First download the wonderful new nugget of‭ ‬$3,600,000,000,000‭ ‬budget from:

‭http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/asset.aspx?AssetId‭=‬793‭

Next,‭ ‬and this is just to get an idea how Obama and his White House look at funds,‭ ‬do a search for the word‭ “‬leverage‭” ‬and note how it is used throughout the document.‭ ‬In this you’ll find the exact means of the federal reserve system being asserted as a means to achieve universal health care coverage,‭ ‬the same system that has been instrumental in causing The Great Depression and every other economic downturn,‭ ‬including our current one.

After this search please initiate a new search through this pdf file for‭ “‬250.‭” ‬Numerous things were found,‭ ‬and this is what I found of interest:

On‭ ‬Page‭ ‬28‭ (‬reviewed after findings on page‭ ‬29‭)‬:

‭”‬Financing health Care Reform. ‭The reserve fund is financed by a‭ combination‭ ‬of rebalancing the tax code so that the wealthiest pay more as well as specific health care savings in three areas:‭ ‬promoting efficiency and accountability,‭ ‬aligning incentives toward quality,‭ ‬and
encouraging shared responsibility‭ (‬see Table‭ ‬1‭)‬.

“‭Taken together‭‬,‭ ‬the health care savings would
total‭ ‬$316‭ ‬billion over‭ ‬10‭ ‬years while improving
the quality and efficiency of health care,‭ ‬without
negatively affecting the care Americans receive.‭”

On Page‭ ‬29‭ ‬we find Table‭ ‬1,‭ ‬I am posting the information of the table and not its formatting:

‭”‬Table‭ ‬1.
Reserve for Health Reform

$‭ ‬in billions‭ ‬2010‭ ‬2011‭ ‬2012‭ ‬2013‭ ‬2014‭ ‬2010-14‭ ‬2010-19
‭Federal Health Savings‭ ‬………………………….‭ ‬-1.8‭ ‬-5.1‭ ‬-18.0‭ ‬-24.5‭ ‬-34.3‭ ‬-83.7‭ ‬-316.0‭
Aligning incentives toward quality‭ ‬………………………..‭ ‬0.0‭ ‬-0.4‭ ‬-1.3‭ ‬-1.7‭ ‬-2.1‭ ‬-5.4‭ ‬-20.5
Promoting efficiency/accountability‭ ‬……………………..‭ ‬-1.8‭ ‬-4.3‭ ‬-16.2‭ ‬-22.2‭ ‬-31.5‭ ‬-75.9‭ ‬-287.4
Encouraging shared responsibility‭ ‬……………………….‭ ‬0.0‭ ‬-0.4‭ ‬-0.6‭ ‬-0.7‭ ‬-0.8‭ ‬-2.4‭ ‬-8.1
‭New Revenues‭ ‬……………………………………………….‭ ‬……..‭ ‬-11.1‭ ‬-30.8‭ ‬-33.5‭ ‬-35.5‭ ‬-110.8‭ -317.8‭
Subtotal:‭ ‬Reserve for Health Reform‭ ‬……….‭ ‬-1.8‭ ‬-16.2‭ ‬-48.8‭ ‬-58.0‭ ‬-69.8‭ ‬-194.6‭ ‬-633.8
Additional resources and new benefits,‭ ‬to
be determined with Congress
Net Cost—Reserve Fund‭ ‬…………………………….‭ ‬0.0‭ ‬0.0‭ ‬0.0‭ ‬0.0‭ ‬0.0‭ ‬0.0‭ ‬0.0‭”

The italicized portion is what I find intriguing because the primary source is:

‬”Reducing Itemized Deduction Rate for Families With Incomes Over‭ ‬$250,000.‭ ‬
Lowering‭ ‬health care costs and expanding health insurance coverage will require additional
revenue.‭ ‬In the health reform policy discussions that have taken place over the past
few years,‭ ‬a wide range of revenue options have been discussed—and these options
are all worthy of serious discussion as the Administration works with the Congress to
enact health care reform.‭ The Administration’s Budget includes a proposal to limit
the tax rate at which high-income taxpayers can take itemized deductions to‭ ‬28‭ ‬percent‭—
and the initial reserve fund would be funded in part through this provision.‭ This
provision would raise‭ ‬$318‭ ‬billion over‭ ‬10‭ ‬years.‭”

