 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 587, September 12, 2010 "Separation of science and state"
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Re: "You Asked for It, You Got It: Obamacare" by Doug Newman Mr. Newman: After having reviewed your brief article for the 5 September issue of The Libertarian Enterprise ("You Asked for It, You Got It: Obamacare"), I'm moved to remind you that the litany of adverse consequences doesn't end with those you'd listed. One of the strangest and most perverse provisions of Public Law 111-148, the Health Care Reform Act, comes toward the end, in Section 9006, which substantially changes IRS Form 1099 requirements. It's a horror. Most people are not familiar with IRS Form 1099, and on the reasonable assumption that you are not, I'll outline the essentials for you. Form 1099 is used to report to the various government tax authorities those transactions which result in revenue for individuals and other entities so that taxes can be assessed. "Wiki-bloody-pedia" aggregates a good summary of the purpose and workings of Form 1099 at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_tax_forms#1099 and I recommend this to you. The question as to whether the government officers receiving these "information return" documents is lawfully entitled to levy any sort of tax upon the transactions reported is not considered here. Might as well question the lawfulness of any other criminal racket. But the Form 1099 is key to a mechanism designed to capture information on "various types of income other than wages, salaries, and tips (for which ... Form W-2 is used instead)." The person whose "income" is derived almost entirely from a payroll-type job (or jobs) will likely never see a Form 1099. Those of us who work freelance, or who run small businesses, know them well. Such royalties as a writer might receive from a publishing house are reported to the tax collectors on Forms 1099. The many thousands (millions?) of Americans who work "off the books," "under the table," for cash in hand without reporting these revenues to any government authority are doing so in defiance of tax codes such as those imposed by Section 9006 of the National Socialist Democratic American Party (NSDAP) Obamacare act. (For once we can lay the blame entirely upon one faction of the big, bipartisan Boot-On-Your-Neck incumbency. The Republicans have adamantly refused to lend even a token vote to this abomination.) The purpose of Section 9006 was clearly articulated thus (see [this link]):
In other words, the NSDAP wants focus upon a pittance in "tax cuts" (of which most small businesses will never have the opportunity or ability to take advantage) while bringing enormous dollar-denominated amounts of productive economic activity under the tracking mechanisms of the IRS to be preyed upon. Just precisely what a national economy in recession needs—to absolutely prevent recovery. I liken this to the administration of a unit of packed red blood cells to a patient while slitting the poor bastard's carotids and watching the spurts soak the ceiling tiles. Now, what Obamacare's invidious Section 9006 does to small businesses is described by Patrick Heller of Liberty Coin Service (Lansing, Michigan) in an online article he published on 13 July 2010 (see [this link]):
When dealing with average persons, Forms 1099 are tracked with each such person's Social Security Administration Number (SSAN). Business entities—or individuals conducting business as proprietors—request and receive a separate and distinct Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), and this is used instead of a particular individual's SSAN. Anyone who has ever dealt with the IRS and other tax collecting arms of civil government is familiar with fines and penalties, and there are provisions in existing and anticipated regulations to levy "civil money penalties" against those submitting Forms 1099 in which information is not reported accurately. No intent to deceive need be proven. An agent of the IRS can simply assert that an inaccuracy was found, and the penalties are applied. Honest mistakes are punished as brutally and inexorably as are criminal actions. I have read estimations to the effect that even if a small business is found to be wholly accurate in its new, expanded Form 1099 reporting and is never subjected to any of these "civil money penalties," the necessity to collect and submit Form 1099 information on all goods and services purchased will add a minimum administrative cost ranging from $6,000 to $8,000 per year. So much for the "$35 billion in tax cuts for small businesses" about which that NSDAP Senate staffer maunders. Add in the probable penalties—which cannot be considered a deductable expense for any small business or person filing Forms 1099—and the murderous impact of Section 9006 upon the productive sector of American society rises to the level at which total destruction is a very real possibility. To continue from Mr. Heller's online article:
Mr. Heller was apparently not aware that the IRS requires those "payers who file 250 or more Form 1099 reports must file all of them electronically" (ref. Wikipedia article mentioned above), meaning that it is even easier for the agents of the IRS to tease out "inaccuracies" in information when Mr. Heller's business files those "10,000-20,000 1099 Forms every year". And every error, every alleged inaccuracy, every honest mistake in the fine fiddlework of recording a customer's SSAN or a stationery store's TIN, is a separate and distinct cause for the IRS to impose a "civil money penalty" upon Mr. Heller. But Mr. Heller catches yet another invidious potential in Section 9006:
So if the vendor of goods or provider of services provides an accurate SSAN or TIN, he is at great risk of having key information used to thieve away his money or destroy his credit rating. And if that person provides inaccurate information regarding his Social Security Account Number or other Taxpayer Identification Number, the Internal Revenue Service does not pursue the mendacious or erroneous actor in this transaction, but levies a "civil money penalty" against the person who filed the Form 1099. I do not doubt that efforts will continue to amend or repeal Section 9006, but the fact that this incredible assault upon the private sector was inserted by the National Socialists in a health care bill has got to be drawn to the attention of the American people in general. If nothing else were known about the party that used to be called "Democratic," this would do it. Richard Bartucci
Bigotry and Enemies I do not like Barack Obama's policies. I actually think it's a hoot that his election has led to a run on guns and ammo that almost broke the recession because people feared he would push all sorts of gun control. I do not consider BO a particularly effective politician. W was much more effective getting his agenda out of Nancy Pelosi's Congress than Obama was. Having watched LBJ in action I am more than aware of how ineffective he's been. I don't like the man's associates. Sorry, but they're slime. I guess I don't care much for him, if you judge a man by his friends then Barry Sotero has a lot to explain about why this crew of smarmy clowns. However I am offended by ignorant remarks about his faith. In the first place they are false, and in the second who cares? BO has the First Amendment right to practice whatever faith he wishes and the Ninth Amendment right to keep it private. I do not want to waste the energy defending these rights that I can spend opposing his political agenda, or at least the one(s) promoted by his supporters. As the 9/11 anniversary approaches there is a swell of anti Muslim bigotry. Now, I am very much aware that there are a number of groups whose members happen to be Muslim that are at war with the US with the ultimate intent of establishing an Islamic based dictatorship here. They are my enemies and if we meet face to face we will try to kill eachother. Not tough talk, just realization that they will try to impose their will on me, I will resist, and someone will die (as a fat 56 year old man I got a bad feeling about this.). However the vast majority of Muslims living in the US are behaving peaceably and enjoy the protection of the First Amendment. For that matter so do the fanatics. Push comes to shove I will fight for my Muslim friends right to practice their faith peacefully as guaranteed by the First Amendment. I would really be upset if that left me without ammo to defend my self, family and friends from Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and others. And just to make sure no one is confused about my religious opinions and opposition to using faith to bully people: La illaha illa Allah, Isa Allah ibn Allah. Look it up. Ought to torque bigots on all sides. Crazy Al
To which Richard Bartucci replied: Al: I find your determination to "fight for [your] Muslim friends right to practice their faith peacefully as guaranteed by the First Amendment " entirely praiseworthy. But were the situation reversed, with you and your Muslim friends finding yourselves in a Muslim majority country where Islamic law prevails, would they fight for your right to practice your own faith peacefully? One of the odd things about Roman Catholic parochial education (at least in the Diocese where I grew up) was that we got a lot of comparative theology. To the best of my appreciation, Protestant "Christian academies" don't do that, much. And then I wound up in a Jesuit college, meaning that no matter what else happened, I was pretty much required to minor in philosophy and theology. Not to say that I'm smarter nor better educated than the average, but those grim Jebbies held me at the academic equivalent of gunpoint for four years, and pretty much compelled me to get passing grades in subject areas a science major would by robust predisposition really rather not go near. I still joke about "the curse of a liberal arts education." I suppose that's one reason why I don't have much difficulty appreciating the difference between Islam and every other religious belief system currently being widely observed (the Aztec and similar Mesoamerican religions got pretty much completely wiped out of existence by the conquistadors and the Franciscan, Dominican, and Jesuit orders of Holy Mother Church, including a concerted book-burning program aimed at obliterating their historical and religious codices to a degree that Heinrich Himmler could only wistfully aspire, so Islam has the "most tyrannous and bloodthirsty religion" slot by default today). The "live and let live" notion behind the First Amendment which you and I respect (and are willing to defend) is not compatible with the Qur'an and Islamic doctrine proceeding therefrom. There is no such thing as a secular state indifferent to individual religious conviction in polities governed under the principles prescribed by the Prophet and his heirs—of whatever denomination or school of belief—and there's no real tolerance for differences of religious opinion in Muslim-majority communities, either. Try proselytizing for Christianity in certain neighborhoods of Dearborn, Michigan, if you doubt this. The culture of Islam has not yet had its First Breitenfeld ("Glaubensfreiheit für die Welt, rettete bei Breitenfeld"—"Freedom of Belief for the World, salvaged at Breitenfeld" is what you'll find on the monument planted there in 1831), and in Islamic scholarship there has never been the equivalent of John Locke, or Cato's Letters, or anything remotely resembling Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1777), or, indeed, any of the philosophical debate that led up to the enactment of our First Amendment. As long as Islamic true believers hold to their Prophet's writings as tenaciously as they do, their culture will never undergo such a transformation. They are buttressed against any such religious or philosophical tendency and therefore against the necessary cognitive predisposition required before any appreciation (much less valuation) of individual human rights can develop. I must emphasize my dismissal of any pretense of validity for any religious belief system. I'm right there with Heinlein when he wrote:
Islam leaves no propositions whatsoever unscorched by "the warm fire of faith," and for this reason those adherent to this culture in its various manifestations are inescapably even less capable of religious tolerance than your average Ku Kluxer. By the bye, this is one of the reasons why the "Christian" religious protestations of Barry Soetoro (remember, the little weasel never did legally change his name back to "Barack Hussein Obama" after he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia) hit ten-point-oh on my personal bullshit-o-meter. Such childhood exposure to Christianity as he had came chiefly (insofar as it is possible to ascertain anything about this cipher who simulates a human being) in a Roman Catholic parochial school in Indonesia, where he lived from ages 6 to 10, and during which time he was a practicing Muslim, spending considerable effort memorizing passages from the Qur'an in Arabic and generally steeped in the sociocultural milieu of the single most populous Muslim nation on the planet. If the guy is not an apostate—one who has formally renounced Islam in a conversion to Christianity at some point in his life after getting sent back to Honolulu by his mother and stepfather before he hit puberty—then he's still a Muslim. Plenty of "secret Muslim" deceit explicitly condoned in Islamic doctrine, just as long as it serves to diddle the infidels. And if he is an apostate, how could he be received cordially by the governments of Islamic nations? Apostasy in Islamic law is an offense punishable by death. No exceptions. I simply figure that in this as in everything about that sonofabitch, he's lying his ass off—and we haven't yet begun to see the full extent of his mendacity and his malevolence. If he's a good Congregationalist, Albert, then you personally are Marie, Queen of Romania. So howzit going, Your Majesty? But the propensity among the botched and the gullible to get suckered by the religious con artists is a phenomenon with which I'm well acquainted. What's that line from Sholom Aleichem? "Dear God, you made limits to human intelligence, but none at all to human stupidity. And, dear God, that's not fair!" Richard Bartucci
Please read: "LRC Under Attack" by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
TLE AFFILIATE
Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations! |
|
|
|
Previous
Contents
Next
