A LITTLE REBELLION

The US Empire, Unmasked

Watch this video about the largest wealth-confiscating, liberty-destroying government program in the history of the world: the US Empire. It truly is a monster, turning boys into killers, countries into mountains of skulls, and sucking out the soul of the last vestiges of true American liberty. War, as Randolph Bourne famously said, truly is the health of the state. 

The State: Just Another Natural Disaster

Even during a natural disaster like a hurricane or earthquake, the anarchic nature of order arises to help clean up the mess.

Joel Bowman, writing in The Daily Reckoning blog, notes that in the flood-stricken state of Queensland, Australia, it is the result of the voluntary actions of the people on the ground doing precisely the exact opposite of what the government recommends that restores order and peace.

There are countless examples of natural disasters being quickly and effectively handled without (and despite of) state intervention. But what also rarely gets brought up about the damaging effects of natural disasters is that countries with free market economies (or at least some resemblance of a capitalist structure) are richer, and therefore have stronger buildings, more money to give away, more time to volunteer, and a better ability to foresee and predict Mother Earth's occasional angry outbursts.

For example, Haiti and Chile had very similar size earthquakes last year (about 7.1). Haiti, a country ruled by political parasites that strangle Haitian freedom, was torn to pieces. After the earthquake hit Chile, there was definitely lots of property destruction and displaced people. But with it's comparatively freer economy, Chileans were far better able to bounce back.

It appears that as cruel as Mother Earth can be, there is no natural disaster quite like the state.

Ending the State in 30 Days

Stefan Molyneaux speaking at Freedom Summit 2010 explains:

 

Christian-Muslim Solidarity in Egypt

Christians and Muslims are uniting in solidarity against the US's sock puppet Pharoah Mubarak and his American tax-slave funded secret police, tortures, and looters.

 

(Protesters on the streets of Cairo lock arms. It's only a matter of time before the host kicks the parasite out. Now if only we could do that here in the USSA!)

We Need More Government

435 members in the House of Representatives is far too few to represent the interests of the people, argues Joe Wolverton at The New American. Why not 1,000? or 4,000? It would allow more common citizens to run for Congress, make statist and thousand-page legislation much harder to pass, and lobbyists and special interests would find it a lot tougher to buy off that many Congressman. We need more government!

Last Sunday the New York Times published on op-ed piece advocating an increase in the size of the House of Representatives. Not the chamber itself, mind you, but the number of representatives serving therein.The co-authors, Dalton Conley and Jacqueline Stevens, assert that the House has “lost touch with the public and been overtaken by special interests.”

After pointing out that the current number of representatives — 435 — is set not by Constitutional mandate, but rather by statute, Conley and Stevens rightly present the cold, hard figures that strain the definition of “representation.”

First, perhaps one wonders how we arrived at the magic number of 435 to begin with. It is because of laws passed by Congress in 1911 and in 1929. At the time of the debate on the bill setting the arbitrary limit on the number of representatives, one clear-thinking congressmen made the following observation:

The bill seeks to prescribe a national policy under which the membership of the House shall never exceed 435 unless Congress, by affirmative action, overturns the formula and abandons the policy enunciated by this bill. I am unalterably opposed to limiting the membership of the House to the arbitrary number of 435. Why 435? Why not 400? Why not 300? Why not 250, 450, 535, or 600? Why is this number 435 sacred? What merit is there in having a membership of 435 that we would not have if the membership were 335 or 535? There is no sanctity in the number 435 … There is absolutely no reason, philosophy, or common sense in arbitrarily fixing the membership of the House at 435 or at any other number.

The opinion piece agrees:

The result [of the law passed in 1911 that set the number of representatives at 435] is that Americans today are numerically the worst-represented group of citizens in the country’s history. The average House member speaks for about 700,000 Americans. In contrast, in 1913 he represented roughly 200,000, a ratio that today would mean a House with 1,500 members – or 5,000 if we match the ration the founders awarded themselves.