Okay now let’s look at Page‭ ‬123,‭ “‬Table S-6‭ Mandatory‭ ‬and Receipt Proposals‭” ‬and you’ll find the follow verbage

“upper-income tax provisions‭ dedicated‭‬to
deficit reduction:

‭”reinstate the‭ ‬36‭ ‬percent and‭ ‬39.6‭ ‬percent rates for those taxpayers earning over‭ ‬$250,000‭ (‬married‭) ‬and‭ ‬$200,000‭ (‬single‭)

“reinstate the personal exemption phaseout and limitation on itemized deductions for
those taxpayers earning over‭ ‬$250,000‭ (‬married‭) ‬and‭ ‬$200,000‭ (‬single‭)

“Impose‭ ‬20‭ ‬percent rate on capital gains and dividends for those taxpayers earning over‭ ‬$250,000‭ (‬married‭) ‬and‭ ‬$200,000‭ (‬single‭)”

And this is the most interesting,‭ ‬which I present in my own manner here (My limited html is about to show):

Column A

‭‬Total,‭ ‬upper-income
tax provisions‭
dedicated to‭
deficit reduction

2009:‭ ‬182
2010:‭ –‬1,102
2011:‭ –‬28,461‭
2012:‭ –‬49,012‭
2013:‭ –‬58,153
2014:‭ –‬67,271‭
2015:‭ –‬74,595‭
2016:‭ –‬80,559‭
2017:‭ –‬86,638‭
2018:‭ –‬92,333‭
2019:‭ –‬98,600
2010-2014:‭ –‬203,999‭
‬2010-2019:‭ –‬636,724‭

Column B

Total
Tax
Provisions

2009: 28,627
2010:‭ 46,915
2011:‭ -25,784
2012: 13,289
2013: 1,091
2014:‬-7,912
2015:‭ -10,015
2016:‬-11,776
2017: -15,058
2018: -18,295
2019: -22,419
2010-2014:‭ ‬27,599
‭‬2010-2019:‭ ‬-49,964

So now if we take the‭ ‬2010-2019‭ ‬total of‭ “‬-636,824” ‬from colum A, the above suggests that‭ ‬50%‭ ‬of the tax increases on the wealthy (318 billion) will be used solely for health care reform over the next‭ ‬10‭ ‬years,‭ ‬at least in regard to starting a‭ “‬reserve fund‭” ‬for health care.

The reserve,‭ ‬which will be‭ ‬50%‭ ‬funded by‭ ‬50%‭ ‬of the‭ “‬increase in taxes on the wealthiest Americans‭” ‬will never work,‭ ‬never happen,‭ ‬never appear,‭ ‬for contingencies will occur,‭ ‬contingencies beyond this budget’s numbers,‭ ‬contingencies made by those who control the purse,‭ ‬Congress.‭ ‬Imagine after‭ ‬663‭ ‬billion dollars,‭ ‬or any portion thereof,‭ ‬is collected in a health care reserve what Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will do with that‭ “‬leveraged‭” ‬fund‭ (‬as though we do not know on the basis of how the Social Security‭ “‬Trust‭” ‬fund is handled‭)‬.‭ ‬And Obama will be powerless to stop them,‭ ‬if he wishes to win re-election.‭ ‬That my friends is what this health care‭ ‬plan and every reserve in this budget means to Congress,‭ ‬and is setting up in the failure of America.

Preface‭

The following section may seem confusing,‭ ‬and is intended for those who’ve an idea about bookkeeping,‭ ‬yet I find it necessary to preface. ‬To say that‭ “‬Federal Health Saving‭” ‬in a budget is to compare‭ ‬the numbers budgeted at this time to a time previous,‭ ‬and,‭ ‬in this way savings is merely amounts not spent.‭ ‬Thus there is no‭ accumulation‭ ‬of these funds,‭ ‬they merely are not spent.‭ ‬There is no appropriation of the amounts from last year to then spend what is intended on the budget this year and accumulate the year-to-year balances over the given period,‭ ‬here‭ ‬10‭ ‬years.‭ ‬Particularly in government this just does not happen,‭ ‬especially when the environment,‭ ‬the economic environment will present its own contingencies which require any‭ “‬excess‭” ‬be spent.‭

And this is not to take into considerations that‭ “‬New Revenues‭” ‬is that portion taken in by taxes.‭ ‬These‭ “‬Federal Health Savings‭” ‬are being positioned as an add on to the new revenues to form a reserve fund,‭ ‬but,‭ ‬they cannot be in light of merely being amounts not spent.‭ ‬The only money going into a reserve fund according to this budget will be the increased taxes through lowering the taxable deductions to‭ ‬28%,‭ ‬which lowers the amount given to charity.‭ ‬Many hospitals,‭ ‬their life blood,‭ ‬is charitable giving.‭ ‬Loss of amounts given due to a lesser amount being subject to tax deduction shifts the burden of funding the hospital from the hospitals own ability and responsibility to the government.‭ ‬Note Michelle Obama’s increased salary after her husband became a U.S.‭ ‬Senator‭ (‬See‭ http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/09/hospital_offici.html‭)‬,‭ ‬that,‭ ‬in light of this setting of salaries for those financial institutions taking government bailout money,‭ ‬General Motors,‭ ‬and others to salaries far below the worldwide standard for bank executives,‭ ‬it only stands to reason that shifting the health care community’s source of funds from private to government,‭ ‬should result in a reduction in the salaries of hospital executives as well‭ (‬i.e Michelle and her other‭ ‬12‭ ‬Vice Presidents, friends at the hospital would, receive less than‭ ‬$316,000‭ ‬a year,‭ ‬less than they do right now as a non profit organization,‭ ‬or at least they should if they are getting government money to offset government taxation of the wealthy.‭ ‬This certainly doesn’t appear to be‭ “‬Aligning incentives toward quality‭” ‬as this‭ ‬budget claims it is proposing.‭)

Ambiguity in Posting Expense Saving‭ ‬+‭ ‬Revenues‭ = ‬Reserve‭

The total amount claimed to be raised as‭ “‬New Revenues‭” ‬in the health care portion on page‭ ‬29‭ ‬is‭ ‬318‭ ‬billion‭ (‬317.8‭ ‬in Table‭ ‬1‭ ‬above‭) ‬while the‭ “‬Federal Health Savings‭” ‬claimed is‭ ‬316‭ ‬billion.‭ ‬So now how is it‭ “‬the initial reserve fund would be funded in part through this provision‭” ‬in light of the text stating‭ “‬318‭ ‬billion‭” ‬after Table‭ ‬1‭? ‬Wouldn’t this reserve fund be entirely funded by these assumed government revenues to be gained by higher taxes‭? ‬I wouldn’t be asking but for the fact this total amount of new revenues from‭ “‬taxes on the wealthiest Americans‭” ‬is later stated far in excess of the amount claimed for health care,‭ ‬and is in fact‭ ‬50%‭ ‬of the total revenues from this new taxation,‭ ‬636‭ ‬billion.

Apparently either someone doesn’t understand math,‭ ‬this proposal is nothing more than a spin by saying‭ “‬partial‭” ‬to minimize the impact of raising these taxes,‭ ‬or we are just being outright lied to by Obama once again‭ ‬–‭ ‬as though he’s still running for office.‭ ‬Does the White House have a clue what they are doing‭? ‬I mean the only thing that is transparent here is their incompetence.‭

How many people really believe the wealthy are just going to go along in‭ “‬business as usual‭” ‬fashion when their itemized deductions have been lowered‭? ‬What I mean is:‭ ‬It seems Obama and his people believe the wealthy will just sit around,‭ ‬will just leave their money subject to the new increased taxes.‭ ‬People do that when taxes go down,‭ ‬but not when they go up.‭ ‬Then the money is moved,‭ ‬even entirely out of the marketplace.‭ ‬Now that of course creates a lowering of available credit.‭ ‬Is Obama trying to help America recover or just bring this country down by destroying its economic system,‭ ‬capitalism,‭ ‬established by the founding fathers‭? ‬His policies appear geared to make America fail,‭ ‬the proverbial‭ “‬kick in the ribs‭” ‬while we and every other nation in the world are down on the ground already.

