Obama's Climate Change Agenda--Can America Afford It Or Does He Even Care?

Obama's Climate Change Agenda

by Henry W. Burke

2.01.13

http://educationviews.org/obamas-climate-change-agenda/

INTRODUCTION

Many environmentalists have changed the term "global warming" to "global climate change" because they have not been able to decide whether the earth is getting warmer or cooler.  The new invented term of "global climate change" is a "safe bet" for them because it covers either situation.

No authentic scientific data proves that there is a correlation between man-made carbon dioxide (CO₂) and global warming, and there is also no proof that the current warming trend is caused by the rise of man-made CO₂. 

If all of the Antarctica ice melted, sea levels would rise around the world about 200 feet; but because the average temperature in Antarctica is -37^o C, the ice there is never going to melt.  In fact, the Antarctica has broken the record for the greatest sea ice extent ever measured at either pole.  Additionally, glaciers are getting larger on K-2, the second highest mountain in the world.

When the Obama Administration's "Cap and Tax" bill failed in 2009, they simply made an end run around Congress and turned to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to accomplish what they could not do through legislative means.

The EPA has undertaken a significant power grab by declaring that greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide) endanger human health and threaten the environment.  The EPA's plan to regulate carbon dioxide (CO₂) would cause $7 trillion in lost activity and the loss of 3 million jobs!

Background

In Barack Obama's Inaugural Address on January 21, 2013, he stated:

We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.  Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.  

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/21/inaugural-address-president-barack-obama

Based on this address and his past actions, it is obvious that Obama has bought the global warming lie and is using this to further his income redistribution and "sustainable energy" agenda. 

Global warming proponents (like Al Gore) have been making dire predictions that the polar ice caps and glaciers are rapidly melting, which will result in rising sea levels and flooding of the coastal cities.  They claim that tornadoes and hurricanes are getting worse, and polar bears are becoming extinct.  The global warming advocates are telling us that mankind is doomed unless we take immediate drastic actions.

When it comes to global warming, raw subjectivity has replaced the scientific method.  Many scientists and researchers began with preconceived notions and theories and then proceeded to find ways to support them.  Ideology is controlling the conclusions instead of true science.

I will provide a reasoned, logical and factual approach to global warming.  Scientific facts are extremely important when we are making decisions that impact our economy and country.

Author's Experience in Air Pollution Control

I served as a Sanitary Engineer in the National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA) from 1968 to 1970.  Our group developed air quality criteria documents for various air pollutants (sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide, particulate matter, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxidants, and nitrogen oxides).  We also formulated air quality control standards and approved regional air quality standards.  Shortly after I left the organization, NAPCA was integrated into the newly created Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Most people would agree that today's air quality is much better than it was 40 years ago.  I am proud that I played a small part in cleaning up our nation's air.  Many civil engineers spend their careers designing and building systems that improve the quality of our air and water.  I know that clean air is important; however, I strongly believe that our approach should be based on sound science, not on political ideology and "junk science."

The Greenhouse Effect

The greenhouse effect is real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet.  It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they trap heat in the lower atmosphere).  The Earth’s greenhouse effect is good because it keeps the Earth warm and makes our planet habitable.  Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18 ºC) instead of its present 57 ºF (14 ºC).  If the Earth did not have the greenhouse effect, it would probably look a lot like Mars! 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html#q1

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) make up about 1 % - 2 % of the Earth’s atmosphere.  Approximately 95 % of the greenhouse gases are water vapor; 3.62 % are carbon dioxide (CO₂); and 1.38 % are other gases.  Stated differently, CO₂ makes up about 0.04 % of the Earth’s atmosphere.

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

What are the sources of CO₂?  Carbon dioxide is a by-product of the combustion of organic matter.  Nature contributes 96.6 % of the annual CO₂ emissions, and humans produce 3.4 % of the emissions.  Several sources contribute to the greenhouse effect.  Water vapor provides 95 %; ocean biologic activity, volcanoes, decaying plants, animal activity, etc. contribute 4.72 %; and humans contribute 0.28 % of the greenhouse effect.  In other words, humans are responsible for about one-quarter of 1 percent of the greenhouse effect.

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming

The basic premise (first assumption) behind global warming is that increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO₂) are causing the Earth’s atmosphere to become warmer.  The NCPA report indicates:

Over long periods of time, there is no close relationship between CO₂ levels and temperature.  The Earth’s average temperature has risen a little less than 1^oC over the past century.  Although almost half of this warming occurred before 1940, greenhouse gas emissions began to rise substantially only after the 1950s.