A Voluntary Society

I have found that one of the biggest roadblocks in advocating a stateless society (or stateless solutions to societal problems) is one of practicality. How could security, police and fire protection, courts, and other services currently monopolized by state possibly be supplied by the voluntary mechanisms of the free market?

Well this video that I saw at the LRC blog attempts to answer some of these questions. The most important thing to remember is that once you take the state gun (and it's inherent initiation of force or coercion) out of the picture, the possibilites for solutions to society's complex and intimate problems become much more ethical, cheaper, and efficient.

 

The Case For Relegalizing Drugs

(Via PolicyMic.com)

In American political culture, it is hard to find an issue or debate in which the concept of "freedom" is not invoked. We are told that our troops fight for it, that the government protects it, and that America, sine her inception, has been dedicated it.

But like most phrases that leak out of the mouths of politicians or the corporate talking heads in the media, there is very little substance behind it. And we as a society claim to value the liberty of the individual, yet have been derelict, or passively indifferent, to it's actual application and defense.

Take, for example, the now decades long "war on drugs." Of course, goes the common narrative, the government should ban or heavily regulate the consumption and sale of drugs. They're dangerous. And even kids might use them!

But the moral and philosophical implications of drug prohibition (or any prohibition) state that the government has an ownership claim to all or a portion of your body and the decisions an individual chooses to make regarding his/her body. In "the land of the free," this is the ultimate denial of freedom.

The prospect of all drugs being legal and available is a frightening concept to most precisely because we have been conditioned to accept restrictions on freedom for vague abstractions like "the public good," and have embraced the chains of our servitude. Freedom is responsibility, which makes us uneasy to accept the consequences of it.

But all we need to is look in our not so distant past to see what drug legalization would look like.  Before WW1 all drugs were legal and sold on the market like any other product. It wasn't perfect, of course, as there were addicts and many other problems that accompany the use of hard and addictive drugs. But as Jacob Huebert points out in Libertarianism Today:

And although America did have addicts in the nineteenth century (perhaps as much as 0.5 percent of the population), there are some things it notably did not have. Most important, there was virtually none of the violence, death, and crime we associate with the present-day drug problem. Most drug users were not street criminals; instead, the typical addict was, as author Mike Gray put it, "a middle-aged Southern white woman strung out on laudanum." Many or most opium addicts led more or less normal lives to keep their addiction hidden.

This is because a culture of freedom tends to breed a culture of responsibility.

Even if the moral virtues of liberty and individual choice when applied to drug use don't convince, then there are many tangible events that suggest major reform is needed. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a group of current and former members of law enforcement advocating drug legalization, know first hand how drug prohibition increase crime rates, gangs, cartels and distract police from prosecuting real violations of persons and property.

Or what about the case of Portugal, who decriminalized drugs and is witnessing a decrease in drug crime and addiction? Or how drug prohibition has directly related to the spread of crystal meth?

As Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." It's time we applied this wisdom to our drug policy.

California Judge Defends Gun Rights

Just days before former California Governor Arnold "I was addicted to being Governor" Schwarzenegger's awful ammunition registration bill would have taken place, a California judge declared the law unconstitutional.

Gun rights supporters won a major legal victory last week when a California judge struck down as unconstitutional a law that they say would have effectively banned online sales of handgun ammunition just days before it was to have taken effect.

Surprising, yes, considering California is such a "liberal" state, and as the story reports, this decision will likely have a huge effect on California's large market for online ammunition sales.

So load up, folks, because although this is definitely a victory for gun rights, governments are always salivating at the thought of disarming us while simultaneously heavily arming their costumed thugs.

State of the Statists

 

San Francisco's Sit/Lie Law: the Signs of a Police State?

Last April, I blogged about San Francisco's "sit/lie" law and all the things that are wrong with it.

By having the privilege of being able to see a lot of San Francisco on a daily basis, I can see why an issue like this would be of interest to city officials. The amount of panhandlers and homeless on the streets is staggering and sad, but when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

The law essentially makes it a crime to sit or lie on public sidewalks, which is a typical government response (pass a law!) to a problem largely created by government.

