BO looks to screw Disabled Veterans
Read the following and see if you agree. It’s time to start writing your Congress Pukes.
Wounded Vets Under Friendly Fire
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, March 17, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Entitlements: President Obama once scolded John McCain over veterans’ benefits. Now the White House that condemns the AIG bonuses plans to charge wounded soldiers for the costs of treatment. Which is worse?
——————————————————————————–
Read More: Business & Regulation
——————————————————————————–
During last fall’s campaign, Obama tried to make war hero McCain appear insensitive to veterans for his opposition to a Democratic bill that would make expanded college education benefits available to veterans after a three-year enlistment.
McCain felt this would encourage service members to leave the military prematurely at a time when the military was stretched thin and fighting two wars. McCain preferred a sliding scale for education benefits that would increase them commensurate with length of service. He even went Obama one better: He proposed allowing veterans to transfer their benefits to family members.
Having milked the veterans’ benefits issue for votes, Obama apparently now sees our wounded veterans as a revenue stream for his bloated budget and stimulus proposals.
A furious Commander David K. Rehbein of the American Legion left a meeting with President Obama Monday “angered” that Obama plans to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries.
“It became apparent during our discussion today that the president intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan,” Commander Rehbein said. “He says he is looking to generate $540 million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it.”
Rehbein added that this “reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ‘to care for him who shall have borne the battle,’ given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies.”
Should a soldier wounded in Afghanistan have to wonder if he or she is covered or worry about his or her deductible?
The story from the Obama administration is that it wants private insurers who sell coverage to vets to pay their fair share. But the only reason wounded vets can get these policies in the first place is that private insurers know service-related medical treatment is covered through the Veterans Administration.
If the U.S. reneges on its moral obligations for budgetary reasons, it will make it harder for future veterans to get private insurance. A statement by the American Legion pointed out that depending on the severity of the war injury, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran’s condition alone. The rest of the family would wind up with nothing.
Premiums would be increased to prohibitive levels, and many insurance companies would require a hefty deductible before any benefits are paid. Some employers might now be reluctant to hire wounded veterans because of the impact on their company health-care benefits.
“Depending on the severity of the medical conditions, those medical insurance policies with a calendar-year benefit maximum or a life-time benefit maximum could result in the rest of the family not receiving any health care benefits,” Legion legislative director Steve Robertson told the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee last week. “Many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered.”
The VA now bills third-party insurers only for nonservice related injuries and illnesses such as the flu. If the injured vet requires prosthetics or ongoing therapy for a war injury, the VA picks up the tab. Obama would change all that.
A letter sent to the president on Feb. 27 signed by the leaders of 11 prominent veterans organizations rightly said: “There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran’s personal insurance for care the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable.”
We agree. The AIG executives may be trying to get something for nothing, but the same can’t be said for our wounded veterans. They’ve kept us alive and free, and we owe them a debt of gratitude — not a debt for their care.
Email To Friend | Print | View All Editorials | Search
Back To Top
Press Advertise Terms of Use Privacy Policy Copyright Notice Contact Site Map Home
© Copyright 2009 Investor’s Business Daily. All Rights Reserved.
Taxes
The following is a great article from Walter Williams. What he says is so very true.
How Congress Deprives Us Of Prosperity
By WALTER E. WILLIAMS | Posted Monday, March 16, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Ask the average person which is the correct answer to the following question: Which president gave the biggest tax cuts for the rich — Reagan or Bush?
I would bet the rent money that you would not get the correct response, which is: Presidents have no taxing authority. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.”
I know that many politicians and news media people read my column. How do we characterize them if they continue to speak of presidents cutting or raising taxes?
Another tax question: If there’s an imposition of a property tax on your land, who pays the tax? I guarantee you that land does not pay taxes; only people pay taxes. That means a tax on your land is a tax on you.
You say, “Williams, that’s pretty elementary, isn’t it?” But what do you say to a politician or news media people who propose increasing corporate taxes as means to get rich corporations to pay their rightful share of government?
They should be told that they speak nonsense because corporations, like land, do not pay taxes; only people pay taxes.
If a tax is levied on a corporation, and if it is to survive, it must raise the price of its product, or lower dividends or lay off workers. In each case, it is people, not some legal fiction called a corporation, who bear the burden of any tax levied on the corporation.
An important subject area in economics called tax incidence says that the entity upon whom a tax is levied does not necessarily bear the burden of the tax. Some of the tax burden can be shifted to another party. That’s precisely what corporations do and as such they are merely government tax collectors.
Here’s another tax question: Which worker receives the higher pay: a worker on a road construction project moving dirt with a shovel or a worker moving dirt with a giant earthmover?
If you said the guy on the earthmover, go to the head of the class. But why? It’s not because he’s unionized or that employers just love earthmover operators. It’s because having more capital (tools) makes him more productive and therefore he earns higher wages.
It’s not rocket science to conclude that whatever lowers the cost of capital formation enables workers to have more capital to work with and enjoy higher wages. Policies that raise the cost of capital formation such as capital gains taxes, low depreciation allowances and high corporate income taxes, and thereby reduce capital formation, serve not the interests of workers, investors nor consumers.
Taxes also reduce transactions. I need my computer repaired. You and I agree that the job is worth $200. Suppose there’s the imposition of a 30% income tax on you. That means you would net only $140 and might refuse the job.
You might suggest that if I were willing to pay you $285, you would do the job because at that price your after-tax earnings will be $200 — what doing the job is worth to you.
There’s a problem. The repair job was worth $200 to me, not $285. So it’s my turn to say the heck with it. Or would we — and society — be better off if you and I agreed to the repair job but did not tell anybody? I’d say yes, but we’d be criminals.
You might wonder how congressmen can get away with taxes and other measures that reduce our prosperity potential. Part of the answer is the anti-business climate promoted in academia and the news media. The more important reason is that prosperity foregone is invisible.
In other words, we can never tell how much richer we would have been without today’s level of congressional interference in our lives and therefore don’t fight it as much as we should.
Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc
