Republican Tsunami? Obama Uses IRS To Bludgeon?

HAPPY, HAPPY, HAPPY and HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!!!
===
Grandparents answering phone messages:

Good morning . . . At present we are not at home, but please leave your message after you hear the beep. 

beeeeeppp ....

If you are one of our children, 
dial 1 and then select the option from 1 to 5 in order of "birth arrival" so we know who it is.

If you need us to stay with the children, press 2
If you want to borrow the car, press 3
If you want us to wash your clothes and do ironing, press 4
If you want the grandchildren to sleep here tonight, press 5
If you want us to pick up the kids at school, press 6
If you want us to prepare a meal for Shabeth or to have it delivered to your home, press 7
If you want to come to eat here, press 8
If you need money, press 9

If you are going to invite us to dinner or take us to the theatre, ... start talking .... we are listening !!!!!!!!!!!"

===
What a dear friend of mine writes:

"Our current President should have studied history instead of law.

He is certainly repeating it now with his cowardly deal with Iran regarding their nuclear intentions. He has given up any hope of stopping their ambitions.

Prior to WWII, Neville Chamberlin journeyed to Munich and made an equivalent treaty  with Adolph Hitler. “Peace in our time” actually encouraged the dictator to continue his conquest of Western Europe and led directly to a World War.

More recently, Bill Clinton’s abject response to terrorist attacks was minimal at best. The bomb at the Khobar Towers killing many soldiers, and even the first attack on the World Trade Center elicited only tough talk. Talk akin to the more recent “red line” discussions. Even the embassy attacks in August 1998 only begat cruise missile strikes, and those were on an abandoned terrorist camp and a pharmaceutical factory alleged to be a source of terrorist bombs. Osama Bin Laden, safely ensconced in Afghanistan, took these actions as a direct invitation to fly airplanes and people into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

So, our current President, possibly in an attempt to distract public attention away from his disastrous health-care debacle, and his Secretary of State, who served in Viet Nam, have created a situation eerily similar to the situations described above. Where will this lead?

Will Israel peremptorily attack the Iranian bomb-making sites, even with the sure world outcry? Or will Iran develop the bomb and use it to obliterate Israel? Or will it look certain that they will develop the bomb which will cause the Saudis to buy nuclear bombs from the Pakistanis?

In any case, any hope that now exists for peace in the Mid-East will be extinguished. If our current President had any sense or concern about the welfare of our great nation, he would now be exercising all the considerable powers of his bully pulpit to produce sufficient oil and gas to support our slowly growing economy."

===

Obama continues to use the IRS to bludgeon freedom and silence those who stand in opposition! (See 1 below.)

===

Purposeful but then he told us he was going to transform us.(See 2 below.)
===
Is a Republican tsunami building or will they blow it again aka Romney style? (See 3 below.)
===

Dick

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1)Obama's IRS Moves to Close Down Political Speech of Nonprofits

By Todd Beamon

The Obama administration moved on Tuesday to rein in the use of tax-exempt groups for political campaigning.

The effort is an attempt to reduce the role of such loosely regulated yet influential super PACS as Crossroads GPS, which was co-founded by GOP political strategist Karl Rove, and Priorities USA, which ran searing ads against rivals of President Barack Obama to support his re-election last year.



The Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department proposed new rules that they said would prohibit such groups from using "candidate-related political activity" like running advertisements, registering voters or distributing campaign literature as activities that qualify them to be tax-exempt "social welfare" organizations.

"This proposed guidance is a first critical step toward creating clear-cut definitions of political activity by tax-exempt social welfare organizations," said Mark Mazur, the Treasury's assistant secretary for tax policy. "We are committed to getting this right before issuing final guidance that may affect a broad group of organizations.

"It will take time to work through the regulatory process and carefully consider all public feedback as we strive to ensure that the standards for tax-exemption are clear and can be applied consistently," Mazur said.

The rules would become final after a lengthy comment period, the federal agencies said, giving the super PACS ample time to raise millions of dollars from anonymous donors before next year's congressional elections.

Conservative groups bitterly attacked the proposed rules, charging that they represented yet another attack on free speech by the Obama White House.

"This is a feeble attempt by the Obama administration to justify its own wrongdoing with the IRS targeting of conservative and tea party groups,” Jay Sekulow, a lawyer representing more than three dozen of the groups in a federal lawsuit against the tax agency, told The New York Times.

The lawsuit stemmed from the IRS' monitoring of tea party, conservative, and religious groups for extra scrutiny in their applications for tax-exempt status. A Treasury Department inspector general disclosed in May that the agency was doing the special screenings for those groups seeking 501(c)(4) status.

The status allows such organizations to keep their donors private.

The IRS screening had occurred between 2010 and through the 2012 presidential election. During the period, IRS agents had placed groups with words like "tea party and "patriot" in their names on a "be on the lookout" — or BOLO — list for additional screening of its applications for the tax-exempt status.

“Unfortunately, it appears that the same bureaucrats that attempted to suppress the speech of conservative groups in recent years has now put together new rules that apply to (c)4 groups but do not apply to liberal groups like labor unions,” Nick Ryan, founder of the American Future Fund, told the Times.

The organization spent at least $25 million on political advertising last year, according to the Times.

“I wish I could say I am surprised,” Ryan added, “but I am not."

As 501(c)(4) organizations, the groups can raise millions of dollars to influence elections. 
They can, however, also be small-scale tea party groups — many had contended that the were singled out by the IRS.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp questioned the White House's decision.

"There continues to be an ongoing investigation, with many documents yet to be uncovered, into how the IRS systematically targeted and abused conservative-leaning groups," the Michigan Republican said. "This smacks of the administration trying to shut down potential critics."

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision lifted the limits on donations by labor unions and companies to 501(c)(4) groups. This allowed Crossroads, the largest of them, to raise large sums outside the limits that apply to candidates' campaigns and traditional party committees.

"Enormous abuses have taken place under the current rules, which have allowed groups largely devoted to campaign activities to operate as nonprofit groups in order to keep secret the donors funding their campaign activities," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, which advocates limits on money in politics.

Under current rules, "social welfare" groups may conduct some political work as long as it does not remain their primary activity. The proposed rules would block such activities as running ads that "expressly advocate for a clearly identified political candidate or candidates of a political party" as fulfilling their tax-exempt mission.

In addition, spots that simply mention a politician in urging a certain way to vote — for instance — could not be run 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary.

The rules also would limit voter drives and voter registration efforts and the distribution of literature.

According to the federal agencies, the new rules seek to solidify the current regulations, which are confusing and prone to abuse.

"Depending on the details, this could be dramatic," Marcus Owens, a former chief of the IRS’ exempt organizations division, told the Times.

Treasury and the IRS do not yet have a proposal about what specific proportion of a 501(c)(4) group's activities must promote social welfare and are soliciting input. Essentially, they do not have a recommendation as to what percentage of a group's time and money can be spent on politics.

Representatives of both Crossroads and Priorities USA declined to comment to the Times on the proposed rules. The groups, however, are expected to weigh as the process moves forward.

Any changes to the regulations likely would not affect the 2014 elections because of legal challenges, but the rule changes could shape the next presidential election, said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance attorney and former head of enforcement for the Federal Election Commission.

"Brightening what are now blurred lines — what is political activity — is not only useful but necessary to have some kind of clarity to a vehicle that has been used to the tune of millions and millions of dollars," he said.

But Gross cautioned that "this is a long and winding road before anything is in ink."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) ObamaCare's Looming Land Mine
By Lewis Dovland
Those who wrote the PPACA legislation were much more brilliant than most conservatives have given them credit for.  They have hidden a landmine in the way it all works that will ensure an eventual takeover of the entire health care industry by the government.