For example, how many of San Francisco's (or any other major city) homeless are veterans that were sent thousands of miles away in a war to kill and die for a government that routinely denies them basic medical care when they get back? Or what about old government legislation, passed during WW2, that forced employers to provide health insurance, thus individuals losing both if fired? Or the permanent underclass that is created by the government's insane prohibition of drugs?

It truly is exhausting cataloging the extent in which state intervention into society has incredibly harmful, counterproductive, and often unforeseen consequences, but even more frustrating that the solution to these problems is always....more laws, more force, more government.

And as it turns out, as this Alternet article explains, this law that kicked in last month was propelled by wealthy donors and business interests eager to shift the burden onto a coercive third party with very police-stateish implications. Corruption and crooked collusion in government? Who knew?

I know the "officials" and big, important people in the San Francisco city government (or any government) could ever contemplate the idea that they are fundamentally incapable of solving social problems, but I have a simple solution: stay as far away from this issue as possible; the more you do, the worse it gets.

For starters, why not lessening (or even eliminating!) the restrictions on starting businesses and acquiring employment, from licensing to the infinite amount of regulations and fees to minimum wage laws. All of these discourage economic growth and the free marketplace and make a life selling drugs or engaging in violent crime that much more appealing.

And secondly, give back the money taken from us through taxation so that we may spend it (and donate it) in the manner we see fit. That way we can volunteer, give money to charities, and provide for those less fortunate than us in the most moral and efficient way possible: voluntarily.

The TSA, Gun Control, and Drunk Driving Laws

They're all based on the same totalitarian, pre-crime principle, says Eric Peters:

Consider: You are liable to arrest for “drunk driving” in America today even if you aren’t driving at all. You merely have to be in your car – even if you’re in the passenger seat and the car is parked. People who have had one too many and decided to sleep it off in their car have been arrested for DWI just the same as if they had been straddling the double yellow at 65 MPH with a gin and tonic in one hand and their left leg hanging out the window.

The courts have said that drinking “x” amount of alcohol not only defines “impairment” – it also amounts to intent to drive drunk, whether you’re driving or not. And that intent- imputed, perceived, ginned-up out of nothingness –  is what matters. 

Is it really a great leap to imagine that political speech – hatriolic speech, as it is being styled – will soon be treated the same way? That to say or even to think  something – anything – that smacks of criticism of government and its flunkies will shortly be regarded as tantamount to shooting people?

Gun laws – and the TSA – already operate on this principle.

You have no record of criminal misconduct or mental illness. You’re a taxpayer, a responsible citizen. Yet in several states (and of course, Washington, D.C.) you’re assumed to have criminal intent, and thus, denied the right to own a firearm. If you possess one anyway – even if you have done nothing with it to harm or even threaten to harm another person – then you’re subject to being cuffed and stuffed just the same as if you had actually used it to threaten or harm others.

Pre-crime again.

The TSA subjects people at random – and en masse – to rough and humiliating searches, including invasive physical pat downs, just like cops do to felony suspects. Not because of anything they’ve actually done or even hinted they may do but only because the TSA apes impute “terrorist intent” to anyone who desires to travel by commercial airplane.

Ipso facto.

Just like having a drink before you drive makes you a “drunk” driver – no matter how good your actual driving happens to be.

We’ve upended perhaps the most basic concept of Western jurisprudence – that for their to be a crime, or wrongdoing, there must be an actual criminal act, or wrongdoing.

But a society that embraced the tar baby of pre-emptive wars should not be surprised to wake up one day to find it is now also snuggling the concept of pre-crime – with all its consequences. God bless America. Land of the Free.

What Happened to the Antiwar Movement?

From Reason.TV:

 

The Silver Lining of the Obama Administration: A Left/Right Coalition?

(Via PolicyMic.com)

In his recent piece concerning the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency, Samuel Hamilton argues that President Obama should be praised for his legislative victories and his ability to compromise on important issues. Obama's accomplishments or failures can be (and have been) debated ferociously, and Hamilton makes some excellent points about how much criticism of Obama has been unfair and partisan.

