The bill passed, but the case didn’t take. Since Obama signed the bill into law, its unpopularity has, according to Pollster.com’s multi-poll aggregate, held steady, with roughly 48 percent of the public opposed. Liberal health care activists trying to sell the law and help its supporters in Congress have been forced to backtrack on their messaging—and in some cases, have found that their best strategy is to avoid mentioning the law at all. Now, the Obama administration and its allies are launching a multimillion dollar ad campaign intended to sell the public on the law’s virtues.

The president and his administration, it seems, are still doing everything they can to make the case for reform. The problemn is that so much of that case isn’t likely to pay off. Here are seven empty promises made about ObamaCare:

1. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.
In June of 2009, President Obama gave a press conference where he explained his frequent promise that those who like their health care plans can keep their health care plans. read more here

For your consideration, a tax on home sales. Another 3.8% tax.

The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which President Obama signed into law March 30, is comprehensive and complex. Section 1402, “Unearned Income Medicare Contribution,” imposes a 3.8 percent tax on profits from the sale of real estate — residential or investment.

The levy is aimed at high-income taxpayers, and it will not take effect until Jan. 1, 2013.

If your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) is above $200,000 then the tax applies to you.

I remind you all of our Congressional and Senatorial “Representatives” voted for this bill, despite not having read it.

Did you know this bill also taxes Distributions from your 401K and IRAs? That is another 3.8% tax.

But gosh, you say! Didn’t Obama promise if your income is below $250,000, he would not raise your taxes?

If you are over $200,000 and that is not uncommon in Connecticut with two working spouses, if your house sold for $375,000 and you bought it for $125,000, again not that uncommon, you’ll owe Obama, Courtney, DeLauro, Larson, Himes, and Murphy, and Dodd, and Lieberman….$9,500.00 at closing. OUCH!

As anyone who has moved knows finances get tight when moving. This will hurt our Senior Citizens, those about to be on fixed incomes as they downsize for their retirement years. They will have been on average in their homes the longest and hence have the highest “realized profit” from their homes, their single greatest investment.

It will also create a disincentive to move for a better paying job. The additional increase in salary to warrant a move to a better paying job has just gone up 3.8%.

And the “realized profit” from the sale of your home will have NOT been indexed to inflation.

What is it with this crew? They are taxing our retirement vehicles.

And the $200,000 AGI trip point for the tax is NOT indexed to inflation, as the years go on and we receive raises to compensate for inflation more and more of us will hit the trip point, just like the AMT. Alternative Minimum Tax, which way back when was only supposed to target “Rich People” who avoided paying their fair share.

Couple this also with the non-renewal the so called “Bush Tax Cuts” and we are about to be taxed a whole lot more.

Taxes with set trip points such as this one are particularly bad, because taxes create a disincentive to work in overt and subtle ways. It is easy to view a scenario in the coming years where a couple about to retire have their home on the market which they have owned for 30 plus years. The home in five years, lets say is selling for $500,000 and originally cost $150,000 when bought. If the couple is making anywhere close to $200,000 they will try to minimize any future gains in AGI as to not hit the magic $200,000 AGI. Thus a disincentive to work has been created. No overtime, refusal of raises and maybe a part time job will be quit. This is a disruption of the normal economic workings. Not good.

'Today, as we all know, is an historic moment for our nation and for American families,' Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on the House floor hours before the vote.

The House of Representatives passed legislation for the first time Saturday night that would provide health coverage to almost every American after nearly a century of false starts and un-kept campaign promises.

The final vote was 220-215. In all, 219 Democrats voted to approve the measure in a largely party-line vote, with 39 Democrats voting no. One Republican supported the bill, Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.).

The bill has a steep cost – both in dollars, $1.2 trillion, and political capital – but Democrats hailed its passage as the next chapter in a governing legacy that produced Medicare and Social Security. “Today, as we all know, is an historic moment for our nation and for American families,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on the House floor hours before the vote.

President Barack Obama has made health care reform his signature legislative priority — and he put his personal prestige on the line Saturday by traveling to the Capitol to rally Democrats, telling them to answer the call of history by passing the bill.

But Republicans were equally sweeping in their objections to the bill. “This is perhaps the worst bill I have seen come to the floor in my 11 years in Congress,” said Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan. Read More

House members are still negotiating important issues in the bill–whether it will provide taxpayer-funding for abortions, for example. Pelosi is pushing for a Saturday House vote, and a number of big changes will be introduced, likely less than 24 hours before the vote takes place (if in fact it does). The Rules Committee hasn’t yet released its resolution, or rule, that must be passed before the bill can move from committee to the floor. The rule will set the terms of debate and determine what amendments are in order.

(

Joe Courtney, Rep

The BOS can hold the public hearing, but they can not bring an ordinance dealing with the issue till 12/01/09 at the earliest. (The Town Hearing is set for tomorrow night (10/27/09) at the school at 7pm.)

Till that time the Hodges or other interested parties can submit petitions for a town meeting to vote on the issue of William Hodge’s tax exemption.

If the petition is declared valid the town meeting will be held, a vote taken and the ordinance will be moot.

No word yet what the BOS spent on legal representation.

At issue from a previous post:

The Complaint:
…
21.To date, the BOS has not called a Town Meeting to act on the enactment of a veterans’ tax exemption allowed pursuant to CGS § 12-81(21)(C).

22.The BOS did not undertake any substantial discussion related to the enactment of a veterans’ property tax exemption until September 1,2009, at the prompting of Plaintiff’s counsel.

23.At the September 1,2009 BOS meeting, Black indicated to the public that the BOS is the legislative body of the Town, not the Town Meeting.