Let me first clarify my professional interest.  I have been a vendor of software and services to both insurance companies and providers, and therefore have a deep understanding of the health care industry and what the ACA will do to it.  I do not work for any insurance companies or medical providers, nor do I own stock in any such entities, so my views here are those of a concerned citizen who, because I see the industry up close and personal on a daily basis, know what the ACA will do to us all.  And therefore, I am concerned.

We've all heard the "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" statements -- statements that now are being admitted to even by the administration as knowingly false when first made.  We all know about the much higher premiums and deductibles faced by individuals, due in large part by the coverage mandated by the law.

What is being overlooked is the new and higher deductibles and total annual out-of-pocket expenditures, especially in the Bronze and Silver plans.  The amount of these greatly exceeds the ability of most individuals and families to pay, thus providing the real possibility of personal bankruptcies due to medical bills and high losses for providers who cannot collect.

Here is an example from the American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network:

The Peters a family of four earns $100,000 a year. They're all pretty healthy, so they purchase a bronze plan because the premiums are relatively low, $700 per month. However, in April their son Carl is diagnosed with a rare form of leukemia that requires aggressive treatment and hospitalization. The bronze plan requires a deductible of $7500, as well as co-insurance on cancer drugs of 20%. During the course of the year the Peters exhaust their deductible and reach the out-of-pocket limit ($11,900) imposed by the law. Over the course of the year, the Peters spend $20,300 on premiums, deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs - over 20% of their income.

While this example is for cancer, it applies to any serious illness or hospitalization.  Heart attack in a previously healthy person, serious accident or fall, even the ER costs of treating the 12-year-old who breaks an arm falling off his bicycle.

As the example says, the medical expenses would represent twenty percent of their gross -- probably more like 25% of their after-tax income.  This is impossible for most families to bear in our current economy.

So what will happen?  The family, being responsible citizens, will initially try to pay the bills, but that will soon prove impossible.  They will ultimately default.  And in any case, they will most likely end any college planning or retirement savings they were working toward.

But -- and this is the big but -- the entity chasing them for the money is not the government.  Rather, it is the provider -- the doctor, hospital, lab, radiologist, etc.  This permits the government to stand on the sidelines and shrug at the dastardly situation that government itself caused in the first place.

Once enough patients face this crisis, the provider will be painted as the devil, hurting all these working Americans and their finances.  First there will be restrictions on how much the provider can ultimately collect.  Eventually, providers will be eating a large portion of any of the money they don't collect at the point of service.

The government will neatly sidestep the mess they've set up on purpose, will be able to demonize the providers (who end up not getting paid), and can step in to "save the day."  And saving the day means taking over the now-bankrupt assets of the provider side of the health care delivery system.  Bingo: a full single-payer and provider system, under government control, without even having to fire a shot.

This is a main reason why the PPACA law is so bad.  It is health insurance reform, not health industry reform.  It does nothing to fix the cost problems we have in the delivery of health care.  It addresses a nonexistent problem (lack of insurance) instead of the real problem (making health care affordable for all).  All planned with an eye to wrecking the system from the bottom up.

There is a better solution -- one that uses the free market, transparency, HSA accounts and other tools -- that neither space nor topic permits me to review here.  The first step is to stop this runaway train, then put in place the real reforms needed to ensure a stable and affordable health care delivery system for all.

But beware the landmine that is hidden in the current law.  It is there not by accident.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)Is another Republican wave building?

• BY REID WILSOn

President Obama’s poll numbers are at record lows. The health care law that serves as the cornerstone of his domestic policy legacy is even more unpopular. And there are few chances to change the conversation among a skeptical public that isn’t happy with Washington.

Sound familiar? It should: The national political climate today is starting to resemble 2010, when Republicans won control of the House of Representatives by riding a wave of voter anger.

Wave elections are rare. Only a handful of times in the previous century has one party racked up big wins. Democrats won big handfuls of House seats in 1930, 1932, 1948, 1958, 1974, 2006 and 2008. Republicans won back more than 40 seats in 1938, 1942, 1946, 1966, 1994 and 2010. And with nearly a year to go before Election Day, voters’ moods can change dramatically.

