, they may complain about shortages, wait times and cost to the state, but they never mention turning back the clock and reverting to the traditional, patient-centered, free market medicine.
Once it’s over … it’s over.
In future “The Weekly Prescription” columns, we will explore the truth of government health care around the world and what we have to look forward to in the coming years. We will address steps individuals can take to protect themselves medically when the system fails to help them. We will discuss latest scientific breakthroughs in longevity and wellness. And we will discuss how medicine can be saved.
But today, we must admit to having lost a major battle. When it comes to America and socialized health care, we are no longer fighting on the beaches, the enemy is in our back yards.
Nancy Pelosi didn’t need to read the bill, because she knew the details didn’t matter. The goal of Obamacare is to take away what’s left of our medical freedom and give it to the oligarchs inside the beltway. And a majority of voting Americans agreed.
There is no better summation than that of Charlie Reese when he wrote years ago, “There’s no dishonor in being forced by a superior power into slavery, but it is an eternal disgrace to voluntarily surrender one’s liberty for a filthy bowl of oatmeal and promise of security by liars.”
WE CAN'T PUT UP CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS BUT IF YOUR MUSLIM YOU CAN DO WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU WANT!
Judge who ordered Ft. Hood shooter shaved removed from case
FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) - The military's highest court ousted the judge in the Fort Hood shooting case Monday and threw out his order to have the suspect's beard forcibly shaved before his court-martial.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled that Col. Gregory Gross didn't appear impartial while presiding over the case of Maj. Nidal Hasan, who faces the death penalty if convicted in the 2009 shootings on the Texas Army post that killed 13 people and wounded more than two dozen others.
But the court said it was not ruling on whether the judge's order violated Hasan's religious rights. Hasan has argued that his beard is a requirement of his Muslim faith, although facial hair violates Army regulations.
"Should the next military judge find it necessary to address (Hasan's) beard, such issues should be addressed and litigated anew," judges wrote in the ruling.
Hasan appealed after Gross ordered that he must be clean-shaven or be forcibly shaved before his court-martial, a military trial.
The court-martial had been set to begin three months ago, but has been on hold pending the appeals.
It wasn't immediately clear if Army prosecutors would appeal this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Prosecutors have said they would not comment about the case until the trial is over, and Fort Hood officials did not immediately return calls Monday or issue a statement.
An Army appeals court had upheld the shaving requirement in October. But on Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces said the command, not the judge, was responsible for enforcing grooming standards. The ruling said that was one example of how Gross did not appear impartial in the case.
Gross had repeatedly said Hasan's beard was a disruption to the court proceedings, but the military appeals court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to show that his beard interfered with the hearings.
Gross found Hasan in contempt of court at six previous pretrial hearings because he was not clean-shaven, then sent him to a nearby trailer to watch the proceedings on a closed-circuit television. The appeals court's ruling also vacated the contempt of court convictions.
At a June hearing, lead defense attorney Lt. Col. Kris Poppe said the judge showed a bias against Hasan when he asked defense attorneys to clean up a court restroom after Gross found a medical waste bag, adult diaper and what appeared to be feces on the floor after a previous hearing. Hasan, who is paralyzed from the waist down after being shot by police the day of the shootings, has to wear adult diapers — but the mess in the restroom that day was mud from a guard's boots, Poppe said.
"In light of these rulings, and the military judge's accusations regarding the latrine, it could reasonably appear to an objective observer that the military judge had allowed the proceedings to become a duel of wills between himself and (Hasan) rather than an adjudication of the serious offenses with which (Hasan) is charged," judges wrote in the ruling.
Obama admin slams Israel...OF COURSE THEY DO!
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Obama administration on Monday harshly criticized its top Mideast ally, Israel, over new settlement construction plans in areas the Palestinians claim for a future state.
The State Department said the plans, notably one to begin preliminary work on an especially sensitive piece of land outside Jerusalem known as E1, are "especially damaging" to prospects for a resumption in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and run counter to longstanding U.S. policy.
"The United States opposes all unilateral actions, including West Bank settlement activity and housing construction in East Jerusalem, as they complicate efforts to resume direct, bilateral negotiations, and risk prejudging the outcome of those negotiations," spokesman Mark Toner said in a statement. "This includes building in the E1 area as this area is particularly sensitive and construction there would be especially damaging to efforts to achieve a two-state solution."
Israel on Friday announced that it would move ahead on plans to build 3,000 settler homes in the West Bank and east Jerusalem on territory the Palestinians claim as theirs to punish the Palestinians for winning U.N. recognition. It also said it would begin planning work in E1, where construction would essentially end hopes for an eventual Palestinian state to be contiguous.
Building in E1 would sever the link between the West Bank and east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians claim for a future capital. It would also cut off the northern part of the West Bank from its southern flank.
"We have made clear to the Israeli government that such action is contrary to U.S. policy," Toner said. "The United States and the international community expect all parties to play a constructive role in efforts to achieve peace. We urge the parties to cease unilateral actions and take concrete steps to return to direct negotiations so all the issues can be discussed and the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security can be realized."
The Palestinians say construction in that territory would kill any hope for establishing a viable state of Palestine. Successive U.S. governments have agreed, and under intense American pressure, Israel has avoided building settlements in the area. It has, however, developed roads and infrastructure and built a police station.
A designated terror group by the United States and other international bodies, the organization’s founding documents call for the destruction of Israel.!
International Push Begins to Remove Hamas From Terrorist Lists, Prosecute Israel for Crimes of ‘Aggression’
An offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas is primarily located in the Gaza Strip and has become markedly more aggressive since Israel pulled out of the area in 2005. A designated terror group by the United States and other international bodies, the organization’s founding documents call for the destruction of Israel.
Now, though, they are turning the tables, and are marketing themselves as the victims.
Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said Sunday to a European delegation that Hamas is a “national liberation movement” seeking only to defend itself against Israeli “aggression,” the Jerusalem Post reports.
“It is no exaggeration to say that the occupation is committing war crimes, given the cruelty and hardship our people faced in these eight days of war,” he added, saying Hamas eventually aims for “a Palestinian state with complete sovereignty, with Jerusalem as its capital, and the return of the refugees to the lands they owned in 1948.”
Though such an outcome would effectively mean the end of the state of Israel, Haniyeh claims he is happy to coexist with Jews, just not those in Israel.
Egyptian police fire teargas at anti-Morsi protesters in Cairo
Protesters have broken through police lines in front of the presidential palace.
Presidential sources say Morsi has left the palace as clashes continue outside.
Thousands of demonstrators marched to the palace in protest of Morsi's decree which grants him near absolute powers, and a draft constitution which was quickly adopted by his allies.
The march came as no surprise – earlier on Tuesday, demonstrators warned they would approach the palace if action was not taken.
"This is the last warning before we lay siege on the presidential palace," 21-year-old protester Mahmoud Hashim told AP. "We want the presidential decrees cancelled."
A crowd of several hundred protesters also gathered outside a mosque in the Abbasiyah district earlier in the day shouting, "Freedom or we die! Mohammed Morsi! Illegitimate! Brotherhood! Illegitimate!"
Demonstrators assembled in front of Morsi's residence shouting, "Down with the sons of dogs. We are the power and we are the people!"
Morsi has called for a nationwide referendum on the draft constitution on December 15.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)