Barack Obama and the truth have rarely been seen in the same place at the same time. It's sort of like in the strange case of Superman and Clark Kent. The difference is that in Obama's case the reason is not that they are one and the same. Rather it is because they are oil and water. It's a shame that we didn't have Obama's second term agenda coupled with his first term record to relate during the first term and second term elections.
The over 2700 pages of the Affordable Healthcare Act (ObamaCare) were almost deep enough to hide the untruth of his claim of not raising taxes on the middle-class, but Nancy Pelosi should have added another thousand. In fact, ACA has raised taxes on everyone that purchases any item that falls under the classification of "medical device". According to the IRS, "a 'taxable medical device' is a device that is listed as a device with the FDA under section 510(j) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and 21 CFR part 807, pursuant to FDA requirements. If a device is not listed as a device with the FDA but the FDA determines that the device should have been listed as a device, the device will be deemed to be listed as a device with the FDA as of the date the FDA notifies the manufacturer or importer in writing that corrective action with respect to listing is required."
The tax is generally aimed at the manufacturer and importer levels of the medical community. Naturally, all costs associated with the acquisition, manufacture, transport, sale, and use of a product will always trickle down to the consumer. So, if a consumer requires the use of a qualifying device, then he or she pays the new 2.3% tax. Of course, every tax item requires handling in the form of accounting, collection, payment, and transfer. All of this requires the efforts of someone on both ends of each transaction. That means that the 2.3% is actually a bit shy of the amount that the consumer feels.
Some corporations are not hiding the new tax as most are. Cabela's is one that is not, with the charge appropriately appearing on its receipts as "Medical Excise Tax". Three cheers for Cabela's! In fact, tax visibility should be required in all financial transactions. This would be a great piece of legislation for any Tea Party candidate. Are you listening, Paul Ryan and Rand Paul?
ACA itself is a tax. Early in the debate over ObamaCare, the admistration made the claim that any charges to the public were not to be seen as new taxes. Rather, they were fees. ACA requires those without healthcare to purchase it. Some might even equate this forced participation to slavery. The Supreme Court agreed that this is a new, unprecedented estimated $65 billion tax. It is a tax on existence within the United States.
Barack Obama seems to think he knows what Jesus Christ would do. He claimed that Jesus would support his plan for taxing the rich at even higher rates. Christ actually told his followers to sell what they had and give to the church. His apostles selected good men to serve as officers of the church to minister to the widows. Notice, they did not call upon government to do this work.
And, this does not mean that we are to ourselves become paupers in order to feed the poor. To do that, would cause us to become a burden. The examples given imply that the posessions sold were more than was needed by the individual to make his living, or surplus. They were "lands" and "houses". But, what they retained, was also given freely to those in need in the Christian spirit.
Jesus also said that we would always have the poor with us. He knew that there would always be those that for one legitimate reason or another could not take care of themselves, and He provided for them through the church. He said that if a person would not work, then he should not eat. Jesus corrected his challengers about taxation saying that they should give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's.
The notion that a government should be the equalizer while it does everything it can to stifle Christianity in other ways, is hypocrisy in the highest form. It's been said that even Adolph Hitler had good days. A government that wants to force Catholics to pay for contraception is not a government that should be quoting scripture. A government that supports abortion is not a government that should be asking, "What would Jesus do?"
Reducing spending by even a paltry 2% and having that reduction be seen as boosting the economy is not a good thing in the eyes of a liberal democrat like Barack Obama. Obama's stated belief is that government is the source of prosperity. He believes that any reduction in federal spending hurts the economy. He feels strongly enough about this to lie about it.
According to PolitiFact, in a speech Obama made on Feb 19th, 2013, he said, "Emergency responders -- ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded. Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced. FBI agents will be furloughed. Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go."
PolitiFact, after consideraing all of the facts rates this claim as Mostly False. PolitiFact says, "It’s clear that U.S. Attorney’s offices are looking at a potential cut of $101 million, and a reduction of that size would almost certainly cut back on prosecutions in some fashion. However, the impacts are not as clear-cut as Obama’s bold language suggests. Officials will have a fair amount of discretion in prioritizing what types of cases prosecutors will pursue, possibly cutting back on civil cases rather than criminal ones. And the cuts taking place in U.S. Attorney's offices wouldn't directly affect "criminals" at all, but rather suspects and targets of prosecution who haven't had their guilt determined yet. These represent significant exaggerations, so we rate the claim Mostly False."
The sequester actually coincided with a tremendous surge in the stock market. It went into effect on March 1, 2013. The DOW has risen about 600 points since then. Prior to the sequester, the market was erratic at best, but mostly flat. Now, Obama is claiming a great victory in its rise to record levels.
So, then we are forced to realize that either Barack Obama does not believe in sound economic policy or he will not agree with sound economic policy. In either case, the result is that sound economic policy is not followed. In this rare case, the administration was forced by law to go along with somewhat conservative principles in a slight lowering of spending.
The result is something of a confirmation of what happened during the Reagan era. Taxes were reduced, the economy boomed, and conservative economics was proven. Obama, forced to go against his beliefs, has overseen a benefit to the economy. As time goes by, this writer is confident that we will see further evidence that reducing spending has returned investor confidence to the US economy.