In a nutshell and in my interpretation, the issues in this complaint are:

1) The BOS has not addressed the Wilfred Hodge issue as proscribed by the Marlborough Town Charter.

2) The CT General Statue Title 38 law allows for the legislative body to enact the Tax Exemption.

Connecticut General Statute Provision related to Title 38

8. Connecticut General Statute § 12-8I(2I)(C) provides in relevant part as follows:

Municipal option to allow total exemption for residence with respect to which veteran has received assistance for special housing under Title 38 of United States Code. Subject to the approval of the legislative body of the municipality

3) By preparing to address the issue as an ordinance the BOS are in fact declaring themselves the Legislative Body of the town of Marlborough. With the attendant powers of making laws.

4) The Town Charter of Marlborough states the Town Meeting is the legislative body of the town and that the BOS has only those legislative powers described in SECT 3.3 – 3.6 and CHAPTER 4 of the charter.

“The legislative powers of the Town shall be vested in the Town Meeting and in the Board or [sic] Selectmen as specified in Section 3.3 through 3.6 and Chapter 4 of this Charter.”

What is at stake.

Whether or not the Board of Selectmen get to decide the tax exemption issue of the William Hodge case solely or if it goes to a Town Meeting for a town wide vote.

Whether or not the Board of Selectmen can enact through ordinances policies that have been traditionally considered the venue of Town Meetings, such as taxation and law making.

After a rather tumultuous town meeting in Woodstock, Rep Courtney announced he was going to hold town meetings via telephone. However after being roundly criticized, he apparently relented. Kinda tough for us working folks to make a 10:30AM meeting.

About Rep Courtney:

Biographical Information

COURTNEY, Joe, a Representative from Connecticut; born in West Stafford, Tolland County, Conn., April 6, 1953; B.A, Tufts University, Boston, Mass, 1975; J.D., University of Connecticut, 1978; lawyer, private practice; member of the Connecticut general assembly, 1987-1994; elected as a Democrat to the One Hundred Tenth Congress (January 3, 2007-present). (Source.)

Roles in Congress

· 111th Congress: Representative, Connecticut (Dist. 2), Democratic. Jan. 3, 2009, to Jan. 3, 2011.
· 110th Congress: Representative, Connecticut (Dist. 2), Democratic. Jan. 4, 2007, to Jan. 3, 2009.
Key Votes

Missed Votes

Joe Courtney has missed 18 votes (2.6%) during the current Congress.

Voting with Party

Joe Courtney has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 98.2% of the time during the current Congress. This percentage does not include votes in which Courtney did not vote.

From the Washington Post:

For the 85 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, the Obama health plan is bad news. It means higher taxes, less health care and no protection if they lose their current insurance because of unemployment or early retirement.

President Obama’s primary goal is to extend formal health insurance to those low-income individuals who are currently uninsured despite the nearly $300-billion-a-year Medicaid program. Doing so the Obama way would cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. There surely must be better and less costly ways to improve the health and health care of that low-income group.

Although the president claims he can finance the enormous increase in costs by raising taxes only on high-income individuals, tax experts know that this won’t work. Experience shows that raising the top income-tax rate from 35 percent today to more than 45 percent — the effect of adding the proposed health surcharge to the increase resulting from letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high-income taxpayers — would change the behavior of high-income individuals in ways that would shrink their taxable incomes and therefore produce less revenue. The result would be larger deficits and higher taxes on the middle class. Because of the unprecedented deficits forecast for the next decade, this is definitely not a time to start a major new spending program.

A second key goal of the Obama health plan is to slow the growth of health-care spending. The president’s budget calls explicitly for cutting Medicare to help pay for the expanded benefits for low-income individuals. But the administration’s goal is bigger than that. It is to cut dramatically the amount of health care that we all consume.
ad_icon

A recent report by the White House Council of Economic Advisers claims that the government can cut the projected level of health…

My favorite Harvard Economist,Greg Mankiw puts it this way:

I tend to distrust power unchecked by competition. This makes me particularly suspect of federal policies that take a strong role in directing private decisions. I am much more willing to have state and local governments exercise power in a variety of ways than for the federal government to undertake similar actions. I can more easily move to another state or town than to another nation. (I am not good with languages.)

Most private organizations have some competitors, and this fact makes me more comfortable interacting with them. If Harvard is a bad employer, I can move to Princeton or Yale, and this knowledge keeps Harvard in line. To be sure, we need a government-run court system to enforce contracts, prevent fraud, and preserve honest competition. But it is fundamentally competition among private organizations that I trust.

This philosophical inclination most likely influences my views of the healthcare debate. The more power a centralized government authority asserts, the more worried I am that the power will be misused either purposefully or, more likely, because of some well-intentioned but mistaken social theory. I prefer reforms that set up rules of the game but end up with power over key decisions as decentralized as possible.

Now please call and write your Congressperson and Senators and tell them what you think.

Contact Dodd
Contact Lieberman
Contact Courtney

Tips on how to write to Congress:

What to include in a letter and how to send it

But if you are going to write, how do you do it? Visit your representative’s website and look for a “Contact” page. You’ll always find either an email address or, more commonly, a form to fill out.

Congressional staffers say the following things are important to making your message influential: including your name, address, and ZIP code so the staff can verify you are a constituent of the Member of Congress, referencing specific legislation rather than a general issue by bill number and title, talking about the impact of the bill on the district or state, and your own reason for supporting or opposing the bill. While 90 percent of Congressional staff thought these items were helpful, less than 68 percent of staff thought personal stories were helpful. One well-respected organization recommends being: personalized, short, targeted, and informative.