But the rocky rollout of the Affordable Care Act and President Obama’s crumbling support suggests another wave might be building. While voters usually punish a president’s party in at least one midterm election, they may be winding up to deliver another smack to President Obama’s allies on Capitol Hill.

Voter dislike of ObamaCare cost Democrats the House in 2010. It could cost them the Senate in 2014.

The poll numbers hint at the toll the Affordable Care Act has taken on the Democratic Party. A CNN/ORC International poll conducted November 18-20 shows 49 percent of registered voters favored a generic Republican candidate for Congress, compared with 47 percent who favored a Democratic candidate. A Quinnipiac University poll conducted November 6-11 shows the generic ballot tied, at 39 percent each.

Historically, Democrats have held an advantage of at least a few points on the generic ballot, even when election results are a wash: Democrats held a six-point edge just before Election Day 2000 and picked up a grand total of one seat. Democrats led Republicans by one point on the generic ballot just before the 2010 elections, when Republicans rode to a sweeping victory.

And there’s no sign that Obama will become more popular. Presidents who see their approval ratings dip so dramatically in the second term rarely see their numbers improve. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon’s approval ratings never recovered after the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal (Nixon, of course, didn’t stick around to see just how far his ratings could fall). George W. Bush’s approval rating sank in the spring of 2005, and continued falling through the end of his term. Obama’s numbers are starting to resemble Bush’s trend lines.

For much of Obama’s tenure, even voters who say they disapproved of his job performance still retained a favorable impression of the president. That’s increasingly not the case: In the latest Washington Post/ABC News survey, conducted earlier this month, Obama’s unfavorable rating, 52 percent, tops his favorable rating, 46 percent. It’s only the second time [pdf] the number of unfavorable impressions outweighed the favorable ones.

Reaction to the bungled rollout of the health care law is overwhelmingly to blame. Already, the fallout has been evident: Public surveys in Virginia showed Gov.-elect Terry McAuliffe (D) leading Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) by wide margins in the wake of the government shutdown. But Cuccinelli made the final weeks of the race into a referendum on ObamaCare, and McAuliffe’s support began to erode. On Election Day, McAuliffe won by just 2.5 points, a narrower margin than even his internal polls showed. Another week, and Cuccinelli might be governor-elect.

Democrats will say the Republican Party is in even worse shape than they are, and they have a point: In the October Washington Post/ABC News poll, just 32 percent of voters said they had a favorable impression of the GOP, compared with 46 percent who had a favorable impression of the Democratic Party. And Republicans still have not articulated a clear governing vision for the country, even a year after failure to do so emerged as a central criticism of Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign.

But back in 2010, 40 percent told Post pollsters they viewed Republicans in a favorable light, 10 points lower than those who said they saw Democrats favorably. Republicans feigned a national platform, akin to the Contract With America, but their pitch to voters was more about what they were against — namely, Democrats and ObamaCare — than what they were for. Voters have backed the unpopular party with few ideas over the slightly-more-popular party with unpopular ideas before.

The stakes are highest for Democratic senators seeking re-election in red states, where the Affordable Care Act is even more widely despised than it is nationally. Democratic incumbents in Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina and Alaska will face added headwinds unless the political climate changes.

And there aren’t many opportunities for Democrats to change that climate.

The one opportunity that Democrats do have lies in negotiations over the federal budget. October’s government shutdown gave Democrats a temporary advantage, and if Republican hardliners pursue the same path, they could hand Democrats an opening. But with Republican anger at Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and others who led the shutdown crusade at such pitched levels, it seems unlikely Republicans would repeat their political mistakes of this fall.

That leaves Democrats weighed down by an unpopular president and an unpopular (and malfunctioning) law, running in unfavorable terrain. A major political wave hasn’t developed yet, but a Republican sweep looks more likely now than it has since the waning weeks of the 2010 campaign.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------