Halfway through his first term, what the Obama presidency is accomplishing has less to do with the utility of his proposed policies, but more to do with the fact these policies are bringing a welcome and radical ideological shift.

When former presidential candidate Ralph Nader appeared on Andrew Napolitano's "Freedom Watch" last week and lavishly praised Republican Congressman Ron Paul and the "conservative/libertarian wing of the Tea Party," there emerged the silver lining of the Obama administration: the possibility of a Left/Right coalition that could shake up American political discourse for years to come.

Despite Obama's sobering rhetoric, his insistence on fulfilling President George W. Bush's third term is warping the traditional partisan divide. Obama, the "liberal Democrat," has extended the PATRIOT Act, expanded the war in Afghanistan and spread it into Pakistan, is launching unmanned drone strikes in multiple countries, and has drastically increased cartelizing state intervention into the marketplace.

As dangerous and counterproductive as these policies are, they are having the unintentional consequence of disrupting the outdated liberal/conservative divide.

When it comes to policy, liberals and conservatives in power vary little, and every few years they swap control of the federal government and reward the political interests that helped get them elected. This "divide-and-conquer" strategy has been used for centuries, where citizens bicker and quarrel with one another while ignoring those in power that tax, loot, spend, and bury them in debt.

Thanks to the spread of the Internet and the availability of nearly instantaneous information, issues are beginning to be framed not in Left or Right, but in terms of individual liberty vs. government control.

For example, in a poll taken last December, a significant majority of Americans supported auditing the counterfeiters at the Federal Reserve. Coincidentally, a bill (HR 1207) proposed on the House floor by Congressman Paul (R-TX)  that aimed to audit the Fed received support from arch-conservative Senator Jim Demint (R-SC) and admitted socialist Bernie Sanders (I-VT). HR 1207 currently has over 320 co-sponsors in the House, which also means that there a lot of Congressmen who love having their own printing presses in order to sell F-22s and bailout crooked banks.

What do Left and Right exactly mean when Noam Chomsky and Naomi Wolf are criticizing the Obama administration for it's economic corporatism and expansion of Bush's "war on terror" and conservatives are supporting gay marriage and the financial costs of military empire?

Since 21st century America resembles the Soviet Empire more than the peaceful, commercial Republic Thomas Jefferson envisioned, Left and Right are recognizing that it is coercive state power that lies at the heart of the mess we're in. It is radical, yes, but a system of government that imprisons millions, takes half of your income, and wages perpetual war deserves a radical opposition.

Restoring the Bill of Rights, stopping corporate welfare, sound money, starving the Pentagon; these are things Americans (especially younger generations) are getting behind now that they are refusing to be boxed into labels of Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative.

So thank you Mr. Obama (and you neocons too) for digging us into an even deeper mess. You have bankrupted our grandchildren and left foreign cities in ashes, and we're fed up. You have shown the American people that Democrat bombs maim just like Republican bombs, that deficits and violations of personal liberty grow no matter who is in charge.

In other words, there is no such thing as "abusing power;" power itself is the abuse. And with every new war and corporatist law, a Left/Right coalition with this axiom as its flag will only grow.

David Rockefeller Gets Pwned

David Rockefeller, who worked with the CIA when the US overthrew the democratically-elected Salvador Allende and installed the fascist Augusto Pinochet in 1973, gets a warm reception in Chile on his recent vacation.

 

Spontaneous Order

From Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man:"

Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government.

And here are some great videos demonstrating Paine's insights into the spontaneous nature of order in not only human society, but at a subatomic level as well.

 

 

 

 

 

Family Hit With 'Death Tax' For Baby Who Lived Only One Hour

Other than fact that taxation is slavery and the initiation of force on every individual's life, liberty, and property, this is just one more reason on why the "death tax" (indeed, ALL taxation) needs to be abolished. Nietzsche referred to the state as "a cold, cruel monster," and it's hard to find a better example than this story:

 

Democratic Double Standards in California

MyGovCost.org, a great website dedicated to showing what "our" government does with the money it forcibly confiscates from us and how corrupt our benevolent political masters are, explains the double standards being used by incoming California Governor Jerry Brown and California Democrats. Shocking, I know:

Governor Jerry Brown is proposing measures to balance the California state budget, including cutting $12.5 billion in spending and extending $12 billion in expiring taxes. The politically ambitious move from the new governor involves a sequencing of three legislative parts. The legislature would pass spending cuts, voters would then be able to vote in a special election to extend certain tax rates, and afterward the legislature would pass a final budget. However, Brown’s proposal faces trouble.

