IRS Abuse of Power and Obama Care

A truly chilling thought that the IRS is being used as a political tool, designed to harass and tax opponents.  Using taxes to harass those who disagree with you is reprehensible and shows a disregard for civil rights and being treated fairly in the marketplace by the government.  Search words are nice but politically slanted searches for potential targets for investigation or stalling of tax exempt status is social dynamite that undermines the government. I see stratification forming, based on control of tax decisions.  I never voted for any of these people who are taking so much power. 

Abuse of power by the IRS does not inspire confidence in the implementation of Obamacare and guarantees favoritism in 'exemptions' and other perks.  I think that using the IRS to 'collect' Obama care financial requirements is going to throw every incumbent who voted for it out of office.  It's ridiculous and un-American  to give an organization like the IRS power over the citizenry.  Head of the IRS is not even an elective office and they have the power to tax.  It's disgusting that the 'lawmakers' are exempt from the 'mandatory' Obamacare enrollment.  Why are they better than the rest of us?  We are developing a nasty little oligarchy based on the power to tax, voting themselves perks, benefits and exemptions from payments required of the people.  This looks like the destruction of my world as these greedy for money and power vote themselves higher than everybody else, thinking that the position will inspire respect instead of contempt.      

Now AG Holder feels justified in wiretapping the press in order to find a 'leak' that was actually internal.  Apparently he was after who received the information rather than who actually leaked it, which would have been an internal search of his own buddies.  So who is singing internally?  What was this 'secret' information?  AG Holder is acting like we would all be smithereens if he hadn't wiretapped the press.  And he actually expects people to believe him, even after Fast and Furious.   

Remember the ATF Fast and Furious gun scam providing cartels with high powered weapons against federal laws and the laws of the state of Arizona?  AG Holder protected those eventually labeled semi complicit in setting up Fast and Furious and did nothing until Mr. Issa issued a Contempt of Congress citation.  The Fast and Furious gunrunning resulted in the deaths of many, including a border patrol agent who was ambushed with one of the weapons.  Doesn't do much to inspire confidence. 

Now Mayor Bloomberg is allegedly using wall street terminals to snoop on clients and anybody else who uses the service, including the White House. This was evidently lucrative data sifting based on thought to be private data.  Possibly each data mine should share in the profits generated by the data.  Did they break privacy laws?  How did they get the data?  A hacker program?  Did Bloomberg get rich doing this?  I know that sweeping it under the rug is becoming cumbersome, since that rug has become a mountain of hypocrisy, elitism and vicious control by any means of the populace in all aspects of their lives.  Bloomberg does not respect privacy rights or any of the Bill of Rights.   

Like the Second Amendment rights Bloomberg wants to trample on.  I wonder what he thought about the 75,000 people who showed up for the NRA convention in Texas?  Was a representative of the government there taking names for potential IRS targets?  The hue and cry to destroy second amendment rights does not inspire confidence in the government, particularly in the throes of another scandal concerning abuse of government power.  We don't need more restrictions on firearms.  We need a government who is part of the law, not above it.  The lawless Boston bombers proved one thing about firearms.   I bet those people in Boston who had firearms felt more secure than the helpless hunkering in their houses.

The Bill of Rights was needed in order to ratify the Constitution because all agreed that our rights should be defined, in order to protect and guarantee our rights.  A lawless government based on raw power is not my government.  I saw vote out every politician who does not vote to halt Obamacare until the ramifications of the system are understood and the exemptions from it are nil.  Perhaps the lawmakers will bother to read the bill if it is actually applied to themselves.     

    

BOMBS ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL

Bombs are already illegal but terrorists don't care about that, much like the criminals who have guns will scoff at gun control attempts and take advantage of disarmed people and 'peaceful events'.  Imagine a homeowner defending himself against an AK or a bomb thrower with a cylinder handgun or a shotgun?  We live in a dangerous world and we need weapons to defend ourselves.   

So the gun control debate rages on, with ordinary people the target of restrictions on firearm possession and ammunition access at a time when the world is becoming more dangerous. 

The mental health aspect is being discussed, but in a peripheral manner.  In several cases, schools had data that would indicate that the shooter was deranged in some dangerous way, but this information was withheld.  Do privacy laws still hold when the information being concealed could lead to dangerous crimes?  Schools hold much information about students, but where to draw the line?  Should law enforcement notification and edification be required for expulsions from schools? 

I would like to see published the drug histories of the shooters, including blood tests.  Is there a common link or links to prescription drug use or illegal drug use? I read about a huge meth bust in Connecticut and that makes me wonder if the shooter had been using.  Why should I give up my gun rights because some drugged out mental case becomes murderous?  Why is this drug information being kept secret?

Another aspect of the gun control debate that is mostly ignored is the role and involvement of the legal system:  prosecution, sentencing and parole.  Lawyers are currently milking the system and the judges are allowing the delay and extension of cases that could be handled more expeditiously, while lawyers skim the cream off greatly extended cases.  Just say no might be a good idea for the judges who grant all that.  I think that punishments should be more direct and clear cut:  a crime using a gun is automatic x years imprisonment.  If the gun was fired, then x years more.  If somebody was killed or wounded, automatic execution.  No pleas of insanity:  you did that you get x.   No more living a lifetime on death row.  Remember McVeigh?  

Part of the problem is a lack of follow through after criminals are apprehended.  New York City has an excellent follow through rate, while Chicago does not and is now suffering violence.  Not to mention the open door policy, gangs and all the mayhem moving north.  Evidently taking away gun rights did not contain violent crime, but following up on punishments for crimes with guns is effective.  So they want to dilute my gun rights because they are not following up on punishments for violent crime?  No justice there.

It's interesting how many of the wealthy are for gun control, personified by Mayor Bloomberg.  The one percenters are not happy with just most of the wealth:  they want the masses to be relieved of their firearms as well.  It has been pointed out that none of the new legislation would have prevented those past tragedies.  Why not deal with the reality of what is provoking violence in our society?  What about bombs?   What is provoking violence?  One poor schmo went crazy because his home was foreclosed on and his utilities turned off.  He's dead now so he won't be telling his desperate story.  Why is flunking out of graduate school such a personal tragedy that somebody else needed to suffer?  What values are our young being taught?  School pressure is implicated in violence.  Is there a movement on to study school pressure as related to student debt?  Moneylenders who profited take heed!  The social results of some money making tactics are not worth the ultimate cost.  Schools will ultimately lose prestige over this debacle because they no longer provide a way to learn to earn a living and idealism does not pay debt.   I read that student debt is 30% in default and over 60% of college graduates are underemployed and most of the rest don't have a job.  If the wealthy have their way, they won't have a firearm either.      

Other recent murderers' families are being protected from scrutiny, which also avoids a public study of disfunctionality within the families of the shooters.  Other questions need to be answered, like were they on drugs and if so, then what were they on?  Why did the schools conceal information about the shooters?  Did local law enforcement conceal information about the shooters?  What is the track record of the prosecutor, judge and parole system as far as follow up on violent offenders?  Do the punishments fit the crimes on the books, or are the jails packed with minor offenders while the violent get lighter sentences or early release due to overcrowding?  In New York state, they let a murderer out of jail and he killed three more people.  Why was he let out?  In Texas, a killer gets out four years early and kills the chief warden in Colorado.  A clerical error!   Limiting possession of guns isn't going to address these questions and nor would it have prevented them.  Should a recent stabbing spree result in banning knives?  Banning the instrument of death will not fix the social problems exemplified by the senseless slayings.  Other means of death will be found. Look what happened in Boston.   

I feel for the grieving families that are allowing themselves to be trotted out by the politicians as a reason for gun control, believing they are in the right by wanting to curb gun rights in the aftermath of the mother who enabled the madman Lanza.  Mark Kelly is using Gabby Giffords as his poster woman for gun control and she truly is a courageous figure, but Laughner was a known mental case and had been expelled probably for threatening other students.  Why wasn't that reported?  Or was it reported and forgotten about?  Somebody didn't follow procedure.  Throughout history, there have been madmen and the larger the population, the more of them there are at any given time.  These are the people who should be identified and prevented from owning a gun, not the gigantic majority of normal people.  I deplore the politicians who use human distress for political purposes.     

The removal of effective weapon's rights from the possession of the common man has not been a harbinger of joy in the history of our known world.  We know our history and that will not happen here. 

 

  

   

Gun Violence in the USA

                                 Tucson Rodeo Parade

Gun Violence

Recent crimes have been committed by parolees, dangerous criminals who have been let out of jail 'rehabilitated'.  One of these dangerous criminals murdered his sister who took him in and then killed two firemen who showed up to fight the fire he set.  Who in New York let this vicious criminal out of jail so he could murder again?  Why doesn't the press discuss this? 

A later crime committed by a parolee was in Colorado, where the highest corrections officer was slain at his front door.  This same guy is suspected in another murder of an attorney general.  Why was this vicious murderer let out of jail? 

The liberals call for more gun laws while they campaign to let 'rehabilitated' vicious criminals out of jail.  Laughner is now serving a life term paid for with tax money and local politicians are using the actions of Laughner to attempt to control firearm ownership.  Why not try Laughner under the laws of the state of Arizona, which prohibit killing people?  I think the punishment for murdering with a gun should be an automatic immediate death sentence.  Laughner should have been hung at sunrise on the next day after the shootings, with no doubt as to his guilt. 

Now this new punk in Aurora wants life in prison.  So he flunked out of graduate school?  That's no reason to kill strangers.  This icky little punk just wants to be locked up and taken care of the whole rest of his life, while the rest of us pay.  I saw on the news that his ploy failed.  He obviously did it, so let's try his worthless ass! 

The point here is that lax prosecution, easy sentencing and even easier paroling have led to a scofflaw mentality.  Killers get out to kill again.  Supplying guns to criminals is punishable in Arizona.  So were the ATF officials prosecuted?  They were seeing to it that known criminal organizations received firearms, even arranging money laundering to pay for it, but nobody was prosecuted.  We don't need more laws:  We need the current laws to be enforced by ALL aspects of the system, not just the personnel out there in the field trying to intercept criminals and monitor domestic violence on frozen pay scales.  I've heard more than one law enforcement express frustration at the disposition of the criminals they apprehend.  And remember, the ATF did not keep local law enforcement informed of their gun purchase scheme that resulted in the death of Border Patrol Agent Terry.  Criminals having more and better arms obviously caught the patrol by surprise.  The punishment for all of these crimes?  A few people in the ATF were transferred, a few were fired and Holder reluctantly accepted the resignation of one scapegoat when Darrel Issa filed contempt of Congress proceedings against Holder.

Now after saturating Arizona with illegal guns, the liberals are using grieving families to push their agenda of gun control on the rest of us, howling that there is no reason not to go ahead with restrictions on gun ownership because morons and lunatics kill people.  It's obvious that mental defectives should not have access to guns.  Laughner was expelled from junior college, and the college suggested a mental health workup, which was never done.  Possibly law enforcement should have been brought in by the college, since such an extreme measure was taken.  Perhaps the mental health evaluation should have been ordered by a judge and a report made to the firearm prohibition list until a determination could be made.  Hindsight is always best but now is the time to get some procedures in place that bring the schools into the loop.  The same goes for the Colorado killer.

What about the foolish mother in Connecticut who taught her autistic son to shoot and paid for it with her life and the lives of more innocents?  She suffered severe lapses in judgment by supplying firearms and allowing her son to sit around the house at age 20.  He should have been in a program for years and he should never have had access to firearms.  However, I don't think my gun rights should be limited because of this sick mother and son relationship.  It's disgusting to see the victims' families emotionally used for longstanding political ends.  Lanza was a vicious criminal and the gun control measures the liberals want would not have changed his access to a gun.

It's interesting to note that Mark Kelly is campaigning to limit gun ownership but that he thinks it's OK to bring a vicious pit bull that slaughtered a sea lion pup to the beach.    Maybe people need guns to defend themselves, Mark.  I'm glad the dog didn't attack a child.

The liberals never discuss lax follow up on enforcement and are quick to blame general gun ownership for violence.  Crimes with guns need to be prosecuted and punished with death or life in prison.  If we don't have enough prison space, let all the pot heads out and fill up the spaces with criminals who committed crimes with guns.  That would cut gun violence like nothing else.   And no additional legislation on gun rights would be required.    

                                      Compadres

 

     

What is Insurance?

Insurance:

Writing from the USA:

 What is insurance intended to accomplish?  What is insurance actually doing?

Purpose of insurance:  Pay the insured for losses incurred as specified in the contract.  This prevents loss of assets and possible impoverishment of the family incurring the losses.  The idea is to have a 'pool' of people who pay into it and who then take turns using the fund as losses occur.  The theory is that the fund will remain solvent.  Originally, insurance purchase was voluntary. 

Problems with this voluntary insurance design:

Insurance funds do go bankrupt due to thievery or stupidity. 

Thievery can come from many directions, from bogus medical claims, through the denial of legitimate claims and gambling clients' money while calling their activities 'investments'.  Medical personnel have been known to bill for no visits, or to milk the number of visits like an overripe cow.  The biggest problem is that these insurance schemes 'insure' more value than they have, so if there is a flood of claims, money is lacking to pay the claims.  I know of one 'insurance' scheme that was drained while paying for a political campaign.

The voluntary insurance plans were competitive in the marketplace, which tended to bring costs down.  The unions pushed for 'benefits' and employers were forced to buy insurance for their workers, again without any mechanism to keep costs down.   

And this was before even more insurance schemes became mandatory.   When insurance became mandatory, several more problems surfaced like pond scum.

Mandatory auto insurance was instated in Arizona by one of the most crooked legislatures on record.  The prices for insurance immediately rose and the insurance people went out and bought new Cadillacs.  Their income is so secure, the police are even notified if a driver does not buy insurance.  The state takes away your license to drive if you do not pay these insurance people.  It was suggested that this insurance be voluntary, that individuals insure themselves if they so desire, but we were told that these insurance brokers are the best people to handle our money, and if you were lucky enough never to use it, you just lost the money.  You are not permitted to save this money in a special account so if you do not use it, you could have it.  These insurance people get richer and richer because actual price controls were never instituted.  Insurance prices are so high, people struggle to make the payments. 

I see a huge new problem when mandatory health insurance is instituted.  The medical profession protests low government payments for services for the insured while they pad the bills.  Exorbitant charges are foisted off on the uninsured and 'costs' are out of control.  They say that about 60-70% of all personal bankruptcies are caused by medical bills while the patient has insurance.  Thus the insurance is expensive, does not cover the hospital costs  yet the patient is forced to buy it while the medical costs rise unchecked.  The cost of the insurance has few controls, so people must pay more and more every year.  Some attempts have been made to cut administrative costs of the insurance companies, forcing them to spend on the insured instead of their second yacht.

The main gripe with mandatory insurance is that the free market is not working when individuals are forced to buy anything.  The lack of controls on charges while forcing individuals to buy creates inflation in the health care market and a further drain on other sectors of the economy.  Anybody who calls this capitalism is foolish.  The politicians have merged the indigent care problem with the private market and then expanded it to include more people, displacing church and traditional family based care systems, while subsidizing some private businesses paying CEOs huge sums . 

My second question:  What is insurance actually accomplishing? 

Medical care was already available for the indigent but is expensive for the ordinary individual needing specialty treatment.  Express medical care clinics are located all over town and are reasonable in cost.  So the question was never if medical care is available.  The real question is who could be forced to buy insurance, which would then increase the size of the insurance pool money.  So now the IRS is leading the charge to punish those who do not buy insurance, whether or not they make a claim on the health care system.  They will be charged whether they use it or not and they will never see their money again.  I think it is a function of individual rights not to be forced to buy.  The insurance companies and the government are now taking a sizeable chunk of income from consumers, who cannot now spend it on the economy.  More and more money is tied up in insurance every year, which drains the rest of the economy.  Unions have negotiated exorbitant benefit plans that are bankrupting local governments and more and more money is controlled by the insurance brokers.

So the majority of the people in the USA have good medical care but at exorbitant escalating costs to themselves now mandated by the government.  Indigent care has always been freely given.  The health care charge forced by the IRS is justly called a tax by the Supreme Court.   All this is not the quality of the health care, but is about the scramble to collect and hold the money mandated from the taxpayers.  Current insurance systems are larded with bureaucracy, high operating costs and administrative perks, all at the expense of the insured.  Our health care money is being spent on expensive administration costs and resort vacations.  I think the system needs reform.

Health care goals are being met but the financial cost is crippling other segments of the economy as the people struggle under the burdens of mandatory auto and health insurance costs, high fuel prices, and guaranteed inflation of at least 2% a year, which devalues the money and raises consumer prices. 

                                              Washington D.C. Grand Central Station