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

The second assumption with global warming is that CO₂ is a poison.  I have never seen a health effect study that showed CO₂ was a poison and was harmful to humans.  When we were developing air quality criteria documents in NAPCA for the various air pollutants, we would have ridiculed anyone who suggested that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant!  CO₂ is not an air pollutant and it is not a poison! 

We exhale CO₂ and much of it is taken up by plants.  Actually, about 40 % of CO₂ is reabsorbed by plants and trees.  The statistics on carbon dioxide emissions usually disregard the percentage that is reabsorbed by plants.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2038

The third assumption is that climate change models can actually predict the atmospheric temperature.  These models produce drastically different results and are highly inconsistent.  The climate model graphs in the NCPA publication show dramatically different predictions, ranging from 1 ^oC to 5 ^oC temperature increases from 1990 to 2050.  Several other climate models predicted a warmer 1990s, but that decade actually turned out to be slightly cooler.  The warming proponents' climate models have been abysmal failures!

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

The key to the global warming alarmists’ work is to tie increasing atmospheric temperatures to higher levels of CO₂, but not just any CO₂; it must be CO_­2   produced by human activities (anthropogenic). 

Have the global warming proponents considered the effects of solar activity on the earth’s temperature?  Why have the global warmers largely ignored the temperature readings taken from satellites? 

Many environmentalists are using the term “global climate change” instead of “global warming.”  Apparently they haven’t decided whether the earth is getting warmer or cooler; with the new term, they are covered either way.  Also, they can throw tornadoes, hurricanes, forest fires, and droughts into the mix under the broader "climate change" label. 

Even though some environmentalists try to say that global warming causes an increase in hurricane activity, scientific evidence does not support this theory.  There is no correlation between man-made CO₂ and hurricanes, tornadoes, precipitation, drought, forest fires, or human disease.

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/

Global Temperature Trends

For nearly 50 years, and through literally thousands of research papers presented in the refereed scientific literature, scientists established that the earth’s climate has hardly been stable or constant.  Between 4,000 and 7,000 years ago, the earth’s mean temperature was some 1-2 degrees Celsius (1-2 ºC) higher than it is today, for largely unknown reasons.

http://www.independent.org/pdf/policy_reports/2003-07-28-climate_report.pdf

Three distinct categories of temperature records are gathered: surface, satellites, and weather-balloons.  Even though the satellite and weather balloon data are collected in different ways, there is very good agreement.

Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys, and gliders in the oceans.  These surface measurements are also supplemented with earth-orbiting satellite measurements. Weather balloons have been used to measure the earth's temperature since the late 1940s; satellites have been recording the earth's temperature since 1979. 

These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change.

The (U.S.) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) operates the National Climatic Data Center.  According to a recent report (Global Climate Change Indicators):

            Global average temperature is one of the most-cited indicators of global climate change, and shows an increase of approximately 1.4°F since the early 20^th Century. 

          [This is 0.78 ºC per century, or 0.078 ºC per decade.]

            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

The Cato Institute report states that the rate of warming observed from surface stations is 0.28 º F per decade.  During the period of overlapping observations, the rate of warming in the troposphere measured by satellites is 0.25 º F per decade.

[This would be 2.5 º F per century]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/Global-Climate-Change-Impacts.pdf

Contiguous United States Temperatures

NOAA also provides temperature data for the Contiguous United States.  When a researcher is analyzing temperature trends, the variables must be considered.  The base period, starting and ending dates, and filters will affect the results.  From the NOAA website, the following temperature trends are obtained:

1.  1895 - 2012 Data Values, Base Period is 1961 - 1990:

          Trend = 0.09 ºF per decade (0.05 ºC per decade)

2.  1950 - 2012 Data Values, Base Period is 1961 - 1990:

          Trend = 0.44 ºF per decade (0.24 ºC per decade)

3.  1970 - 2012 Data Values, Base Period is 1961 - 1990:

          Trend = 0.51 ºF per decade (0.28 ºC per decade)

4.  1997 - 2012 Data Values, Base Period is 1961 - 1990:

          Trend = - 0.71 ºF per decade (- 0.39 ºC per decade)

For the full period from 1895 to 2012, the temperature trend is 0.09 ºF per decade.  For the much shorter recent period from 1997 to 2012, the temperature trend is (a declining) - 0.71 ºF per decade.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming?

Temperatures are increasing somewhat as we recover from the "Little Ice Age" that occurred in the early 1800s.  It may become warmer without any human assistance. 

Global average surface temperatures increased approximately 0.7 ºF in the early part of the Twentieth Century (1910 - 1945), before changing atmospheric composition (added CO₂) could have had much influence on the climate.  In mid-century, temperatures fell slightly.  From 1977 - 1997, global temperatures increased another 0.7 ºF.  In 1998, a very strong El Nino event resulted in record temperatures in 1998.  The rate of warming at the surface is about 0.28 ºF per decade.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/Global-Climate-Change-Impacts.pdf

Noted atmospheric physicist Dr. Fred Singer points out that the World Meteorological Organization (UN-WMO) purposely confuses two different concepts -- global temperatures and global temperature trends. 

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2682

Dr. Singer stated:

The current warming trend is not unusual: Climate is always either warming or cooling, and ice is either melting or accumulating…The human contribution to global warming appears to be quite small and natural climate factors are dominant.

There is no proof at all that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activities, such as the generation of energy from the burning of fuels.

          (Letter to the Editor: The Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2006)

            http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1945

Estimates show that CO₂ levels have risen about 35 % since the beginning of the industrial revolution with more than 80 % of that rise occurring since 1950.  CO₂ concentrations in 1750 were about 275 ppm (parts per million) and were about 370 ppm in 2000. 

Engineer and aerospace pioneer Burt Rutan prepared a startling chart of human CO₂ emissions versus global temperature data.  The temperatures were based on the IPCC / HadCRUT Dataset (UK -- Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia).  [Some people call this dataset the "gold standard" for global temperature.]

The chart shows that global temperatures from 1.01.83 - 12.31.97 had a linear trend of + 1.44 ºC per century (2.59 ºF per century).  During that period, human CO₂ emissions were 331 gigatons.

From 1.01.1998 - 12.31.2012, the linear temperature trend was - 0.08 ºC per century (- 0.14 ºF per century).  (The temperature trend is negative.)  During this period, human CO₂ emissions were 440 gigatons.  Despite a 33 % increase in CO₂ emissions, global warming disappeared (the temperature trend dropped). 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/burt-rutan-this-says-it-all-and-says-it-clear/

Rising Sea Levels

The global warming activists needed something that would garner people's attention.  The melting of the polar ice caps and the apocalyptic flooding of the Earth's coastal cities provided the needed catastrophe.  It can easily be an emotional issue, but we need some facts.    

Are we in danger of coastal flooding from melting ice caps?  If the polar ice caps melted, how much would the oceans rise?  We will consider three main ice covered areas.

The largest ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole.  Antarctica has 90 % of the world’s ice and 70 % of its fresh water.  Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters thick (7,000 feet).  If all of the Antarctica ice melted, sea levels would rise around the world about 61 meters (200 feet).  Because the average temperature in Antarctica is -37 ^oC, the ice there is in no danger of melting.  In most parts of the continent, it never gets above freezing.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm

As climatologists worry about the effects of global warming, Antarctica has quietly set a new record for the mass of sea ice.  "Antarctica has broken the record for the greatest sea ice extent ever measured at either pole."

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/sea-ice-sets-all-time-record-high/

There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland.  If all of this ice melted, sea levels would rise about 7 meters (20 feet).  Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures in Greenland are higher.

At the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as the South Pole; the ice floats on the Arctic Ocean.  If this ice melted, sea levels would not be affected.  The Arctic Icecap contains only 1 to 2 percent of the Earth’s ice, while the elephant, the Antarctic Icecap, contains about 90 percent of the Earth’s ice.

The global warming advocates often point to glaciers that are shrinking in size.  What will they do with a glacier that is growing?  The glacier is getting larger around K-2, the second highest mountain in the world.  

EPA’S POWER GRAB

A 2007 Cap and Trade Bill (Lieberman-Warner Bill) was considered by the U.S. Senate in 2008; it was killed by Senate Republicans on 6.06.08.  In 2009, Obama tried to push a different Cap and Trade Bill (Waxman-Markey Bill) through Congress.  The House of Representatives barely approved the "Cap and Tax" Bill on 6.26.09 bill, but it was defeated in the U. S. Senate. 

The "Cap and Tax" Bill had huge economic consequences.  Electricity rates would have increased 90 %; natural gas prices would have gone up 55 %; and gasoline prices would have jumped 58 %.  Also, the U.S. would have lost 1 million jobs per year through 2035!  [We will experience similar consequences because of the EPA's actions on greenhouse gases.]

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed120109h.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2476.cfm

When the "Cap and Tax" Bill failed, Obama did not quit; he simply made an end run around Congress.  He is using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to accomplish what he cannot do through legislative means.

The unprovoked Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor led President Franklin D. Roosevelt to proclaim “December 7, 1941 – a date which will live in infamy.”  Ironically, on December 7, 2009, the EPA declared that greenhouse gases threaten public health and the environment.  It would be an overstatement to say the 2009 date will live in infamy like Pearl Harbor, but the EPA’s action was quite significant! 

The EPA stated that greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves.  EPA’s endangerment finding covers six key greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and hexafluoride.

http://blog.epa.gov/administrator/2009/12/07/epa-finds-that-greenhouse-gases-threaten-public-health-

EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHGs fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants.  With the EPA’s new authority under the Clean Air Act, the EPA could regulate almost anything that emits carbon dioxide.  Thereby the unelected and unaccountable EPA officials are trying to bypass legislative efforts. 

The Heritage Foundation completed an economic analysis of the EPA's plan to regulate CO₂.  Between 2010 and 2029, the regulations would cause $7 trillion in lost activity and a loss of nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs by 2029!

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/small-business-impact-of-the-epa-endangerment-finding#_ftn10#_ftn10

There are multiple bills in Congress aimed at reining in EPA’s regulatory authority by amending the Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gases from coming under EPA’s purview.  It is important to remember that Congress created the Clean Air Act and has the power to alter it.  [The work I did with NAPCA from 1968 to 1970 was under the Clean Air Act.]  Congress must act now to protect America’s economic interests.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2766.cfm

Outgoing EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is apparently leaving more quickly after it was discovered that she had clandestine e-mail accounts connected with "climate" and "endangerment."

In 2009, the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) produced the report Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.  This document played a key role in the December 2009 EPA decision on the "finding of endangerment."  According to the 2007 Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, the EPA must regulate carbon dioxide under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments subsequent to finding that it endangers human health and welfare.  

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/04/06/we-need-a-permanent-fix-to-the-epa%e2%80%99s-co2-regulations/

A September 2012 "Addendum" by the Cato Institute seriously questions the accuracy of the USGCRP report and describes important science that is missing from the government report.  Cato found that "there is an overwhelming amount of misleading material" in the report.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/Global-Climate-Change-Impacts.pdf

In simple terms, the EPA based its power grab on "junk science."

CONCLUSION

Greenhouse gases play a very positive role in regulating the Earth's temperature to produce a habitable planet.

The global average temperature has increased about 1.4 ºF since the early Twentieth Century.  The rate of warming is about 0.25 ºF per decade (2.5 ºF per century).  Most of this warming is a result of natural causes; temperatures are increasing as we recover from the "Little Ice Age."

There is a very poor correlation between carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels in the atmosphere and global warming.  Human-caused CO₂ emissions have negligible impact on global temperature increases.

The global warming models have performed very poorly in predicting temperature changes.  Because the climate models have failed miserably in the past, why would a person expect the models to be accurate in predicting the future climate?

There is no real threat that global warming will melt the polar ice caps, thus causing coastal flooding.  Contrary to the hype about melting ice caps, Antarctica (with 90 % of the world's ice) has broken the record for the greatest sea ice extent ever measured at either pole.

The EPA has undertaken a significant power grab by declaring that greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide) endanger human health and threaten the environment.  If left unchecked, the EPA will be able to regulate most of the U.S. economy -- any energy-using business in the country!

===============================

Bio for Henry W. Burke

Henry Burke is a Civil Engineer  with a B.S.C.E. and M.S.C.E.  He has been a Registered Professional Engineer (P.E.) for 37 years and has worked as a Civil Engineer in construction for over 40 years. 

Mr. Burke had a successful 27-year career with a large construction contractor. 

Henry Burke serves as a full-time volunteer to oversee various construction projects. He has written numerous articles on education, engineering, construction, politics, taxes, and the economy.

Henry W. Burke

E-mail:  hwburke@cox.net 

The Obamacare Taxes and Taxmageddon--Get to know what is coming...

Obamacare imposes 18 new taxes that total $502 billion in the first 10 years.  In later years, the cost dramatically increases to about $1.7 trillion per decade (triple the amount for the first decade).

7.07.12     INTRODUCTION

On 6.28.12, the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare is a tax!  The ruling was a huge disappointment but it clarified this one point.

In his signature health care legislation, Obama broke his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.

Obamacare imposes 18 new taxes that total $502 billion in the first 10 years.  In later years, the cost dramatically increases to about $1.7 trillion per decade (triple the amount for the first decade).

The Obamacare tax increases will have a chilling effect on our economy as the measure slows economic growth and destroys jobs.  The higher tax rates in Obamacare decrease the incentives for individuals to work and save more.

Obama’s health care plan will soak the top-earning households in America – those earning more than $200,000 as single filers or $250,000 as married couples.

Our economy is sick and Obamacare is exacerbating the problem.  Unemployment is high and economic growth is low.  Businesses will not hire more workers in this uncertain economic environment.  About 52% of likely voters favor repeal of Obamacare.

Obama's Broken Promises

Barack Obama repeatedly promised not to raise taxes on middle-class families. On Thursday, 6.28.12, the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare is a tax!  This means that Obama has already raised taxes.

Chief Justice John Roberts upheld Obama's health care law on the grounds that the “individual mandate” is a constitutionally permissible tax increase. 

Obamacare imposes new taxes on our country; this violates Obama’s pledge.  Middle-class families will pay the vast majority of these new taxes.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation puts Obama in a peculiar situation. In 2008, he promised not to raise taxes on the middle class and accused Republican nominee John McCain of wanting to tax health benefits.  Presidential candidate Obama proclaimed:

          And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase…not any of your taxes. My opponent can’t make that pledge.… [H]e wants to tax your health benefits.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=78612#ixzz1z6VUF5Uo 

Throughout his presidential campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama promised the American people: “If you’re a family that’s making $250,000 a year or less, you will see no increase in your taxes.” After he became president, Barack Obama reiterated that pledge, even on national television.  

Obama repeatedly insisted that Obamacare was not a tax but the Supreme Court is saying the exact opposite.  What does this tell all of us about Obama’s integrity? 

Obama grossly mischaracterized his health care plan, and now American citizens will pay the price. He has both attacked individual freedom and burdened millions in the middle class.

Now that the Supreme Court has deemed Obama's health care law a "tax," some people have suggested that we call Obamacare by a new name -- "ObamaTax."  Is that label justified?

Obamacare Imposes 18 New Taxes

Obamacare (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or PPACA) imposes numerous tax hikes that transfer more than $500 billion over 10 years from hard-working American families and businesses to Congress.

Obamacare contains 18 separate tax increases that will cost taxpayers $502 billion between 2010 and 2019.  The 18 Obamacare tax increases are as follows:

[The revenue raised during the 2010-2019 period is in brackets.]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/obamacare-and-new-taxes-destroying-jobs-and-the-economy

1.  Increase Medicare Hospital Insurance payroll tax from 2.9 % to 3.8 % for couples earning more than $250,000 a year ($200,000 for single filers).  [$210 billion]

2.  Apply 3.8 % Hospital Insurance tax to investment income for couples earning more than $250,000 ($200,000 for single).  [Amount included under #1]

3.  Impose mandate to buy health insurance (individuals and employers).  [$65 billion]

4.  Impose an annual fee on health insurance providers.  [$60 billion]

5.  Apply a 40 % excise tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans.  [$32 billion]

6.  Impose an annual fee on branded drugs.  [$27 billion]

7.  Exclude unprocessed fuels from cellulosic biofuel producer credit.  [$24 billion]

8.  Impose 2.3 % excise tax on certain medical devices.  [$20 billion]

9.  Increase corporate taxes through stricter enforcement on business activities.  [$17 billion]

10.  Raise the floor on medical expense deduction from 7.5 % to 10.0 %.  [$15 billion]

11.  Limit Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) to $2,500.  [$13 billion]

12.  Reduce number of medical products purchased from FSAs and Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).  [$5 billion]

13.  Eliminate corporate deduction for prescription expenses for retirees.  [$4.5 billion]

14.  Increase corporate taxes through changes in tax liability.  [$4.5 billion]

15.  Impose 10 % excise tax on indoor tanning services.  [$2.7 billion]

16.  Increase penalty to 20 % for purchasing disallowed products with HSAs.  [$1.4 billion]

17.  Increase taxes on health insurance companies.  [$0.6 billion]

18.  Repeal special deduction for Blue Cross / Blue Shield organizations.  [$0.4 billion]

                                      Total Revenue Raised = $502 billion

From the above list, you can see that five major tax hikes make up almost 75 % of the new revenue raised by Obamacare.  The tax increases for Medicare Hospital Insurance (on payroll taxes and investment income) will raise $210 billion.  The mandate to buy health insurance will raise $65 billion; the annual fee on health insurance providers will raise $60 billion; and the excise tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans will raise $32 billion.  Together, these five taxes will raise $367 billion (73 % of the $502 billion total). 

Government bureaucrats use the term "revenue raised" but we know that "ObamaTax" is imposing huge tax increases on hard-working American families and businesses.

Obamacare Taxes Will Increase Dramatically in Future

When Obamacare first passed, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that its tax hikes would total $502 billion over the next 10 years.  However, most of the new, higher taxes do not kick in until later in the decade, which means that once all of the law is fully implemented, the taxpayers’ tab will be much bigger than originally estimated.

A 4.18.12 Heritage Foundation article provides a more accurate cost for Obamacare.

          A new study by the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) revealed today that Obamacare will impose higher taxes totaling $4 trillion between now and 2035, with substantial hits on working Americans. That works out to more than $1.7 trillion over a decade—more than triple the original 10-year score.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/18/top-10-most-expensive-obamacare-taxes-and-fees/?query=Top+10+Most+Expensive+Obamacare+Taxes+and+Fees

Impact of Obamacare Tax Increases

These tax increases will have negative economic effects because they transfer resources from the private sector to government.  A 3.25.12 Heritage Foundation article by Curtis Dubay provided this observation:

          "As a result, the tax hikes in [the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] will slow economic growth, reduce employment, and suppress wages. These economy-slowing policies could not come at a worse time. PPACA tax increases will impede an already staggering recovery,” Dubay wrote in an analysis of the Obamacare taxes.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/obamacare-and-new-taxes-destroying-jobs-and-the-economy

Mr. Dubay made these insightful comments about Obamacare's impact:

1.  The Obamacare tax hikes will slow economic growth, reduce employment, and suppress wages. These economy-slowing policies could not come at a worse time. PPACA tax increases will impede an already staggering recovery.

2.  Obamacare will slow economic growth and destroy jobs.  The Obamacare taxes transfer money from productive private hands to the less efficient public sector.  Unlike government, the private sector allocates resources where they will contribute the most to economic growth.

3.  Obamacare will discourage work and savings.  Higher tax rates decrease the incentives for individuals to work and save more, both of which are essential for economic growth.  Additionally, high tax rates discourage individuals from working harder and saving larger portions of what they earn.

4.  Obamacare will not reduce deficits.  Higher taxes never close budget deficits because, in the short run, Congress will spend all of the extra revenue it receives from higher taxes.  The only way to close deficits is to cut spending and align it with revenue (i.e., a balanced budget).      

The economic damage from these tax hikes is one of many reasons Congress needs to repeal Obamacare and start from scratch to properly reform the health care system.

One of Barack Obama's biggest weaknesses is Obamacare!  Most voters want to repeal Obama's signature healthcare law.  According to the latest Rasmussen poll (7.02.12 report), 52% of likely U.S. voters favor repeal of Obamacare.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

Obama Soaks the Job Creators

Obama’s plan is straightforward – soak the top-earning households in America – those earning more than $200,000 as single filers or $250,000 as married couples.  According to IRS data, that “tiny, wealthy minority” encompasses more than 4.3 million households!  When you count spouses, children, and other dependents, you are talking about 12.5 million Americans! 

Also many of the small businesses fall into this $200,000 - $250,000 category.  Roughly two thirds of small businesses are taxed at this rate.  We know that small businesses create the majority of jobs in America, yet they are being targeted for tax increases.

Small business owners may fall into this $200,000 to $250,000 category, but they are far from "rich."  Quite often, they are hard-working entrepreneurs who work 60 hours or more per week to run their businesses and provide for their families and employees.  It is our overly complicated Tax Code that places them in the "rich" category.

Raising taxes during a recession has never been viewed as a sensible policy.  The economy is stuck in neutral, and we need to put it in gear.  A tax increase at this time would have a very chilling effect on the economy. 

Tax relief across the full breadth of income levels is the needed approach; and along with that, our country must cut the spending.

Our Economy Is Sick

Unemployment has been persistently high and economic growth is quite weak.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) issued the latest unemployment figures on 7.06.12 in its Employment Situation Summary.  The report shows that the June unemployment rate remains unchanged at 8.2 % (12.749 million people).  This means that unemployment has stayed above 8 % for Obama's full time in office (41 months). 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was essentially unchanged at 5.4 million; those individuals accounted for about 42 % of the unemployed.  Only 80,000 new jobs were created during June.  Because it takes about 150,000 new jobs per month just to keep up with population growth, unemployment will remain high. 

If you want to know how the economy is doing, you need to ask the 12.7 million unemployed or the 5.4 million long-term unemployed persons.  You might also ask the 8.2 million workers who are working part time for economic reasons.

When Obama rammed through the $787 billion Stimulus measure two weeks after taking office in January 2009, he promised that unemployment would not go above 8 %.  This is one more broken promise.

Our economy is not growing and the economic recovery is stuck in neutral.  According to the 6.28.12 report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at an annual rate of 1.9 % in the first quarter of 2012.  A GDP growth rate of 1.9% is quite anemic!  It takes a much higher GDP expansion rate to bring new jobs and a better economy.  Gross Domestic Income (GDI) increased 3.1 % in the first quarter.  Our economy is sick! 

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2012/pdf/gdp1q12_3rd.pdf

Obamacare has frozen business hiring across America as businesses wait to see how the law will be applied.  Obamacare encapsulates the kinds of harmful regulatory policies the Obama Administration has favored at the expense of economic growth.  Higher tax rates on working and investing will discourage economic growth both now and in the future.

IRS Enforcement of Obamacare

Even before the Supreme Court issued its ruling, the Obama administration was hard at work to ensure that the health care law was enforced.  According to a 4.09.12 article in The Hill:

          The Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law.

          The money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/220475-white-house-has-diverted-500m-to-irs-to-implement-health-law

How will the IRS spend the money? In addition to enforcing the individual mandate, the IRS is responsible for collecting new taxes and fees.  The Hill reports that the agency wants to hire 300 new employees next year, and it requested funding for another 537 new employees to administer Obamacare’s new subsidies for low- and middle-income individuals to purchase insurance.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12033/12-23-selectedhealthcarepublications.pdf

CONCLUSION

Throughout his presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama promised the American people: “If you’re a family that’s making $250,000 a year or less, you will see no increase in your taxes.” After he became president, Barack Obama reiterated that pledge, but he broke this promise under his signature health care bill.

In case there was any doubt, the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare is a tax!  Chief Justice John Roberts upheld Obama's health care law on the grounds that the “individual mandate” is a constitutionally permissible tax increase. 

Obamacare contains 18 separate tax increases that will cost taxpayers $502 billion between 2010 and 2019.  In later years, the cost dramatically increases to about $1.7 trillion per decade (triple the amount for the first decade). 

Five major tax hikes make up almost 75 % of the new revenue raised by Obamacare.  The two largest tax increases in Obamacare (Medicare Hospital Insurance and taxes on investment income) account for $210 billion; this is 42 % of the $502 billion total.

Obamacare is a huge liability for Barack Obama.  According to a recent poll, 52% of likely U.S. voters favor repeal of Obamacare. 

Obamacare is already having a very negative impact on the economy.  Unemployment is high and the economy is not growing.  The latest figures show that the unemployment rate remains stuck at 8.2 % and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is expanding at an anemic 1.9 % growth rate.  Our economy is sick!

What is Obama's answer for this lousy performance?  The Obama administration is funneling $500 million into the Internal Revenue Service and hiring more IRS agents to enforce the Obamacare nightmare!

The solutions are obvious:  We must ensure the full repeal of Obamacare; we must retire Barack Obama; and we must replace many of the Democrat Congressmen and Senators with conservative Republicans.  The November election is extremely important!

Bio for Henry W. Burke

Henry Burke is a Civil Engineer  with a B.S.C.E. and M.S.C.E.  He has been a Registered Professional Engineer (P.E.) for 37 years and has worked as a Civil Engineer in construction for over 40 years. 

Mr. Burke had a successful 27-year career with a large construction contractor. 

Henry Burke serves as a full-time volunteer to oversee various construction projects. He has written numerous articles on education, engineering, construction, politics, taxes, and the economy.

Henry W. Burke