As the Christian Science Monitor reports, passing the state spending cuts could require a super-majority of two-thirds to get past the legislature. Often requiring a simple majority vote or less to determine government spending of taxpayer dollars, this appears to be a double standard.

There are good reasons for having some democratic double standards, albeit the opposite of what Gov. Brown may be up against. Rules determine the scale, scope, and distribution of political power. The nature of the political process is to transfer wealth to concentrated, powerful groups and away from dispersed and uninformed individuals. Taxpayers seeking to protect themselves and their heirs from political interest groups would be wise to advocate a reverse double standard—mandating a two-thirds vote for any new spending initiatives and allowing a simple majority vote for spending cuts.

In other words, it should be difficult to take and spend other people’s money and easier to cut back programs that are unfunded, unwanted, too ambitious or inefficient. Instead, the rules of the game currently favor the government’s proclivities to dig deep into our wallets and the savings accounts of the young.

Banned From SNL

When it comes to shooting yourself in the foot, there is no one quite like the Replacements.

Although the 'Mats had a very loyal and vast cult following, they enjoyed very minimal commercial success. So when they were invited to play on Saturday Night Live in 1986, it was seen as a great chance for more exposure and fame.

But as they were prone to do, they showed up to their performance shitfaced drunk, frontman Paul Westerberg cursed multiple times while playing, and they were subsequently banned from SNL.

But somehow, I think, this is the only way Westerberg would have wanted it. From making music videos that only showed a speaker for three and a half minutes to playing songs at shows their "punk" fans hated, Westerberg and his bandmates thrived on intentionally disappointing the people that were supposed to "make them big." All the while making some of the best music known to man, always chuckling and snickering as they did it.

Here's the Replacements playing the Chuck Berryish "Kiss Me on the Bus" on SNL:

And after swapping clothes with each other, here they are again playing "Bastards of Young:"

 Although they were banned from SNL for these drunken (but beautiful) messes, in 1993 Paul Westerberg was invited back to perform his classic song (and one of my favorite 'Mats songs) "Can't Hardly Wait" with the SNL band playing behind him. By this time, Westerberg had sobered up, quit drinking, and delivered an amazing performance:

Can't Hardly Wait
Uploaded by mmr421. - See the latest featured music videos. 

A Real Budget Cut: Ending the Afghan War

(This is my first article as Contributing Writer for PolicyMic.com)

Now that politicians are being forced to deal with the realization that the U.S. government is nearly $14 trillion in debt, they are scrambling to find ways to tighten their belts. Congress is debating on whether or not to increase the debt ceiling and incoming Republicans have suggested trimming $100 billion from the budget.

Any substantial policy moves to address this debt will likely leave no one happy, especially if drastic reductions are made to social welfare programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has a suggestion, and is patting himself on the back for vowing to cut $78 billion from the Pentagon budget. In reality, however, what these "cuts" mean is that Gates will stop increasing the Pentagon's already bloated $500 billion a year budget for the next few years. Gates' supposed "cuts" also will not decrease the amount currently being spent on U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Only in DC, Orwellian double-speak could a Pentagon "cut" that ignores hundreds of billions of dollars and multiple wars be considered progress. This immediately begs the question, considering 43% of every dollar Washington spends is borrowed: why not cut funding for the war in Afghanistan that is costing us $100 million a day?

The Afghan war is now in its tenth year, making it the longest war in U.S. history, and there is very little to show for the billions that have been spent. The justifications for staying are also becoming murkier.