‭Of Course Obama is Prepared‭

The above misrepresentations and political positioning,‭ ‬to be able to say‭ “‬50%‭ ‬of the new taxes pay for universal health care‭” ‬next election,‭ ‬is on top of codifying the the‭ “‬Economic Substance Doctrine,‭” ‬a dangerous doctrine that is itself not judicially resolved.‭ (‬See‭ http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-utl/economic_substance‭_(‬1‭_‬25‭_‬05‭)‬.pdf‭)

Basically the government gets to determine if your money was invested in an investment for an economic purpose,‭ ‬the‭ “‬economic substance.‭” ‬Up to this point in time this was used to attack tax shelters.‭ ‬However,‭ ‬imagine this in your day to day life.‭ ‬For example a family member asks you to invest in a business with them,‭ ‬it may be a few hundred dollars to help them get their website up or something similar.‭ ‬Later your relative contacts you in regard to the IRS contacting them,‭ ‬notifying them that due to the nature of this transaction,‭ ‬that the amount invested by you appears to have been made to bring your tax liability within a lower tax bracket,‭ ‬and:

‭”‬Pursuant to the economic substance doctrine,‭ ‬T26,‭ ‬Section‭ ‬####,‭ ‬the IRS is authorized to audit and review your accounts to determine if your business is viable to be a business in an overall review of your brother’s deduction meeting the economic substance test.‭”

Business according to government’s whim,‭ ‬at their pleasure and determination of what is the‭ “‬economic substance‭” ‬of your acts solely to assure their revenues do not decrease.
President Obama,‭ ‬in his need to make every first he can has provided for codification of‭ “‬The Economic Substance Doctrine,‭” ‬in this budget proposal on page‭ ‬122,‭ “‬Table S-6.‭ Mandatory‭ ‬and Receipt Proposals.‭”

Again in the past this doctrine has been used against tax shelters,‭ ‬which,‭ ‬when you look at his increased taxation of the wealthy,‭ ‬will be the natural course of the wealthy,‭ ‬to assure they do not use their‭ principal‬,‭ ‬and instead,‭ ‬make money from their‭ principal‬,‭ ‬their property.‭ ‬As with housing Lawyer Obama did not agree that banks should lend money on the basis of the loan being paid back‭ (‬i.e.‭ ‬at interest,‭ ‬with a down payment,‭ ‬to people who have a job and will pay it back‭)‬,‭ ‬so too it appears he feels the wealthy should not make as much as possible on their capital,‭ ‬that their profit is public excess‭ ‬to be used at the‭ ‬government’s whim.‭ ‬This is very disconcerting because it‭ ‬trespasses upon equal opportunity.‭ ‬Every American can be wealthy,‭ ‬why should those who were wealthy before an up and coming generation of Americans,‭ ‬who worked hard for their wealth,‭ ‬have had any greater benefit‭? ‬If anything the greater benefit should fall to the following generations as even further incentives for future generations.

Yet for Obama,‭ ‬The Economic Substance Doctrine appears to be his silver bullet against the Were Wolf Wealthy,‭ ‬to assure collection of those taxes on the wealthy at every turn,‭ ‬every corner.‭ ‬Their money is treated as government property and this my friends will lead to their money stored for no return on principal and just spent,‭ ‬not invested to produce anything beyond its own value,‭ ‬to produce inventions,‭ ‬jobs,‭ ‬and a better life for Americans.‭ ‬No instead it will just be taken out of circulation,‭ ‬our reward for electing a President whose socialist policy is punishing them for having played by the American Capitalist Rules of Freedom.‭ ‬To them it is better that we who worked for the money,‭ ‬or our heirs,‭ ‬spend it than hand an ever increasing portion of the residual profit derived from our wealth to government.‭

Now of course the wealthy could maybe challenge this codification of a court doctrine,‭ ‬particularly an unsettled one,‭ ‬but challenging taxation has always been a sticky mess,‭ ‬our government believes it is guaranteed an income that is ever increasing,‭ ‬irrespective of‭ everyone else’s income falling,‭ ‬but that’s how you afford endless government expansion,‭ ‬ask anyone from an Eastern Block Country who has migrated to America,‭ ‬they’ll explain.‭ ‬In any event,‭ ‬should the wealthy,‭ ‬or anyone else who needs to,‭ ‬want to challenge this codification of the‭ “‬Economic Substance Doctrine,‭” ‬see Title‭ ‬42,‭ ‬Section‭ ‬2000bb,‭ ‬The Religious Freedom Restoration Act,‭ ‬legislating a court doctrine which later the court strikes as Unconstitutional per The Separation of Powers,‭ ‬Title‭ ‬42‭ ‬Section‭ ‬2000bb has since been repealed by Congress.

Maybe all of this is due to Obama financial backer George Soros,‭ ‬and his claimed belief that consumerism is the engine of the American economy,‭ ‬and that this engine is dead‭ (‬see‭ http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10102008/watch.html‭)‬.‭ ‬Apparently,‭ ‬the wealth of this nation,‭ ‬whose volume of dollars has grown along with the number of people they employ,‭ ‬is of no significance as opposed the number of wealthy in Romania,‭ ‬Russia,‭ ‬Venezuela,‭ ‬Saudi Arabia,‭ ‬China,‭ ‬Cuba and every other nation in the world,‭ ‬where a literal handful or less of citizens have‭ “‬wealth‭” ‬and the remainder is in poverty,‭ ‬with a miniscule few slightly more comfortable so long as they are subject to the whim of the wealthy alone.‭ ‬This is a true‭ “‬earmark‭” ‬of liberalism,‭ ‬the new brand name of feudal rule after Marxism,‭ ‬communism,‭ ‬socialism,‭ ‬and fascism didn’t work‭ (‬Why I will occasionally refer to George Soros as‭ “‬The new King George.‭”)‬.

By the way,‭ ‬another good one to search this budget for is‭ “‬reserve.‭” ‬Which makes sense when you are designing the entire budget on the basis of leveraging funds,‭ ‬just like The Federal Reserve System.

Thank you for reading,

Toddy Littman


Welcome to TARP as it is intended, or at least that is the story:

“Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced plans that would make available $3 trillion dollars to the student, commercial mortgage, credit cards, SBA and auto loan securitization markets. This is part of Geithner speech to outline the use of the rest of the $350 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money.”

Opening paragraph of the story here:

http://www.structuredfinancenews.com/news/190065-1.html

No need for commentary for this one, hahaha


I found a few things interesting yesterday watching Gibbs at the press briefing, bulldog he usually is, Gibbs cut this one short and even showed frustration with FoxNews directly after they, along with a host of others (which I found miraculous as tears of blood from a statue), were questioning the new White House ethics standards and asking about the vetting process.

Apparently in the “new age of transparency,” the vetting process is so secret it’s not to be discussed, one of the items chosen by President Obama to not be transparent, (maybe they water board them ), and if anything is asked about vetting one phrase is to be repeated, “I’m not going to spend the day looking in the rear view mirror.” Analogy applicable how? I mean, are they saying a process they yielded 5 nominees with tax problems isn’t to be discussed and reviewed? Maybe it’s more successful and this is proof of it….They’d know that though wouldn’t they, so, this greater than reluctance to discuss, to basically “not confirm or deny any aspect of the vetting process but to say there is one,” is because?….*cricket chirps ad infinitum*

It was really very interesting to see one of the reporters actually throw back at Gibbs his familiar line to shift focus, “Let’s step back and look at it this way,” using the phrase in unappreciated diffusing jest when Gibbs appeared a bit tense, and this only added to the tension. One of the African-American reporters was very frustrated and she spoke for the rest of them, “we are asking about the vetting process and it is the process we want to hear about,” and Gibbs replied the same “rear view mirror” stone wall reply, must have been 8 to 10 times or more previous to this woman’s statement of frustration.

