Young people voted in record numbers for President Obama in 2008. In 2014, they will pay for it:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hLAMW_KTqY_JVMQF-gNn3O0_uUcQD9EOIBQO0

That’s because that’s the year all Americans will be required to purchase health insurance. According to a study by the Associated Press, young people purchasing their own health insurance on the open market will likely face an increase in their premiums of “17 percent on average, or roughly $42 a month….”

Why is this? As the article notes:

“The law relies on…young adults to shoulder more of the financial load in new health insurance risk pools. So under the new system, [young Americans] could expect to pay $300 to $500 a year more.”

In other words, to help pay for older Americans’ health care, Obamacare will make young people pay more than they are paying now. Much more.

Again I ask: did anyone think through this before we made it a law?

Uh oh. Can you say “unintended consequences”?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gmzNv5LYXOA6UM_XmUHdOe9augtQD9ELVL3G1

So the new health care law is supposed to reduce costs, right? It won’t. Basic economics teaches that companies pass on their extra costs to others. So all the new regulations and mandates are going to get passed onto you and me in higher premiums.

But as the article above notes, even the health care coverage you get at work is going to change:

“In the first two days after the law was signed, three major companies — Deere & Co., Caterpillar Inc. and Valero Energy — said they expect to take a total hit of $265 million to account for smaller tax deductions in the future. With more than 3,500 companies now getting the tax break as an incentive to keep providing coverage, others are almost certain to announce similar cost increases in the weeks ahead as they sort out the impact of the change.”

By reducing the health care tax deductions companies can file, the federal government has inadvertently reduced the health care coverage these companies will offer.

Did anyone not think this through before passing this new law?

This week we continue our series on the new health care law and some of the items that you might not know about.

Today, we focus on a constitutional aspect of the law. Remember when we talked last week about the bill requiring individuals to purchase health insurance? Did you know that this marks the first time in American history that the federal government has required an individual to purchase a product?

And there is a reason why it’s the first time: because it’s not constitutional. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate companies that transact business across state lines. But it says nothing about requiring individuals to purchase anything.

That’s why several states have already filed suit. Obamacare may well be unconstitutional.

Today we end the week of blogs about health care by talking about one of the biggest tragedies of all in this new law: abortion.

Democrats say the new health care law will not create taxpayer funded abortion. But it will. Here is how: now that everyone will be required to purchase insurance, people will be buying all kinds of plans, including some that cover abortion services. But since many people will not be buying insurance plans with federal subsidies, in effect, the taxpayers are covering their expenses should they ever need an abortion.

The “fix” that Democrats proposed for this was for President Obama to issue an executive order saying that abortions can not be paid for with taxdollars. But executive orders can be changed by any president. A law is a law and can only be changed by an act of Congress.

That’s why I think it’s likely we will see taxpayer funded abortion. And what a shame that is.

16,000.

That’s a number that should scare all Americans. Why? Because that’s the number of new IRS agents that will be hired by the government to enforce the new tax provisions in the Obama health care law. The new law requires every American to purchase health insurance; and any American not purchasing it will be required to pay a fine to the government. To make sure these fines are paid, 16,000 new IRS agents will be on the patrol to collect the money.

This doesn’t make any sense. At a time of economic recession, we should be helping families and small businesses, not taxing them and then punishing them.

Today we begin our series on the behind scenes stories of the recently-passed health care bill. And we do so by taking a look at one of the favorite talking points that Democrats have used: that the bill will reduce the budget deficit.

How is it possible to increase spending and reduce the federal deficit at the same time? It’s not. So how do Democrats claim they do it? Because they invented a trick called “double counting.” Here is how it works:

“Basically, Medicare, like Social Security, has a “trust fund” (actually, more than one), which is supposed to fund it until the trust fund is exhausted in 2019. The “trust fund” does not exist in any meaningful sense, because its “assets” consist of claims on the general fund, i.e. all the rest of the tax money. As Medicare goes into deficit, it trades in those assets to cover its funding gap, which means the general fund has to find the money to pay off the special bonds by either raising taxes, cutting other spending, or borrowing more money. After the trust fund is exhausted, the general fund has to find the money to pay for the Medicare deficit by either . . . raising taxes, cutting other spending, or borrowing more money. The difference to taxpayers is nil. Technically, when you cut Medicare spending, that money shows up as an increase in the Medicare trust fund, rather than some other possible accounting entry. But the effect on the unified budget is the same: the money saved by cutting Medicare is spent on other stuff.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/12/cbo-democrats-double-counting-medicare-savings/32538/

In other words, Democrats are claiming that by reducing Medicare, they are saving money that can be spent on health care and not increase the deficit; but any money saved from Medicare comes out of the same general operating budget. Therefore, any increase in spending increases the deficit. Period.

Double counting is double speak.

Last night the House of Representatives passed legislation to change health care in this country. You probably have heard all about it.

But what you probably haven’t heard about is all the gimmicks and short cuts that are included in the bill, like the fact that the bill is “paid for” by double counting.

Check in each day this week and next week as we take you behind the scenes and expose some of the gimmicks that make this bill bad for your health.

Today we end our series on taxes with a call to action.

This weekend the House of Representatives will vote on the Obama health care bill that will include new taxes. But you can do something about it. Call the Congressional switchboard and ask to speak to your representative. The number is:

(202) 224-3121

Call today and say “no thanks” to this new health care plan and these new taxes.

So let me get this straight: the president of the United States is going to try and raise taxes by using a procedural move that avoids the House of Representatives even voting on it?