According to the Obama Administration, most members of Congress, and the media, the U.S. military must stay in Afghanistan in order to prevent Al Qaeda from establishing a "safe haven" with which they can launch attacks against the U.S. But as CIA Director Leon Panetta has admitted, "only 50 to 100, maybe less" Al Qaeda remain in Afghanistan. Plus, the 9/11 attacks were planned in Hamburg, Germany and Florida, which were the only "safe havens" Al Qaeda ever needed.

Not only is the Pentagon spending billions bombing an enemy that isn't there, U.S. intervention has been terribly counterprodutive. Former Afghan General Stanley McChrystal, in an interview with Rolling Stone Magazine, remarked "for every innocent person you kill, you create ten new enemies." Insurgent math, he calls it, and this can only lead to blowback and harm to U.S. troops.

What about the justification, held by loyal Obama-ites like Code Pink, that "women's rights" are being secured in Afghanistan by the U.S. military presence? The Revolutionary Association of the Women in Afghanistan (RAWA) would definitely object, and in a 2010 report detailed how the U.S. occupation has been absolutely detrimental for women's rights.

Even prominent conservatives, who have been staunch supporters of the war, are beginning to question it.

When held under a microscope, the reasons for staying wither under the pressure of logic and common sense. Corruption and waste are an integral part of the Afghan war, from it's pathetic justifications to the millions made by merchants of death, all of which are hitched to the backs of the American taxpayer.

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security suffer similar problems; they are, after all, government programs, Ponzi schemes of debt and waste that make Bernie Madoff look like a frugal and honest businessman.

But before we cut programs that ocassionally help people, it's time to take a machete, not a scalpel, to the main source of our financial crisis: the war in Afghanistan, the Pentagon's military socialism, and the institutional structures of our unsustainable empire.

Obamacare Tax Hikes

Via Americans for Tax Reform:

Next week, the U.S. House of Representatives will be voting on an historic repeal of the Obamacare law.  While there are many reasons to oppose this flawed government health insurance law, it is important to remember that Obamacare is also one of the largest tax increases in American history.  Below is a comprehensive list of the two dozen new or higher taxes that pay for Obamcare’s expansion of government spending and interference between doctors and patients.

Individual Mandate Excise Tax(Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following

	1 Adult	2 Adults	3+ Adults
2014	1% AGI/$95	1% AGI/$190	1% AGI/$285
2015	2% AGI/$325	2% AGI/$650	2% AGI/$975
2016 +	2.5% AGI/$695	2.5% AGI/$1390	2.5% AGI/$2085

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS)

Employer Mandate Tax(Jan 2014):  If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees.  This provision applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013):  This increase involves the creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single).  This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income

	Capital Gains	Dividends	Other*
2010	15%	15%	35%
2011-2012 (current law)	20%	39.6%	39.6%
2011-2012 (Obama budget)	20%	20%	39.6%
2013+ (current law)	23.8%	43.4%	43.4%
2013+ (Obama budget)	23.8%	23.8%	43.4%

 

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations.  It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income.  It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans.  The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.

Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). For early retirees and high-risk professions exists a higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family).  CPI +1 percentage point indexed.

Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:

	First $200,000 ($250,000 Married) Employer/Employee	All Remaining Wages Employer/Employee
Current Law	1.45%/1.45% 2.9% self-employed	1.45%/1.45% 2.9% self-employed
Obamacare Tax Hike	1.45%/1.45% 2.9% self-employed	1.45%/2.35% 3.8% self-employed

Medicine Cabinet Tax($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap of $2500 (Indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited). . There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.  Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. 

Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax.  Exemptions include items retailing for less than $100. 

Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI).  The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI; it is waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.

Tax on Indoor Tanning Services($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons

Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D($4.5 bil/Jan 2013)

Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services

Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals(Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS

Tax on Innovator Drug Companies($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.

Tax on Health Insurers($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. The stipulation phases in gradually until 2018, and is fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.

$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives($0.6 bil/Jan 2013)

Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2(Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting($17.1 bil/Jan 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers

“Black liquor” tax hike(Tax hike of $23.6 billion).  This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel.

Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”(Tax hike of $4.5 billion).  This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed.