The American STASI

Almost exactly a year ago, I wrote a post titled: “Welcome to the new Gulag, Comrade Citizen” that included this:

I’ve also said that Obamacare is the camel’s nose under the tent – that once the government takes responsibility for your health, they have a vested interest in controlling the factors that contribute to it. I was basically told by my opponents that I was insane, I was a crazycon, I just hated the poor, the sick and the old.

Well, lookie here at what is in the pages of the “we have to pass it to see what is in it” O-Care Act:

IRS officials on background tell FOX Business the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on health reform gives the IRS even more powers than previously understood.

The IRS now gets to know about a small business’s entire payroll, the level of their insurance coverage — and it gets to know the income of not just the primary breadwinner in your house, but your entire family’s income, in order to assess/collect the mandated tax.

Plus, it gets to share your personal info with all sorts of government agencies, insurance companies and employers.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. “We expect even more lien and levy powers,” an IRS official says. Even the Taxpayer Advocate is deeply concerned.

The IRS army will inexorably increase in size, too. The IRS will now add new agents to hunt down tax cheats, as it has been budgeted to spend $303.5 million building a new system, erected on the back of its old system, to oversee the effects of the health law, including making sure people get the new tax credits they deserve under the law.

As for the new IRS workers, the Government Accountability Office said the total will be about 4,500, with nearly 4,000 slated for enforcement.

Via Liz MacDonald at FOX Business here.

The “progressives” who tell any of us that O-Care “won’t do that” are liars. They are lying to us and to themselves because in a 2700 page bill that mandates agencies and boards that haven’t even been set up yet and administrative law that hasn’t been written, there is no way to know what the end effect will be…

I can’t even tell you, I’ll admit that – but we do have a historical model for what will happen.

There was once this modest little retirement plan that was conceived to provide a minimum level of support for people who had no investment plans – after the government mandated a retirement age.

Last year, that little “safety net” provided by the government (and its expansion into Medicare and Medicaid) accounted for 43% of the federal budget – roughly 1.56 billion dollars.

We also have this chart courtesy of the House Joint Economic Committee and ranking member, Sam Brownback:

Clear as mud? This is going to be great…

If the law stands, by 2017 this monster will consume the total resources of the federal government to such a degree that the “progressive” caucus will move to have it totally taken over by bureaucrats in Washington as a “cost management” effort and we will at last reach the original objective of this whole process: government controlled, single payer healthcare – and by 2025, all doctors will be employees of the federal state.

Perhaps the money isn’t even the most worrisome thing – the 4,000 “enforcement” agents are – these will 1) not be social workers – they are to be trained as IRS agents with the commensurate powers and 2) if you think that there will be only 4,000 of them, I own a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you. The original estimates at full implementation was 16,000 and that seems more likely.

Between the information systems that are required by the Act and the “enforcement agents”, Obama is creating the American version of the old East German secret police, the STASI.

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Just a question – if O-Care is so great and wonderful, a veritable heaven on steroids and speed, and everybody will just love it – why are “enforcement agents” even needed? Won’t everybody just comply in this new “progressive” Utopia?

64 thoughts on “The American STASI

    • Still workin’ on that one, sweetcakes. B got at some of it with his post about the IPAB (the payment board) yesterday.

      The office of the president is connected because of the massive amount of discretionary power vested in the cabinet position of the HHS Secretary, an unelected cabinet position, the occupant of which serves at the pleasure of the president.

      Happy 4th…don’t eat too much watermelon and remember to spit the seeds out or a watermelon will grow in your tummy…but there I go presuming again – I’ve never ascertained your swallow/spit position on watermelon seeds, now have I?

      • I just thought it odd that a line did not connect the president to congress, and that congress seems to have to take the back door to get to the secretary……

        Happy 4th to you, too! Ya grillin?

        Oh, they don’t grow in my stomach….

    • “Why isn’t the president connected with congress?” – because when he doesn’t get his way, he stomps around like a 5 year old, and then ultimately circumvents Congress all together.

      Hell, even an ever growing group of congressmen from his own party are distancing themselves from “Team Oblamer”.

  1. You should rdo more research before going to press

    here is the language from the bill–

    ‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
    any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
    by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any
    criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
    ‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary
    shall not—
    ‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property
    of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the
    penalty imposed by this section, or
    ‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to
    such failure.’’.

