According to the OECD, the U.S. should be sharing tax information with all cooperating countries on its list - including those who are nondemocratic and/or corrupt. Worse yet, the Obama administration is supporting the OECD in this wholesale violation of basic rights.
Do you think the Internal Revenue Service should have the right to share your tax information with foreign governments -- even ones run by thugs and those that engage in human rights abuses and/or suppress freedom in their countries?
A meeting was held in Mexico City last week under the auspices of the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), whose implicit goal is to create a global high-tax cartel.
It claims to be in favor of "transparency" and "global economic growth." However, as with many domestic and international government organizations, the OECD's actions are often contrary to its words.
In order to create a global tax cartel, the OECD needs to have tax information shared among nations -- which means that the citizen of any country that signs on to this scheme may have his or her tax information shared with other member jurisdictions.
The Center for Freedom and Prosperity sent a delegation to the Mexico City meeting. It included my colleague Daniel J. Mitchell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Mr. Mitchell has written extensively on the importance of global tax competition, which is needed for economic growth, the preservation of human rights and civil societies.
Mr. Mitchell was there to provide intellectual support to smaller, low-tax jurisdictions, which were trying to protect their tax sovereignty, and also to report on the meeting.
The international bureaucrats who run the OECD's Fiscal Affairs Committee managed to persuade a hotel to cancel Mr. Mitchell's reservations and then tried to get him thrown out of the public lobby of the hotel where the meeting was held -- as he was quietly talking with delegations from lower-tax jurisdictions and the press. Fortunately, when Mr. Mitchell and members of the press objected to the bullying tactics of the OECD officials, he finally was allowed to stay.
The OECD has managed to get 87 jurisdictions to sign on to its global "tax standard." The high-tax countries are using the OECD to threaten low-tax jurisdictions to sign this agreement.
It is worth noting that the tax bullies at the OECD and at other international organizations, such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and World Bank, who demand that others pay higher taxes, enjoy tax-free personal income courtesy of the world's taxpayers.
National 9/12 March: Police estimate 1.2 million in attendance. ABC News reporting crowd at 2 million.
Come gather 'round people Wherever you roam And admit that the waters Around you have grown And accept it that soon You'll be drenched to the bone. If your time to you Is worth savin' Then you better start swimmin' Or you'll sink like a stone For the times they are a-changin'.
Come writers and critics Who prophesize with your pen And keep your eyes wide The chance won't come again And don't speak too soon For the wheel's still in spin And there's no tellin' who That it's namin'. For the loser now Will be later to win For the times they are a-changin'.
THE VOICE, a weekly newspaper published in Botswana, reports on the problem of foreigners doing business and skewering the local economy.
Foreign competition bites on local vendors By Dubani-wa-Dubani
Vegetable vendors in Mochudi say they are on the brink of ruin unless authorities do something about took save them from bigger businesses and foreign investors.
Speaking to Your Money last week Baleseng Anna Mataboge who started selling vegetables on the streets in 2003 after she was forced out of clothing business by tough competition from Chinese owned shops said.
“When the Chinese came they brought with them products that are very cheap and this killed small time clothing producers. I know others in my former trade who have had to take up others venture because their businesses like mine could not compete with the cheap Chinese clothes.”
DISGRUNTLED: Maggie Gouwe
“I went into the vegetable business and again I have to compete with big businesses which are mostly run by Indians. Looks like I may have to start something else soon. The way things are going most of us will be out of business soon unless the government does something to protect us. Do not get me wrong I have nothing against Chinese and Indians. I am not a racist. I just think the government must make laws that protect citizens from unfair competition,” the 45-year old continued.
When quizzed on what she thought the solution could be she said: “Government should have quota for big business so that the small person can have a fair share of the market too. We need to pay school fees for our kids and also have daily financial needs like anybody else. When we have laws that will protect the small business person then we will prove wrong those who say Batswana are good for nothing.”
For Maggie Gouwe who says she has, together with fellow vendors, have had to throw away spoilt veggies because of stifling competition from bigger establishment sees no reason why people should come from other countries just to sell vegetables.
“I have nothing against anybody. I have never had apartheid in my head, but I think our government should protect us as citizens. I am for foreign investors as long as it does not ruin the livelihood of citizens. To me coming to Botswana just to sell vegetables is not foreign investment because it robs a lot of citizens of a way of making a living. We need laws to protect us from such and the government must make such laws to protect the likes of us from ruin”, the 53-year-old told Your Money.
“We have mouths to feed and bills to pay like everybody else. Now that we have to pay school fees things are hard. Unless the government makes laws that will give small business people a fair deal a lot of people face ruin”, she said.
A snap survey amongst the vegetable sellers in Mochudi revealed that most are worried about going out of business soon and feel that authorities should do more to help their kind survive the combined impact of the global economic slowdown and being swallowed by bigger establishments.
The Brussels Journal documents the latest British adventure with the Religion of Peace.
A Protest Attacked; A Blogger Threatened With Execution
Emotions are running high in parts of Britain. Only a couple of weeks ago, rumors that a “Right wing” group was planning to march through the Bury Park region of Luton were spreading through the Muslim communities of the city. This turned out to be false. When no one turned up, the Muslim youths that had congregated attacked the police, throwing missiles and hurling abuse [video]. 50 extra police had to be drafted to contain the situation.
Last week, as it became known that the so-called English Defense League (EDL) was planning to protest in Birmingham, Mohammad Naseem, chairman of the Birmingham Central Mosque, told Muslims to “vent their feelings” at the EDL march, though he apparently believed that the police would separate the protestors and counter-protestors.
Dr. Naseem had also told his followers to form alliances with other counter-protestors, including with members of other religions and socialists. Such advice was ill advised, and probably unnecessary. Socialist – and especially Trotskyite – organizations have formed alliances with Islamist groups over the last few years, and have amassed tens of thousands of demonstrators across the country, in support of the terrorist organization Hamas. Even when they face no opposition, socialist leaders stoke the passions, and their protests almost invariably end in chaos. The police are often violently confronted. Retail property is smashed up. And Jews have been threatened and even assaulted.
The main socialist street protesting organization is Unite Against Fascism (UAF). Its supporters include Labour MPs, the head of the Conservative Party David Cameron, but its tactics and alliances (for example with extremist Muslims) have been questioned, even by those on the Left. David Toubelamented in the Leftwing Guardian not so long ago, that, “[…] with its sectarianism, silence on antisemitism and blindness to Islamist Jew-hatred, Unite Against Fascism just isn't up to the job.”
Writing about the UAF’s recent demonstration outside of the “Whites only” British National Party’s annual festival, Lucy James, a research fellow at the Muslim-run Quilliam foundation, criticized the UAF’s tactics, saying that the “protesters soon became violent,” and that “[…] protests become ineffective when they descend into thuggery and hooliganism.”
The English Defence League is composed of working class football fans. They are mostly – or perhaps they are all – White. They are roudy, wave flags and placards, and chant “England, England, England.” By most accounts, however, they are not violent. They also claim to oppose Islamic “extremists,” rather than all Muslims. At their recent Birmingham demonstration – held in the first week of September – one man was photographed holding a sign reading “No More Mosques,” which would seem less discriminating. However, others held signs reading “Say No To London Mega Mosque,” “Islamic Extremists Out: Make Britain Safe,” and “Jihadist Choudry! Leave OUR Children Alone.”
John Hinderaker at PowerLine does a formidable job of dissecting the latest Obama Great Speech.
Obama's Speech: Did It Help Him?
From a policy standpoint, there was nothing new in President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress tonight. It can only be assessed, therefore, in political terms. I read the transcript rather than watching it, but the speech struck me as reasonably effective. I assume the delivery was standard Obama--smooth, generally flat, occasionally a bit whiny.
One striking aspect of the speech was that Obama kept talking about the "plan" that he "announced" tonight--but there is no plan; not in writing, anyway. Not unless Obama meant Nancy Pelosi's House bill, but he didn't seem to, since he made a point of saying that details remain to be filled in, referred to work still going on in committee, and said that "his plan" is open to alternatives to the public option. This vagueness gives him a sort of deniability: what he was describing was more his concept of the qualities health care legislation should have, rather than a specific bill. Whether that was politically smart remains to be seen. So far, vagueness hasn't seemed to be the President's friend on this issue.
Here are some excerpts from the speech that I thought were noteworthy:
Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics.
Then, a few minutes later:
Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result.
By far the biggest scaremonger on this issue has been Obama himself.
Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed.
I'm not sure whether Obama and his handlers understand how this sort of talk grates on those of us who are not liberal Democrats (a large majority of the country). Debating public policy issues is not "bickering." Disagreeing with a proposal to radically change one of the largest sectors of our economy is not a "game." This kind of gratuitous insult--something we never heard from President Bush, for example--is one of the reasons why many consider Obama to be mean-spirited.
I assume most people noticed how, in tonight's speech, Obama's assurance that we will not lose our present insurance coverage has been scaled back. This was after thousands of critics pointed out that under the Democrats' proposals, many people (more than 100 million according to some estimates) will in fact lose the insurance coverage they now have:
[I]f you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.
That's true, of course. No one ever said it did. What the Democrats' plan does do, however, is give employers the opportunity and, depending on pricing, the incentive to terminate their employees' plans and dump them into the public system. And whether private insurance companies can compete with the public "option" depends on whether Obama keeps his pledge that the public program won't be subsidized.
[I]nsurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies - because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse.
How does that work? Better coverage for more people at less cost. Does anyone actually believe that is possible? I don't think so.
Obama described his plan for an insurance exchange where those who are not part of a larger plan will be able to buy coverage. He then added:
This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right.
But wait! Aren't people dying? The Democrats tried to ram their bill through Congress before the August recess, with essentially no debate and with virtually no one having read it. Their theory was that we are facing such a dire emergency that there is not a moment to lose. If, in fact, we have four years to spare, could we maybe stop trying to cram the bill down Americans' throats?
Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care The president's proposals would give unelected officials life-and-death rationing powers.
By SARAH PALIN
Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward.
I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.
Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.
We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.
How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.
Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American."
With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep.
Nickie Goomba's Official ObamaKennedyCare Decoder...
$400 billion in cuts from Medicare =
OLD PEOPLE ARE SCREWED
No tort reform =
LAWYERS GET TO SUE THE GOVERNMENT INSTEAD OF JUST PHYSICIANS
No competition between national health insurance providers =
PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE GETS MORE EXPENSIVE
New taxes on employers to provide for the government subsidies for employees who are covered by a government-run insurance exchange =
GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE
$6 billion a year in new taxes on the health insurance industry =
PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE GETS MORE EXPENSIVE
Billions of dollars in fees (taxes) on pharmaceutical manufacturers =
PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE GETS MORE EXPENSIVE
Billions of dollars in fees (taxes) on laboratory testing providers =
PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE GETS MORE EXPENSIVE
New excise taxes on health insurance companies that provide high-end insurance plans =
PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE GETS MORE EXPENSIVE
Would bar insurance companies from dropping a policyholder in the event of illness as long as that person has paid his or her premium in full =
PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE GETS MORE EXPENSIVE
Creates government-run health care cooperatives =
GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE
Expands Medicaid, starting in 2014, to cover millions of lower-income people =
GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE
Creates health insurance exchanges for small businesses and individuals =
GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE
Creates catastrophic insurance as an option for people 25 and younger =
GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE
$900 billion in new spending =
TAXES WILL GET EVEN HIGHER
Presumably forces everyone to be on health insurance or face some kind of financial penalty =
GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE
Keep in mind that the Obama, Olympia Snowe, and the Democrats are going to attempt the biggest smokescreen in American history. Whatever bill they offer will be full of legal traps and 'concessions' to Conservatives certain to overturned by Liberal judges.
The dollar should be replaced with a global currency, the United Nations has said, proposing the biggest overhaul of the world's monetary system since the Second World War.
And for a global currency, you need global governance – in exactly the same way that for a single European currency you need a single European government. And who will run that "government"?Why, the UN of course.
We have been here before, except that the World Government advocates are coming out of the closet and getting more daring. First it was global warming – where "pollution" knows no boundaries.
A "global" problem requires a global solution, etc, etc ... And now a global currency as the answer to a global financial crisis.
Be it the EU or the UN, the rhetoric is always the same – like peas in a pod, they look the same and think the same, and have the same solution to every problem: more and bigger government.
White House officials said Sunday that President Obama is not going to put the government-run health insurance program at the heart of the overhaul plan he wants Congress to pass, though two liberal House members hinted that they would rather have no bill than a bill that doesn't have the provision.
White House adviser David Axelrod said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the president believes in the value of the public insurance option, but "it shouldn't define the whole health care debate, however."
The plan was designed to compete with private insurers and is a necessity to liberal members of his party, but has since threatened the viability of health care reform amid concerns over cost and the government's role in health care.
Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, reiterated their interest in the public plan, threatening to vote down any bill without it.
"I'm hoping that he understands the essentiality of the public option," said Rep. Keith Ellison, Minnesota Democrat and vice chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, on CNN's "State of the Union." The president "said he preferred a public option. So we're trying to give him the political backing he needs to get what he prefers, which I think is the right thing."
When asked by host John King whether liberal Democrats should vote for a bill that has no public option "or should progressives say, 'No, that's not real reform' and walk away?" Mr. Ellison responded that "progressives should say it's not real reform" and added that a refusal to support a bill would not be their fault. (Continued...)
Joe atNo Pasarandescribes how the Swedes are handling the issue of Social Injustice.
The “Reclaim RosengÃ¥rd” street festival, which was conceived as a protest against the social conditions in RosengÃ¥rd, didn’t exactly go according to organizers’ plans. The event was supposed to get underway at 8pm on Saturday, but after about 15 minutes the activists who had gathered to participate were pushed out by RosengÃ¥rd residents.
The activists' floats with music were also barred from entering the predominantly immigrant neighbourhood.
Wouldn’t it be nice if meddling lefty social pyromaths who were “acting in the interest of the downtrodden”, actually listened to the “downtrodden”?
Instead, the activists gathered in front of a nearby petrol station where they threw stones, bottles, and burning objects at police cars. The activists' stated goal was to force a reduction in a police presence in the are. But Abu Hadis, one of the men involved in pushing back the activists, said Rosengård residents were of a different view.
The grownups’ response? Thanks but no, thanks.
"We who live in Rosengård want the police out here; their presence has had a calming effect for us and improved the area's reputation," he told newspaper Aftonbladet.
"We don't need drunken upper class kids to come here and speak on our behalf against our will," he added.
That’s funny, because neither do we, especially the unthinking promoters of fascism that call themselves “anti-fascist protesters” who are so deluded that they think that even the Swedish Police are agents of Fascism. H/T to No Pasaran
Here's a wonderful guest post from an energetic and exciting blog:Conservative Black Woman
Bishop Harry Jackson Tells The Truth About Healthcare Reform, but Liberal Bloggers Are Truth-Resistant
Liberal bloggers at Huffpo and blackpoliticalthought (because we are all supposed to think the same thoughts, you see) are busy disparaging Bishop Jackson and accusing him of perpetuating "misinformation".
Matthew Palevsky (Huffington Post) writes "Bishop Jackson continued by picking up on a common misnomer that the right invented and then railed against, spending tax dollars to pay for abortions." Good grief...I guess Mr. Palevsky and "DAD" (Dumb-AZZ-Donna, the condescending elitist reader), typical Obama drones, have fallen for the semantic tricks of President Obama and the leftist demon-crats.
Yes, it is factual that the Senate's healthcare proposal does not specifically mandate abortion but what these deceptive azz-wipes fail to mention is that anytime Congress fails to exclude funding for abortion it is always included. Case and point, for the last 13 years no federal dollars were have been used to fund abortions in the District of Columbia because pro-life lawmakers specifically excluded abortion funding in the DC spending bill -- that is until this year. The demon-crats successfully removed the exclusion so now your tax dollars are being used to kill off black babies otherwise known as genocide. Yes, I'm aware that I'm not suppose to follow the ramifications of that through to the logical conclusion because that makes me a "right wing loon" or worse. It fascinates me how this is lost on the "fight the power" "power to the people" types. I guess they trust the government now....because we have a black(ish) president and all.
I wonder how many religious leaders fell for President Obama's "ethical and moral obligation" crap as he urged them to get behind this abominable plan? Too many, I fear. But Obama is right. It is a moral obligation. We are our brother's keeper -- so the government should leave it to us.
President Obama and his leftist posse should also tell the truth about the 47 million uninsured....
47 Million Uninsured: Truth or Propaganda?
President Barack Obama claims there are 47 million Americans without health insurance. A simple check with the U.S. Census Bureau would have told him otherwise.
The President said: “This is not just about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance.” That assertion conflicts with data in the Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007.” The report was issued in August 2008 and contains the most up-to-date official data on the number of uninsured in the U.S. The report discloses that there were 45.65 million people in the U.S. who did not have health insurance in 2007.
However, it also reveals that there were 9.73 million foreigners — foreign-born non-citizens who were in the country in 2007 — included in that number. So the number of uninsured Americans was actually 35.92 million. And of those, 9.1 million people making more than $75,000 per year did not choose to purchase health insurance. That brings the number of Americans who lack health insurance presumably for financial reasons down to less than 27 million.
The Census Bureau report also shows that the number of people without insurance actually went down in 2007 compared to the previous year — from 47 million to 45.65 million — while the number with insurance rose from 249.8 million to 253.4 million. The next Census Bureau report disclosing health insurance data, with 2008 numbers, is scheduled to be released in August, and could figure in the healthcare reform debate.
Part of the apparent over-counting of the uninsured in the Census data is likely due to a serious undercounting of Medicaid enrollees. While the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reported Medicaid enrollment of 51 million in 2002, the Census reported only 33 million, a difference of 18 million people. This trend continues in 2003 with a .7 percentage point increase in Medicaid enrollment by the Census Bureau, putting that number at 35 million, but CMS reports 53 million enrollees. This discrepancy is, to say the least, problematic.
So what can we say about this number, that seems to have been accepted on face value without any critical analysis?
The Census Bureau data is misleading. The Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) is a misleading measure of those who lack health insurance in America and an imprecise tool for analyzing the dimensions of the problem. Analysis of data from earlier Census Bureau and other government reports shows that roughly 7 million are illegal immigrants; roughly 9 million are persons on Medicaid; 3.5 million are persons already eligible for government health programs; and approximately 20 million have, or live, in families with incomes greater than twice the federal poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four.
Most of the uninsured are in and out of health coverage. The professional literature also shows that, overwhelmingly, the vast majority of the uninsured are persons who are in and out of coverage, largely as a result of job changes. Only a small number of the uninsured are chronically uninsured. For most of the uninsured, the problem is fixable if policymakers simply take steps to make health insurance portable, so the insurance policy sticks to the person, not the job.
Current Federal Tax Policy Fuels Uninsurance. A substantial portion of uninsured Americans are not poor but rather middle-class working Americans who are forced to face a major tax penalty, resulting in premium increases of 40 to 50 percent, if they do not obtain health insurance through the place of work. For millions of Americans without job based health insurance, both the tax policy, and the excessive regulatory burden on health insurance in the states, prices families out of coverage. Current federal tax policy then unnecessarily drives millions into the ranks of the uninsured.
A meeting was held in Mexico City last week under the auspices of the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), whose implicit goal is to create a global high-tax cartel.
The international bureaucrats who run the OECD's Fiscal Affairs Committee managed to persuade a hotel to cancel Mr. Mitchell's reservations and then tried to get him thrown out of the public lobby of the hotel where the meeting was held -- as he was quietly talking with delegations from lower-tax jurisdictions and the press. Fortunately, when Mr. Mitchell and members of the press objected to the bullying tactics of the OECD officials, he finally was allowed to stay.
The OECD has managed to get 87 jurisdictions to sign on to its global "tax standard." The high-tax countries are using the OECD to threaten low-tax jurisdictions to sign this agreement.
It is worth noting that the tax bullies at the OECD and at other international organizations, such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and World Bank, who demand that others pay higher taxes, enjoy tax-free personal income courtesy of the world's taxpayers.