Yes, you read that correctly. The president wants to pass his health care bill (which includes tax increases) using a process called “deem and pass.” It essentially “deems” that the Senate bill is good enough and just sends it onto the president for his signature. The House doesn’t even vote on it.

Are you kidding me? The Constitution specifically gives the House of Representatives the responsibility for all tax measures. So any vote to increase taxes must be voted on by the House. And yet the president wants to find a way around this because he knows he doesn’t have the votes in the House.

Whatever happened to change we can believe in?

Today we continue our series on taxes. More specifically, we continue our conversation about the bad tax policies the Obama administration is pursuing to pay for its health care plan:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35844649/ns/health-health_care/

We’ve talked about this before on the blog, but it’s worth repeating since it’s such an important part of the president’s health care plan. As the article notes, the President:

“is proposing that high-income Americans pay Medicare taxes on the money they make on their investments. Historically, only earned income has been subject to that tax.”

So not only is the President raising taxes to pay for health care, but he’s creating an entirely new tax in that Americans will now pay payroll taxes on investment, something that has never happened before.

Mr. President, let’s stop raising taxes, let’s start over and let’s find a health care plan that works.

Today we continue our blog series on taxes. And we do so by focusing on a different tax than the income tax.

Did you know that most people in America pay more in payroll taxes than they do income taxes? Payroll taxes come straight out of your paycheck and are supposed to go to fund entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. But in these tough economic times, these payroll taxes are hurting many working people.

So then why is the Obama administration proposing to increase payroll taxes to pay for health care?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/61720

This is a bad idea and a bad policy. Raising taxes is not the way to improve health care.

This week we’ll be talking about something else that’s been in the news a lot: taxes. You may have read about the carwash in Sacramento that was audited for four cents!

What’s going on with the IRS? Why does the government need so much in tax dollars and yet still run such huge deficits? That’s what we’ll be talking about on the blog this week. So check in each day.

One of the reasons that gas prices are going up is that oil is a depleting resource. For decades, we’ve been drilling for oil here in the United States. As a result, we have less of it and more need to rely on foreign oil.

That’s why it’s more important than ever that we look to sources of energy that are here in the US and that are renewable. My favorite example is biomass. Biomass is essentially fueled by burning wood products. And we have plenty of wood products in America. In fact, we will always have plenty of wood products in America.

So why would we import oil from the Middle East when we could generate energy from biomass here in the United States?

This week USA Today ran a front page story about rising gas prices:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2010-03-08-gasoline-prices_N.htm

As the article notes:

“The national average price for a gallon of gasoline is up 9 cents in a month and will likely crack $3 in coming weeks, given a typical spring rally before the summer driving season, oil and gas analysts say.”

This still makes no sense to me. With the economy in a recession, people are driving less and therefore demand is less. So why are prices going up? The reason is because the gas market operates differently than other markets. A foreign oil cartel controls prices.

Isn’t it time we did something about that?

Today we begin our series on why America needs new sources of energy. And to support that argument, I give you one word: Venezuela.

US demand accounts for 60% of Hugo Chavez’s oil imports. So if we reduced our demand for his oil, we would reduce him. And he needs to be reduced.

So why not expand our exploration of natural gas here in the US? And why not expand our research into renewable energy sources like wind and biomass?

Now is the time.

So gas prices are heading back up. That’s expected as we approach the summer and the driving months. But it’s also a good time to re-examine why gas prices are so out of whack and why we need to re-focus our efforts on renewable energy.

That’s what we’ll be talking about this week on the blog. Join us each day!

Today we conclude our series on the Texas primary. And we focus on the one person who should be paying the most attention: President Obama.

Since last fall, President Obama has seen Republicans win in Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts and now Texas. What’s interesting about Texas is that many thought the Tea Party movement would tear apart the GOP. Instead, the Tea Party movement helped increase GOP turnout, but still the party elected mainstream candidates. That’s bad news for the Democrats.

Maybe it’s time for the White House to start paying attention to these election trends. Let’s start over on health care, and get busy on things we can agree on, like carbon credits and a real jobs program.

Here is another bit of fallout from Tuesday’s elections: what happens to Kay Bailey Hutchison?

http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/03/03/2012980/hutchisons-supporters-peers-urging.html

Should she stay or should she go? That is the question facing Senator Hutchison. Before she ever announced she would run for governor, Hutchison said she would resign to focus full-time on the gubernatorial race. But then she hedged and said she would wait until after the primary to resign.

Well, now the primary is over. And I think Hutchison should keep her word and resign. Do the honorable thing and let someone else have a chance.

What do you think?

So the election returns are in. And it seems my prediction was correct. While the Tea Party movement helped energize new voters, most incumbents survived just fine. And many of them co-opted some of the Tea Party themes. Rick Perry is a great example. Though he’s been in office for years, he successfully cast himself as a man fighting against entrenched Washington power. It worked.

The question now becomes: what happens next? Will the Tea Party movement fade? Will the Republican Party continue to be alert and try and address Tea Party issues?

What do you think?

So here is my prediction for today’s elections:

I think the Tea Party movement will win by losing. That is, the Tea Party will have moved the GOP to the right, increased the party’s commitment to fiscal discipline and put the fear into a few GOP elected officials. All of that is good. But I don’t expect many of the actual Tea Party candidates to win. Why? In American history, protest movements rarely become majoritarian movements. Instead, they make their point and one or both of the parties takes on their issues. Think of Perot in 1992 talking about the deficit. Republicans and Democrats in the 1990s got the message and balanced the budget for the first time in decades.

So that’s my prediction about tonight. What’s yours?