    These facts pretty much negates this whole piece, Utah.

    • Greg, while I will believe the print you have offered, I do believe the waver is something that is going to have be granted. This administration has already proven it’s willingness to prosecute (and be prosecuted) over this health care act. And the additional hiring of I.R.S. agents further proves the intent.

        • Aw Greg … don’t get all butt-hurt over my thoughts. After all, they a bred in part by Pelosi and her vehemently stating it was a punishable penalty against “dead beats” who will refuse to enter the exchange.

        • Now Greg, how can it be “truth” if they didn’t see it on Fox News or hear it from Rush? 🙂 Happy Fourth, by the way.

            • Surely Joe will jump in here and tell you what kind of fallacy you’ve just committed. Right, Joe?

          • Yeah, we would be just peachy if we got our news from Media Matters for America and that paragon of credibility, David Brock.

            • Surely your favorite fallacy cop will jump in here and tell you what kind of fallacy you’ve just committed. Right, Joe?

              • That was sarcasm, not logic…but I can see by your comments that you understand neither. I clearly stated that I could not assertively state where this is going but as I said, there are examples, assuming it does not get repealed, let us agree to save this post and in 2-3 years, we will see who was closer to the truth.

                • “sarcasm, not logic”

                  I realize that’s most of what’s offered here by you folks–but remember, I’ve been criticized repeatedly by Joe for engaging in the same behavior. Perhaps he’s the one who doesn’t “understand.”

                • Um, James….I don’t know how to break this to you, but I’ll try my best. Ya see, James; B. was abducted by aliens who removed his humour chip. (You probably didn’t realise we have that little chip, but we in fact do! ) It’s been quite painful trying to get him to understand a joke….What is an RNL girl to do? I spoke to him on counseling, but he claimed it was a fallacy (he may have a point, there.) We can only try, or to put it like B.: WE CAN ONLY TRY! (That would be in bold if I knew how.)

                  I shouldn’t comment cause I’m half-lit. But honestly, I believe Joe’s a good guy with good intentions (I just want to strangle him is all because of his course personality.) Here is his book that I’m reading.. http://www.amazon.com/Primer-Natural-Rights-Nature-ebook/dp/B006HKSZE0/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1341428991&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=stickand+twig

                  I like to play with boys….

                • “I believe Joe’s a good guy with good intentions.”

                  That’s one of the wonderful things about America–we don’t all have to believe the same things. 🙂

    • Just as I said, Greg – neither you nor McPherson can state with total certainty that this limits the activities under O-Care because they are still writing the rules and regulations – the administrative law – that will ultimately govern this process. The quotes I used did not come from me, nor did I make them up. Liz MacDonald got them directly from a source at the IRS. So, no, what you posted does not “negate” my post. The historical parallel with Social Security stands as well.

      Since you are such an expert on the government and regulation, please show me where the EPA’s powers of enforcement are for specific situations in the original bill that created it.

      You won’t be able to because just like the Social Security Act of 1936, the language of the bill got “interpreted” over the years to create the powers of the agency. I love to see you guys show absolute reverence for the letter of the law when challenged over something when you, yourself, Greg, just said the other day that the government has the power to do just about anything regarding health care because of 5 words in the Constitution – “to promote the General Welfare”.

      This is just an illustration of how convoluted your reasoning has to be to accept this. The SCOTUS called it a tax – Obamaites call it a penalty – even though you just said in the law that a penalty can’t be assessed. Somebody better tell the DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman “Sergeant” Shultz because she tole Wolf Blitzer that it is a penalty and our new health overlords will not tolerate non-compliance:

      “The way we usually think of taxation, Wolf, is that taxation as the IRS administers is collected on broad swaths and large categories of individuals,” Wasserman Schultz said. “This is a penalty that will be assessed on the tax return if you choose to roll the dice and make us all pay for your being irresponsible and increase all of our health care costs.”
      “We’re not going to tolerate that any more in America. You have to be responsible and you have to pay a penalty if you choose not to be,” she added.

      I think this pretty much negates your comment.

      • Why a “healthcare military” is required. “We’re not going to TOLERATE….”
        yes, yes, THEY are so tolerant of other’s views and choices…

      • Let me get this straight, it is OK for you to predict what the bill will bring about, but Mac and I cannot, because the administrative law is still being written.
        The fact is, I SHOWED you the language of the bill, and all you have is supposition based on a completely different bill and time. You may be right, but you aren’t right yet, so stop acting like a WWF contestant.

        Utah, you are becoming functionally illiterate. I gave a case name, explained how that case expanded the powers of Congress, by letting them define ‘Welfare”, and I get not even a thank you, just anger, because I am right and you are wrong.

        All the reasons I joined up here, comity, intelligent discussion, out-of-the-box thinking, have disappeared in the last few months, and the site has become indistinguishable from the other hundreds of ‘Obama-is-a-Muslim/Commie/Gangster’ sites that clog any Google search these days.

        • You are free to speculate as you wish but you have provided nothing but words from a bill drafted and passed by a group of people who have proven time and time again that they care little for the meaning of words if they get in the way of what they desire.

          I provided words that were purportedly spoken by an IRS source and quoted by FOX Business, texas has shown you where the word “penalty” shows up almost 100 times and that there is the provision for civil penalties (you cited criminal) and I provided examples of parallel programs that have grown far beyond the original language – so I believe that I have far more basis for my opinion than you do for yours – please show me a major social program that is the same size, smaller or was eliminated (and the cost actually went away) and you will have some credibility.

          I find it interesting that you accuse us of not wanting to hear the “truth” when you, yourself, can’t seem to handle a different opinion. You probably should go over to McPherson’s site to play, you can easily have your bias confirmed over there and you two can revel in your superior intellectual capacities while the rest of us will keep trying to protect you from yourselves.

        • “the site has become indistinguishable from the other hundreds of ‘Obama-is-a-Muslim/Commie/Gangster’ sites”

          Unfortunately, that’s what tends to happen when a small group of folks spends most of their time reinforcing each other, reading sources from only one perspective, while “defending themselves” and “protecting” others against “threats” that grow more and more farfetched. And just in case they run out of those threats, a while back I came up with a few more for them: http://jmcpherson.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/catholics-and-conservatives-campaign-against-mythical-threats/

            • And James, and G, and so far, all opposing viewpoints are allowed to comment and “discussed” with. Yes, yes, we don’t allow any opposing viewpoints…. Actually, I think we “appreciate the opposing viewpoints” as it allows makes us think, and yes James, even you show me my errors in my logic. Or when I write something which sends the wrong

            • Hardly, Joe. I criticize folks of all political persuasions on my site, and my list of links includes both liberal and conservative political sites and news sites.

        • “the site has become indistinguishable from the other hundreds of ‘Obama-is-a-Muslim/Commie/Gangster’ sites that clog any Google search these days”

          One other apparent commonality, based on an admittedly cursory reading of past posts–the Hitler/Nazi references also seem to be increasing.

  2. Greg, Have you read ALL of the pages to the healthcare bill. All of the references to OTHER legislations and regulations and understand the interplay amongst them all? I highly doubt it.

    I know you won’t believe me, and I could give you a simple/ straightforward example in the Texas Penal Code if you wish.

    One thing is written in one place of the bill. Later on, “buried” somewhere else, will be the actions and abilities which allow the Statists to FORCE you to their will.

    Oh yeah, with respect to those exemptions: How many hundreds of Democrat “friends and supporters” were granted exemptions from the healthcare bill? How many Republican friends and supporters were granted exemptions?

    The MARXISTS have written the law so they MAY enforce it against those they wish, and grant clemency to those that support their cause with the stroke of a pen or check of a box by our RULERS.

  3. G, enjoy,
    How can a law, which IS WRITTEN to treat different people differently, be “EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW” ?

  4. G,
    Your work in the shipping industry, right? How many EPA regulations are there that affect your “small” enterprise everyday?
    Now, think about 1/6 of the US economy, now “needing” new regulations to implement the INTENT of those who wrote a law which treats friends and supporters one way, and everyone else another way.

    I think I read somewhere, if you are a member of the “correct” union, or the correct religion, you are exempted also….

    Are you a member a “newly created protected class” and that is why you do not care………?

  5. @ Greg

    Page 83
    (Fact)
    “(1) MONETARY PENALTIES.—In any case in
    13 which the determination of an external review entity
    14 is not followed by a qualified health benefits plan,
    15 any person who, acting in the capacity of authorizing
    16 the benefit, causes such refusal may, in the discretion
    17 in a court of competent jurisdiction, be liable to an
    18 aggrieved participant, beneficiary, or enrollee for a
    19 civil penalty in an amount of up to $1,000 a day”

    Page 85
    (Fact)
    “13 (i) 25 percent of the aggregate value of
    14 benefits shown by the appropriate Secretary
    15 to have not been provided, or unlawfully de16
    layed, in violation of this section under
    17 such pattern or practice, or
    18 (ii) $500,000.”

    Page 214
    “1 by the Commissioner, the Commissioner may impose
    2 an additional penalty.”

    Page 229
    (Fact)
    “15 ‘‘(1) CIVIL PENALTIES.—In the case of any em16
    ployer who fails (during any period with respect to
    17 which the election under subsection (a) is in effect) to
    18 satisfy the health coverage participation requirements
    19 with respect to any employee, the Secretary may as20
    sess a civil penalty against the employer of $100 for
    21 each day in the period beginning on the date such
    22 failure first occurs and ending on the date such fail23
    ure is corrected.”

    Click to access BILLS-111hr3200rh.pdf

    Makes me wonder how many more times “penalty” appears in this 2454 page document.

    But Greg, I MUST ask you for a bit of logic here. Why oh heavens why would they write 192 penalties (according to the PDF search) into this bill without any plans to penalize? That’s a tremendous amount of effort … for nothing, don’tcha think? 🙂

  6. I haven’t weighed in on the penalty/tax question, as that is mostly republican hair-splitting but I appreciate your input anyway.

    • There is no “Republican hair splitting” – the distinction between a “mandate” a “tax” and a “penalty” have significance, not only in a connotative and denotive sense but a legal and political one as well. The “hair splitting” is being done by the supporters of the law because 1) a tax is unpopular, even Obama said that taxes during a recession are a dumb idea and if it is a tax, it exposes the disingenuous way that it got passed and 2) it can’t be a “penalty” or a “mandate” or it is not constitutional.

      Call it what it is – it’s out. Call it a tax and it is unpopular and likely would not have passed, especially with the elections of 2010 looming.

      • You are right in that calling it a tax is the way to get the bill repealed. Or all the governors could ignore the bill, as Gov. Scott intends to do, and it would be stuck in Limbo

        • Don’t for the the 18 more other Governors and counting out there that agree with Gov. Scott.

          Anyone care to bet how many states follow suit? I am predicting 28-30. 28 in total this week have announced they were weighing the notion. 18 of those have already committed.

        • “You are right in that calling it a tax is the way to get the bill repealed.”

          Disingenuous answer. History shows that calling it a tax was the way to get it upheld in the Supreme Court (but we have covered this already, and provided the audio samples).

    • “I haven’t weighed in on the penalty/tax question, as that is mostly republican hair-splitting but I appreciate your input anyway.”

      Shame on you for you to downtrodden the “penalty” portion of this discussion just because someone posted from the same bill a diametrically opposed version of your measured response means that you sir are too prideful to be genuine in the discussion.

      Remember, you were the one who chose to omit the flip side of the story to further your position in this game. Don’t get all hurt in the rear when someone else moves their chess piece as well.

  7. Are you a member a “newly created protected class” and that is why you do not care……

    I am not in any union, and my ‘class’ takes it on the chin quite regularly (lost our medical care, coast guard boardings at any time, etc.). In fact, if Congress ever declares war again, I will be in the same situation, unable to retire, as the doctors in your scenario above.

      • When i got my towing license, I could get free care at any charity hospital in the country. Then Reagan took that bennie away from us, in 82 or 83

        • Your telling me that Reagan took away the right for charity hospital to provide charity care? Please explain.

          • No, it didn’t become illegal to give charity directly to the poor until the Obama Administration. Look it up: in many cases, it is now. They want you to rout it through the govt – so THEY can control it…and you!

            • Never heard of that before, but Greg … there has never been, nor will there ever be, anything free. Someone eats the costs, even if it is not you my friend.

  8. Pingback: The American Stasi: Part Deux | The Rio Norte Line

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.