2 weeks into the Presidency and Gibbs is upset. It appears he suddenly learned that insulting the press, as Obama did in impromptu meeting with them shortly after taking office, or pushing back at them, when they almost entirely looked with a blind eye during the campaign, will come back to bite you like nothing else. 86% approval upon inauguration, 55% yesterday. 30 point drop in approval during those 2 weeks. Of course one could easily attribute that to the unrealistic expectations of those who voted for him, and, the unrealistic promises made as well, which easily could combine in a rather swift deflation of approval. Let us hope, for the sake of the country, that this trend doesn’t continue, and, that it is due to the President learning his place, as a public servant who answers to us, according to his limited powers in the Constitution.

Another, and likely more telling moment, was by a reporter that didn’t know the commerce secretary, Judd Gregg the Republican Senator and 3rd Republican on Obama’s Cabinet, had been named just before the White House Press Briefing. My apologies but I didn’t accurately hear the name this reporter asked so I am not going to try to guess, it went by very fast, but the question was something like this, “Did President Obama pick John Doe for Commerce Secretary as recommended by Senator Daschle?”

The idea Mr. Daschle made a recommendation wouldn’t be an issue, except, it resembles lobbying for that person. The further question arises as to if they who were recommended by Daschle work in the Health Industry, where Mr. Daschle, the 1998 advocate for punishment of breaking the tax laws “to the fullest extent of the law,” is known to not have reported 1 month of earnings, some $85,000. I mean the man made 5 million dollars in the last 2 years, and to most that’s “lobbyist pay” as the job description Daschle gave was “to consult on strategy” regarding legislation his clients were lobbying to effect.

But of course if the new Messiah and his Apostles such as Gibbs says it isn’t lobbying, well, they certainly wouldn’t lie….again. We all know that getting away with lying doesn’t encourage it in the least. Ask any repeat offender at any prison, they’ll assure you this just can’t be true, that a man’s word his his bond, and, should you not be able to find your wallet after accidentally bumping into a man in New York who is the spitting image of Bernie Madoff, it’s pure coincidence.

2 weeks in and the press is frustrated, the white house is frustrated, and the people are seeing business as usual, including the usual “I have a list of people that I’ll give you who assure us we have the highest ethical standards of any President ever before….,” and in regard to waivers, “….they recognize the need for waivers to assure we can get the most qualified person.” The list, eventually stated, consists of two names, again said quickly and only once during the Press Briefing, but yes a whopping list of 2 people. In most circles that is stretched with, “I have a couple of names,” or “a few names,” “couple” implies up to 3, “few” implies up to 5″ and is a grouping phrase to make the actual 2 look bigger, usually done “I have a few names, these two come to mind right away.” This is not done “I have a list of names,” which asserts at least 10 or more, and likely broken into categories with a group of pending names that haven’t signed on, sort of like the 31,000 scientists who’ve signed on to the petition stating they do not agree with the Kiyoto protocols: http://www.petitionproject.org/ Now that there is a list! But that list means nothing to Al Gore and therefore must mean nothing to Obama….and the significance again of a list of names claiming “the highest ethical standards of any president before” that consists of 2 names is?

Apologies but highlights of the press briefing, that shed light on some other reasons Dashle may have left, a briefing where Gibb’s felt the need to repeat the “highest ethical standards” theme of the week before, along with the unwillingness to discuss the GS-15 vetting process in character with some mythical Army press briefing about UFOs, Roswell, and Area 51, just left me unable to leave out the hypocrisy of presenting 2 names and claiming those a substantial list that demonstrates this White House has the highest ethical standards while ignoring 31,000 that emphatically dispute the Kyoto protocols. To me, to leave this out, is to further ignore something significant over giving significance to something presented that is being so presented purely as diversion.

Thank you for reading,

Toddy Littman