Editor’s
notes: Understand that as much as they
try, there is an innately embedded bias
in federal reporting by federal agencies.
The Department of Labor screws numerical labor data in the favor of
current administrations. The DOJ, under any president, reflects the general concerns of the current
presidential leadership. The Secretary
of State serves the President, and under Obama, is more of a political creature
than ever before -- Hillary and Kerry being little more than
puppets of the Administration.
So, when
we find a federal agency reporting on (read
“admitting to”) an “unexpected” development,
we read the report with some suspicion.
Case in point: The following report by “government actuaries” (see Fox
News report below). I maintain that if
the feds are now admitting to a cost
increase to the national debt because of ObamaCare, that cost may be four or five times larger
than what is being reported. Understand
that this federal report does not include the cost to the nation via lost
jobs, a decrease in full-time employment
numbers, the loss of investment capital
should ObamaCare become a primary force in driving the general economy
downward, and the costs to our economy
via the extraordinary increase in federal taxes required to maintain this
program and all other elements of our Socialist form of governance.
Socialist/Progressives
believe that “all government spending is stimulus” (yet they criticized Bush 43 for his spending
habits). The fact of the matter is very
different. All government spending is
funded via taxation on and against the people it supposedly serves. Taxes,
every penny, represent income taken
from the private economy, and is not
given back to the wage earning, tax paying,
individual.
Understand that no
federal program reimburses the individual tax payer for anything.
Some will argue that the benefits of taxation
i.e., health care, good highways, our
national parks system, and on and on,
constitute the ongoing economic benefits paid back to the taxpayer, but,
of course, that is simply a lie based on a convenient and deliberate confusion of
terms. “Taxpayer” can be used to define the poor smuck who works to acquire wealth only have much of
that wealth taken from him in the form of taxation and federal/state/county/municipal
fees and assessments. On the other
hand, “taxpayers” is a term more often used to
define a collective of persons paying taxes. The “benefits” returned to the “taxpayer” are entitlement benefits returned to the general public,
not to the individual taxpayer as a person. A welfare recipient for example, receives benefit but does not pay federal or state taxes. Only “tax
refunds” constitute money returned to the individual.
At any rate,
I do not have the forum, here, to
continue this discussion. Use this
commentary as a point in time when you begin to see just how much of a scam “federal
spending” really is . . . . . at all
level and with regard to any of the many federal programs and regulatory concerns. Big
Government is diametrically opposed to Individual Freedom . . .
take that to the bank.
From Fox News because no one else is reporting this: President Obama has made many promises
about his signature health care plan, but one of the simplest was an assurance
that it would lower national health care spending and save every family
thousands of dollars.
For
example, in May 2009 he hailed “comprehensive health care reform — so that we
can do what I pledged to do as a candidate and save a typical family an average
of $2,500 on their health care costs in the coming years.”
But now
government actuaries have reached a different conclusion, finding that
ObamaCare will actually increase health care spending by $621 billion over the
next 10 years.
Doug
Holtz-Eakin, the former head of the Congressional Budget Office, says, “now
we’re seeing the official scorekeepers of health spending say ‘hey it’s going
up, not down.’ That’s going to be a mark against the program no matter what.”
Jim
Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center says the actuaries “made it
very clear in their projections that the health care law did not bend the cost
curve down. It bent it up,” he says, adding, “there will be increase in
national health spending associated with the implementation of the health care
law.”
