"Like" Our Articles and DEFEAT PELOSI!

For those who love and appreciate the income tax, you’re going to love the new healthcare reform bill signed by President Obama this morning.  For those who have no idea what I’m talking about, you’re in for a big surprise.

This bill calls for an expansion of the Internal Revenue Service—with its legality and constitutionality already highly suspect— in both money and personnel.   Before the bill passed the IRS posted its intent to purchase Remington Police 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for their combat trained agents.  They wanted to be prepared for the future, we can suppose.  The recently passed healthcare reform allocates $10 billion for the 16,500 new IRS agents needed to enforce the legislation.

For years ex-IRS agents (such as Joe Banister, Sherry Peel Jackson, etc.) have preached fervently nationwide informing citizens that the IRS unconstitutionally collected income taxes absent any bona fide law.  Mr. Banister has even been featured on mainstream news networks.  The IRS stands by its provisions to collect taxes using their Internal Revenue Code book, not formal US legislation.  Typically, Congress avoided this sensitive issue altogether.

They are expected to use their police powers to collect on two primary groups: individuals who fail to secure insurance and employers who cannot (or will not) provide adequate coverage for their employees.  “Providing health care to employees is no longer a voluntary benefit” and fines for not securing adequate plans will be imposed at $100 per day.  It is every American’s “personal responsibility” to obtain “acceptable” health insurance coverage or “face a tax of 2.5 percent on gross income.”

A footnote within the bill (HR4872) reads:  “Pollitz, supra 98, testified that ‘when out-of-pocket spending for medical bills (not including premiums) exceeds just 2.5% of family income, patients become burdened by medical debt, face barriers to accessing care, and have problems paying other bills.’”  (Ft 106)  So we can presume they know (that is, the few in Congress who at least did a “word search” through the bill) that anything over 2.5% is a burden.  So what do they decide to charge?  That’s right, the maximum they could get away with “morally” (sorry, but if this term is used to describe Congress, it should be in quotes). When the House passed HR 3962 in November, Former Congressman Istook had his lawyers review the bill only to reveal that it actually depended on fines-- $167 billion worth, to be exact.

Health insurance stocks continue to rise, and why shouldn’t they?  It’s a safe bet; soon everyone will have to have a plan.  And what better security than the enforcement of disgruntled (because no one likes them) IRS agents’ and their shotguns, potentially aimed at either you or your employer?  Just like the income tax, this will be readily accepted as “unconstitutional” by the public in years to come.  Yet, just like the income tax, legality is not the question.  The question is: “who has the guns and the badge?”  The State can be a violent totalitarian institution, or a republic based on laws.  I thought we already made our choice. 

With this legislation already in place at the national level, it looks like it will be left to individual State prerogatives as to which they prefer.  State sovereignty advocates are in for a battle that is not tipped in their favor.  We can only hope the 13 Attorney Generals suing the federal government over the issue are able to see the lawsuits through—and that more join them.