http://news.yahoo.com/…

First you paid to insure your car. Soon you may have to add health insurance premiums to that stack of monthly bills as well.

In a revamped health care system envisioned by senators, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face fines of more than $1,000.

The details were unveiled Thursday in a health care overhaul bill supported by key Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines would raise around $36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage. Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties than individuals.

Called “shared responsibility payments,” the fines would offset at least half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation. The goal is to nudge people to sign up for coverage when they are healthy, not wait until they get sick.

In 2008, employer-provided coverage averaged $12,680 a year for a family plan, and $4,704 for individual coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual survey. Senate aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said the cost of the federal plan would be lower but declined to provide specifics.

The legislation would exempt certain hardship cases from fines, which would be collected through the income tax system.

Tying it into the income tax is really really sneaky. It makes it very difficult to protest against. If the federal government wanted to fine me for not participating in the census they’d have to bring me to court. If this bill is passed the IRS handles the fine. It’s tied into your income taxes. If you don’t pay you don’t go to a normal court… but likely a tax court. You won’t be able to seperate the fine from the rest of their bill. It makes it easier for them to catch and easier to collect.

If they passed a bill requiring healthcare without this IRS enforcement of the fine I would seriously consider canceling my health insurance just to incure a fine and test the system. If it passes as currently is however only those who don’t pay income tax could really get out of this demand and if they ever got caught the fine would be the least of their problems.

Love how they talk about how much the fines will make them too. Scumbags.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/…

Writes Katie:

So–my high school had a conference call today with the PA governor, Ed Rendell. Now, I already knew this guy was a true-blue thuggish socialist, and what’s more, he was holding this conference call to whip up support for his new state/taxpayer/theft-funded “tuition relief” program. Our journalism teacher told us to create a list of questions to ask about the new program. Most people asked if accepting this money would lessen their debt, how much would they receive, the whole “where’s my handout” spiel. A lot of kids did want to know where the heck this money was coming from, since our state has a budget deficit of over ONE BILLION DOLLARS.

Well, the conference call was at four o’clock, and I was the only student able to stay, so I got to ask the governor any question on the sheet. Now, since the questions were pre-reviewed, my teacher and I weren’t sure if he’d even let us ask any of them. We waited through many skim-the-surface kind of questions from other students about how much they would owe after the new program “helped” them and their families, how the state government would pay with it (they would tax video poker in bars–Fast Eddy loves to condemn gambling, then legalize it and tax it to death), and to ask if out-of-state residents could enjoy the same benefits.

My teacher and I were getting ready to pack up and hang up the phone when the moderator said, “Well, we have time for one more question, and this one’s from Katie…” We both leapt for the phone, and after pressing the speaker button, the moderator said that Rendell wanted to address the first question. I said, “Actually, governor, I want to talk about how government aid inflates college prices. Colleges can keep raising their prices because they know that the government will pick up the tab, and they’ll keep their same profit margins. But no responsible business would raise its proces above what its consumer base could afford! I think we should stop all government aid to make them lower their prices.”

“Cutting aid programs would be disastrous,” Rendell growled. “And colleges depend on the endowments the state gives them…”

“So they’re not profitable? They’re losing money? Every year?” I asked incredulously.

“Yes, they are,” Rendell said. He mentioned public AND private colleges not making any profit whatsoever. “None of the colleges in Pennsylvania are profitable. None.”

Even if he’s wrong and some are profitable it’s only because of the State and it’s subsidies.

The lack of basic economics or human nature is amazing. It makes one wonder if they are actually ignorant of fascists.

http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=661

Arbeiter Ring Publishing is pleased to announce the release of Let Them Eat Junk: How Capitalism Creates Hunger and Obesity by Robert Albritton

Why are half the people in the world malnourished, while so many in the West are over-fed? Capitalism may promise cheap, nutritious food for all, but it has failed to deliver on that promise. This is the first book to explore the economics of our food system, and to explain why a quarter of the world’s population go hungry despite the fact that enough food is produced worldwide to feed us all.

Political economist Robert Albritton gives a refreshingly detailed explanation of the worldwide food crisis. He analyses the economic conditions that create a simultaneous oversupply and undersupply of food, and the massive implications they have for human health worldwide.

“[This book] pulls no punches in its analysis. … To understand how starvation and obesity can coexist in the same populations, follow the flow of capital. Everyone who cares about food equity and the preservation of democracy should read this book.”–Marion Nestle, Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health, New York University

“Marx understood the dynamics of the current food crisis over a century ago. Robert Albritton has written a fine primer, bridging the best thinking of the nineteenth century to the urgent needs of the twenty-first.”–Raj Patel, author of Stuffed and Starved

I’ll just post here my comment I left on Climate and Capitalism:

In what country where there is a supposed oversupply of food is there capitalism? In the USA there are tariffs, subsidies, unbalanced taxation and regulation, etc.
That’s socialistic, fascistic, corporatist. That’s not capitalism.

And what is the solution? Communism? Socialism of one kind or another? More corporatism and fascism? USSR starved millions. Cuba isn’t doing all that well. Nor is North Korea. What socialistic country has been able to produce more food than the people living there need to such an extent as the USA?

The problem isn’t production of food. It’s the distortion of incentives (ethanol subsidies, sugar taxes, corn subsidies) and the tyrannical remote governments which impoverish their people. The cost of food would be reduced if they weren’t kept artificially high due to protectionist trade policy and those who most efficiently produced a product was allowed to do so. And those who have a tough time affording the artificially high foods would have more wealth if their governments would stop with the horrible protectionist, anti-property and anti-business policy.

Even if you had all that fixed it wouldn’t get rid of all the problems right away. It takes time for wealth to increase. Capital must be built up. The size of the pie will increase as will each persons slice of it but it requires people to be free to make their own decisions and for labor to flow into those locations where it is most efficient.

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

http://reason.tv/…

“The government is bailing out the banks…but who’s going to bail out the government?” asks Texas cotton farmer Ken Gallaway, a vocal critic of agricultural subsidies that cost U.S. taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars a year in direct payments and higher prices for farm goods.

Agricultural subsidies were put in place in the 1930s during the Great Depression, when 25 percent of Americans lived on farms. At the time, Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace called them “a temporary solution to deal with an emergency.” Those programs are still in place today, even though less than 1 percent of Americans currently live on farms that are larger, more efficient, and more productive than ever before.

Consider these facts. Ninety percent of all subsidies go to just five crops: corn, rice, cotton, wheat, and soybeans. Two thirds of all farm products—including perishable fruits and vegetables—receive almost no subsidies. And just 10 percent of recipients receive 75 percent of all subsidies. A program intended to be a “temporary solution” has become one of our government’s most glaring examples of corporate welfare.

U.S. taxpayers aren’t the only ones who pay the price. Cotton subsidies, for example, encourage overproduction which lowers the world price of cotton. That’s great for people who buy cotton, but it’s disastrous for already impoverished cotton farmers in places such as West Africa.

U.S. farm programs cost taxpayers billions each year, significantly raise the price of commodities such as sugar (which is protected from competition from other producers in other countries), undermine world trade agreements, and contribute to the suffering of poor farmers around the world. It’s bad public policy, especially in these troubled economic times.

“Agricultural Subsidies: Corporate Welfare for Farmers” is hosted by Reason.tv’s Nick Gillespie and is approximately 8.30 minutes long. The producer-writer is Paul Feine and the producer-editor is Roger Richards.

For an audio podcast version, go here.

http://arstechnica.com/…

Within two weeks Congress will consider a massive investment bill that includes an infusion of $6 billion for broadband and $650 million to get the government’s cash-strapped DTV coupon program back up and running. It’s part of a $550 billion proposal that House Appropriations Committee Chair David Obey (D-WI) calls the only way to handle the nation’s financial crisis.

“The economy is in such trouble that, even with passage of this package, unemployment rates are expected to rise to between eight and nine percent this year,” Obey declared in a press statement released Thursday. “Without this package, we are warned that unemployment could explode to near twelve percent.”

The “American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009″ is designed to create and save between three and four million jobs, Obey says, “and begin the process of transforming [the United States] for the 21st century.” It is also packed with tech- and science-related investment programs. The broadband plan will target high speed Internet access “so businesses in rural and other underserved areas can link up to the global economy.” And the proposal includes $10 billion for science and research.

“We need to put scientists to work looking for the next great discovery, creating jobs in cutting-edge-technologies, and making smart investments that will help businesses in every community succeed in a global economy,” the proposed law’s summary explains. There’s also $32 billion allocated for the development of renewable technologies, $31 billion to make public facilities more energy efficient, $10 billion for transit and rail construction, and $19 billion for water purification, flood control, and environmental restoration programs.

Not surprisingly, questions are coming in fast about how this tsunami of money will be spent, especially regarding broadband. Obey’s statement promises that the appropriations bill will come with “unprecedented accountability.” Programs with “proven track records” will be favored for the cash. Information about the grantees will be published on a Web site. The Government and Accountability Office will get funding to watch the programs. And the package comes without earmarks.

But the advocacy group Free Press has already filed comments on the broadband aspect of the plan. The group says it’s happy about the bill, although it doesn’t think $6 billion is enough. Beyond that concern, it wants Congress to require any new network funded by this program to adhere to open access and nondiscrimination principles, or possibly open them to providers at wholesale access rates. In addition, some government agency must oversee the program to “enforce concrete administrative accountability.”

It bugs me that even a fairly reputable news organization such as Ars Technica takes the government’s and interest group’s line down without a question. No counter argument to Obey’s (what an appropriate last name for a politician) claim that such a so called stimulus package is the “only way to handle the nation’s financial crisis.” Or that it will “create and save between three and four million jobs.” Well if the government can do that… why can’t it just go for broke and double that. Get rid of unemployment all together. And can someone explain how rural businesses will benefit from being linked up to the “global economy?” Aren’t most companies hosting sites on 3rd party machines? Especially small companies? One could easily use dialup to maintain such a site. In the least they could get a T1. A little pricey but so is business broadband.

The best part of this whole government stimulus package is that “For every dollar invested in broadband the economy sees a ten-fold return on that investment.” That comes from page 2 of the press release linked above. If that is true… why aren’t people tripping over each other to invest in broadband? A 1000% increase is one hell of a return. Can I get in on that investment… you know… besides the money the government is “investing” on my behalf with my money which they’ve stolen? Perhaps I can put my 401K into some broadband fund?

If broadband as a whole or even a subsection of the market offered that kind of return on investment you can be absolutely sure that entrepreneurs and private investors would be taking advantage of it. That’s how the market works. It ebbs and flows into greater efficiencies. The fact broadband is not where these people want it is an indication that it is not currently profitable to do so. Whether that’s due to it’s nature (current technological imitations, etc.) or due to restrictions and regulation by the State is a topic all its own.

Isn’t it more like Wall Street was slipped some PCP? Between the Federal Reserve, Congress and the executive branch we’ve got inflation, wars, deficit spending, subsidies, regulation, artificially low interest rates and other interventionist policy. All of which distort market reality and now we are in the comedown and it sucks a lot more then a hangover.