Were it not enough that a representative body slid a major entitlement program thru budget reconciliation rules, and on a partisan vote, Congressional thuggery tactics have soared to a new high. Powerline has copies of a letter from Henry Waxman, chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, demanding that AT&T, and other companies who have publicly disclosed the fiscal repercussions of O’health care, appear before the committee and bring their analyses of the fiscal impact, and any documents including emails and messages reviewed by their senior officials that support their claim of increased operating costs.
Translation? CEOs, as a result of their “disclosure”, are now ordered to appear before Congress starting April 21st to prove their claims.
This accusation, tantamount to subtly calling the corporations liars, could almost be humorous… were one in possession of such sardonic temperament. It’s been obvious that increased costs would result from what the Obama’s WH mouthpiece, Robert Gibbs, described as merely closing a loophole just days ago in response. And, in fact, as an IBD op-ed a couple of days pointed out, Congress and the administration were warned of the effects of this legislation, as written, on their overhead early December.
In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., last Dec. 11, Deere and other signatories said the health care reform then under consideration “would negatively impact both retirees and companies.”
Nobody was listening.
“For months, the American Benefits Council, along with several employers and labor unions, warned that the retiree drug subsidy tax in the health care legislation would impose an enormous hit on company financial statements as soon as the bill was signed into law,” said James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, in a statement on Friday.
Besides Deere, the letter was signed by Boeing, Con-Way Freight, Exelon, Navistar, Verizon, Caterpillar, MetLife, Public Service Enterprise Group and Xerox.
Waxman’s letter is the quintessential political intimidation ploy, stating such news causes them “concern”. huh? If they were repeatedly warned prior to passage, how can this be a surprise “concern”?
Instead the Chair’s actions, demanding some sort of proof that their unsurprising claims are correct, just seems to continue a seriously dangerous precedent of government intimidation waged on those who are not willing to sip the prozac-laden water, and who continue to criticize or resist propaganda launched.
But there is a price to be paid when anyone chooses to not play ball with Obama and his Congress. This particular news tidbit happens to muddy the waters of a planned public relations campaign, designed to convince an unwilling public that we will learn to love the “reform” forced upon us. A “fair” social welfare net that was achieved using a legislative process that makes most of us wonder if this what the Founders had in mind for such sweeping legislation.
Obviously, and especially in an important mid term election year, this cannot stand as is by those conscious of their political futures.
Proponents who casually explain away a “loop hole” perk, preying on an anti-capitalistic sentiment, brings an ugly reality to the rest of us. The full weight of the removal of existing “subsidies” and tax credits for the corporations fall on the common worker. And when it’s removed, it’s not the corporations who pay, but the workers.
What possible difference does it make if it’s a “loop hole”, credit or subsidy if those receiving the perks are those getting the prescription drugs? The reality is, it increases the overhead of an employer, and affects the benefits they can offer their workers. Period. It’s a pass through expense that the little guy absorbs. Dems can attempt to put lipstick on that pig, but the fact remains…. the “victim” for this tax change, meant to increase revenue to pass CBO muster, is the employees. These tax credits, and/or subsidies, threaten the size of the employers’ payroll, the benefits they can offer their employees, or both.
Is this what the Dems had in mind? To eliminate prescription drug benefits or jobs? Brilliant…. Talk about a half step forward, and five steps back.
This deliberate Congressional public humiliation/threats also marks a new dichotomy. As Andy McCarthy points out over at NRO’s blog, “The Corner”, this might possibly be the first time that corporation haunchos are hauled onto the carpet for disclosure, instead of non-disclosure.
But here is the most frightful news yet about our new reality: People’s Commissar Henry Waxman is now planning to haul the companies before his committee because their disclosures fail to play along with the our Leftist rulers’ script that Obamacare “will expand coverage and bring down costs.”
~~~If we are now under a system where disclosure gets you a public whipping and other threats by the Powers That Be while nondisclosure promises the ruinous expenses of defending against criminal investigations and civil enforcement, this is no longer anything but a thugocracy.
McCarthy reinforces this criticism, citing the WSJ op-ed yesterday, calling it deliberate Congressional intimidation:
In other words, shoot the messenger. Black-letter financial accounting rules require that corporations immediately restate their earnings to reflect the present value of their long-term health liabilities, including a higher tax burden. Should these companies have played chicken with the Securities and Exchange Commission to avoid this politically inconvenient reality? Democrats don’t like what their bill is doing in the real world, so they now want to intimidate CEOs into keeping quiet.
Then, of course, there was the arm twisting, bribery and back room payola deals with Congressional members to buy the simple majority vote that we all witnessed in nightmare’esque horror. How much do we witness in corruption and desperation before we, the people who *are* the government, start screaming NO in a way these powerhouses will acknowledge with due respect? Just how much are we supposed to parse the founding principles of representation, while bending to “rules” that are to usurp that same intent?
Such thuggery and intimidation isn’t confined to Congress when it comes to dissenters on government action. It was only November last year that Democratic consultants were warned after appearing on Fox News.
WASHINGTON — At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning from the White House to never appear on Fox News Channel, an outlet that presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation as a political opponent bent on damaging the Obama administration.
The Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox, he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again. The call had an intimidating tone, he said.
The message was, “We better not see you on again,” said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to run afoul of the White House. An implicit suggestion, he said, was that “clients might stop using you if you continue.”
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said that she had checked with colleagues who “deal with TV issues” and that they had not told people to avoid Fox. On the contrary, they had urged people to appear on the network, Dunn wrote in an e-mail.
But Patrick Caddell, a Fox News contributor and former pollster for President Carter, said he had spoken to Democratic consultants who said they were told by the White House to avoid appearances on Fox. He declined to give their names.
Caddell said he had not gotten that message himself from the White House.
He added: “I have heard that they’ve done that to others in not too subtle ways. I find it appalling. When the White House gets in the business of suppressing dissent and comment, particularly from its own party, it hurts itself.”
In a more “kinder, gentler” fashion, I posted just last week that Obama and the Dems were planning a multi-stage PR blitz to sell healthcare to the public for not only the mid term election lead up, but for years after that as well. Presumably we’ll be innundated about the glowing reports of O’healthcare thru the entire 2012 Presidential elections in an effort to convince an unwilling nation that Congress and this POTUS know what is best for us.
In the meantime, the lawsuits remain in play… questioning not only the legitimacy of mandates and levying penalties on products that citizens may choose *not* to purchase, but citing the costs of this plan to the individual states in what they call “an unfunded mandate”. While California remains the most publicized state in fiscal dire straits, the bulk of the states also suffer from being in a world of hurt from uncontrolled spending that far outpaces revenue. So much in fact that states are desperately searching for anything and everything in which to legitimately levy new taxes… from dating services and clowns to services like legal advise and funerals.
A very nasty spending precedent has been set with Congressional overreach in order to fulfill a political agenda. And the states are not blind to their, hopefully short lived, success.
Should government intimidation of corporations and business heads be equally effective… ala this public lynching of corporations for properly disclosing their fiscal penalties under newly enacted law… there will be few places to turn to avoid oppressive government at all levels in America.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
“But there is a price to be paid when anyone chooses to not play ball with Obama and his” Chicago criminal organization which is on the way to outdoing the Mafia. Call Waxman what he is, a domestic terrorists.
While it is appalling that Waxman demands with thug-like bravado that those corporations “prove” their case in front of a government panel, I urge those CEOs to do just that. Sure the msm will paint the picture any way those in power deem it, assuming the hearings will be held on CSPAN, the blogs across the internet will have the videos playing non-stop along with learned, intelligent commentary like we get here from Mata, Mike and the rest on why, again, this bill is detrimental to businesses in the US. I urge them to go out there and tell the country the failings of the bill. Anything to get the chorus of voices calling for repeal of the bill and ouster of the perpetrators even louder than it already is. Thank you for posting this Mata. I saw it on another site and was so outraged that I had to step away from the computer for awhile.
The SEC requires the disclosure as soon as it can be calculated, so how can WAXMAN be so unaware?
Exactly, Ms. Mags… thus the reason that a Congressional hearing for doing mandated disclosures is obviously a partisan, political game for the media.
@johngalt, I can sure understand why you’ve wanted to “step away from the computer” (… and no one gets hurt… LOL) this week. That may explain why I’ve been absent a lot this week. That, combined with personal work schedule. Plus I’ve been doing the legal exploration on the “commerce clause” arguments.
This particular story of intimidation, however, could not be ignored. Glad I could add to the steam from your ears… so to speak. :0)
OBAMA is a frightening figure to millions!
It is what he wants only and he cares little for others!
Apparently Waxman thinks the corporations should disobey the law.
Mataharley,
I find it interesting just how much the left, lead by President Obama, accuses Conservatives of creating a “climate of fear.”
Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats are having their version of a Communist show trial.
I’d say Congress is doing a fine job of creating fear in businesses. Which I suspect filters down to employees.
If anyone isn’t currently wary if not fearful of government, they’d better wake up and realize just how out of control Congress and the Executive branch is.
I mention the Executive being out of control, because President Obama nonchalantly signed an Executive Order stripping abortion funding from the Health Care Bill. (Or, at least, President Obama told Rep. Stupak he’d sign such an order)
As an aside, someone please explain to me the difference between a line item veto and an Executive order designed to change provisions in a bill?
Blake, you know the game plan … he who has the bigger megaphone wins. Much of how the news is painted in the MSM certainly disguises the corruption. But despite that, we are in the Info Age, and movements like the tea partiers do get started to protest what they think we don’t understand.
I don’t think much of the nation is “unaware” of the corruption. What I do think is the nation is split on accepting that corruption, as long as it furthers their agenda. They haven’t figured out that such absolute power is dangerous, despite the wants or desires of progressives or conservatives.
As for the promised EO. The preliminary text was provided to appease Stupid-pak but sans signature. After all, the POTUS couldn’t promise to apply the Hyde Amendment to a bill he had not yet enacted. To this date, there is no EO signed on the government site. Nor is there any outcry from Stupak that it doesn’t exist.
Maybe it’s a “secret” handshake EO? LOL
What becomes more notable is that those that opposed the Hyde Amendment… Obama’s far left back yard included with the ACLU and NOW… have chosen to keep them pretended “ire” at his agreeing to such an EO post passage of the bill. Apparently, between Democrats, broken promises mean nothing. And to the MSMS, such broken promises are not “news”.
INRE your comment:
In the public whitewash version, the EO was only supposed to “reinforce” the fact that the Hyde Amendment… already agreed to for the fiscal year… would not be violated. However the vague language in the bill doesn’t make this clear. This is the reason why Stupid-pak spent all morning with Obama’s attorneys. Obama did *not* want to sign this EO. The public version was “it was unncessary”. The legal version was it was in conflict with the less than clear language that Stupid-pack disagreed with at the onset.
Thus is likely the reason that Obama has not, to date, signed that EO to our knowledge. And also why Stupid-pak and the normal supposedly “conscientious objectors” are silent. There is no conflict if he doesn’t sign the EO. He did not sign it simultaneously with the bill.
Interesting, eh?
Lies lies lies and corruption. That’s our government.
NO! Why did these evil corporate monsters have to poop on my Obamacare Pride Parade?
@Meta….I’m not disagreeing AT ALL. I hope you continues to bitchslap Obamacare and ALL of its big government consequences! But I have a couple questions, and that’s why I support the hearings.
This so-called “loophole” doesn’t close until year-end 2012….why is AT&T projecting financial losses now? Their initial subsidies in 2003, which are also deductible, must have freed up $1 billion+++ dollars b/c now they’re able to declare a capital loss…..use it as an excuse to cut benefits when revenues are at 45%…..hmmmmm…
Big Goverment + Big Business = Bad News
Blake
I am not sure anyone can explain the difference considering that it is illegal for the president, even by executive order, to not implement something in a bill that has become law. The line item veto, when used in certain(most) states but is not possible for the president, strikes out certain provisions in a bill beforesigning, and according to the particular state’s law regarding use of the line item veto. The line item veto law of 1996 was struck down in 1998 and as such, will only be granted if a true constitutional amendment is ratified. As for the executive order, it cannot be used to strike out parts of existing law and is mostly used for functionary items within departments. In essence, Obama’s EO on outlawing federal subsidizing of abortions is not only against the constitution, but another overreach of federal power by the president. Stupak was an idiot for believing that Obama’s EO carries any weight whatsoever, and the minute they are able to, abortion rights groups will sue the government to strike that particular EO.
Welcome to our new version of Al Capone. Al Obama. Anybody want to watch the Untouchables again. Remember what Sean Connery said on how you deal with Capone.
He does not know what type of Americans he is dealing with. Neither did King George I.
I imagine part of the reason they are having a write down now may be to FAS109 and FIN48 rules. FAS109 has to do with tax liabilities and tax assets. You have to classify in your financial statements tax liabilities and tax assets so that you can estimate what those liability/assets are and what they will be in terms of current and non-current, so some of this write-down may be for future periods.
FIN48 has to do with the confidence you have in those estimated amounts of tax assets and liabilities.
So, say if you have a tax liability that is not in the current year, you still have to classify the liability on your balance sheet to the extent you can estimate that future liability based on some working assumptions.
Also there is the issue of the mark to market (Code Section 475 I think?) rules which probably are also being effected. When a companies intangible assets change in value simply because their profitability is going to be severely affected by these new laws, especially for these companies that are publicly traded and lose so much equity because of their stock prices taking a hit.
Sorry if that is about as clear as mud, but I have a backache.
@John,
I mentioned the EO, because that particular EO looked, walked and quacked like a line item veto. Not that I expected President Obama to ever follow through with that particular EO. Rather, I expected President Obama to say “Oops, so sorry, didn’t realize it at the time, but, can’t change a law with an EO.”
@Mata,
Just wondering, does this particular show trial by Congress really surprise you?
If Democrats are mad about these companies taking hundreds of millions of charges over Health Care, they’ll probably have apoplexies over the charges companies will take if Cap and Trade is passed.
@Blake
Gotcha, and no disrespect was intended to you at all. The question is really a moot point all the way around since Obama has not, and probably intends not, to sign the useless EO at all.
WOW — and here I thought it was the law that public companies make immediate public release of charges which could effect their earnings … Silly me.
@John,
No offense taken.
Rep. Stupak was looking for political cover.
Stupak is a fool for believing an EO fig leaf is going to cover his political heinie.
I never thought a bunch of politicians would willingly commit political seppuku.
@Danny D, I’d say that@jlfintx did a stellar job in explaining the immediate costs. i.e. the non-cash expenses over the new taxing of Medicare subsidies that take effect and affect their corporate profit projections. Of course, what the Dems like to forget is these evil corporations are really a bunch of shareholders… including pensioners and other investors.
BTW, that $1 bil is a third of their most recent quarterly earnings. And per the NYTs article, that $3 bil profit is from their $30.9 bil quarterly revenue. Unless I want to use Obama math, it sure doesn’t come up to 45% profit. How about 9.7%?
Additionally, AT&T has a huge employer base… far more so than Caterpillar and Deere… and will be taking a huge fiscal bath unless they can negotiate their way out of this, or else cut the benefits.
@Blake, not so much as a surprise as just a way to alert the masses to the sleazy attempt to publicly demonize the corporations. They will, of course, attempt to spin this as the greedy big business who’s lying about their health care for some bizarre reason…. Can’t have them rich pensioners… er, CEOs… pointing out the flaws and folly of this within days of passage, right?
Faaaaaaascist.
The thugs are getting braver all over as they realize the pack leader is definitely not alpha quality. Maybe not even beta quality. This is a time to take leadership roles when possible, because the bad guys certainly will be preemptive in their thuggery. I’m with above who says the more noise about what it costs, the better. Sooner or later, when the cost gets personal, people see the light.
Torquemada Waxman is in full inquisition mode with the event upcoming being a full blown auto de fe. And God lets people like this procreate! Amazing isn’t it. But the CEOs of the companies in question should simply decline the invitation. It was nothing more than that. And in the light of any lack of civility by the administration and the majority party in the congress, a polite no would suffice. With out any elaboration save that it would be a waste of taxpayer’s money and the house’s time.
If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit! Should work with the dim bulbs on wax man’s committee.
@Meta, thanks, I’ll take a look at those comments.
Best,
D
Stephenson, Randall L
SAN ANTONIO, TX
78212 AT&T/Chief Operating Officer $1,000 02/21/2007 P FRIENDS OF RAHM EMANUEL – Democrat
There you go. Anyone who gives $$$ to “Friends of Rahm Emanuel” deserves what they get.
Perhaps you’re not seeing what might be questionable about the recent spate of “loss” claims from these companies. First of all, they are apparently still going to get the handouts. I disagree with taxing workers to pay for companies’ contracts, but that’s the deal cut by the Administration in 2003.
The part that was over the top was allowing them to continue to deduct 100% of the purchase price of the drugs, even though a billion dollars of the money they were spending was straight from the taxpayers.
So when they announce to the world that they won’t be getting another few decades of free tax deductions and attach a dollar amount to that, they are making a number of assumptions, not the least of which is that they will have tax liabilities every year in the future for which they are now claiming a “loss.” Why is it a problem to have them show how they came up with these numbers? One well-respected stock analyst at Credit Suisse has said that the change is a wash. A friend who does accounting and rate setting for utilities has told me that this kind of scam, claiming current losses from lack of future tax benefits for decades, would be illegal and considered fraudulent in those industries.
I wish I could do that. But I wish I could take a deduction for my current health insurance and medical care payments, the way any company is allowed to do. I can’t.
The point is that the pendulum swung too far in favor of the corporations, and the people can no longer afford to give them that much welfare, nor give them tax deductions on top of that.
When the field is leveled, and I can deduct my first dollar of medical expenses and my individual health insurance premiums, then I’ll say the pendulum is closer to equilibrium. Why should you and I subsidize AT&T and then give them a sweetener in the form of a tax deduction equal to the amount of our money when they spend it?
Of course they are going to claim they can’t afford to go without the tax deductions they get from spending their welfare checks. I’m a little more conservative than that. I don’t think they deserved the handout in the first place.
@Ivan, At&T’s board and head officers are overwhelmingly supporters of the Republican party…granted the Dems have dont a very good job at appealing to the wealthy and corporate elites I don’t think you can say that they deserved this because of some rather paltry contribution.
@jim: the fly in your ointment is you and your accounting friends are thinking privately owned business, and not a publicly traded corporation. Those “owners” you seem to think were getting a free ride are actually shareholders, pensioners, etal. The benefits of the tax deductions were not pocketed, but applied towards prescription drug benefits.
As publicly traded companies they are require to report tax repercussions as part of their disclosure. And now, because they have, they are being called on the carpet by Congress. WTF? Do you think it was beneficial to their stock values to note a loss? Should they have ignored SEC regulations?
This idiotic bill is all about “subsidizing” health care. Yet in this instance, they pulled subsidies that affect not only the shareholders, but the health coverage currently enjoyed by the employees. Employees who are now at risk for either losing their coverage, being laid off because of higher overhead, or both.
Counterproductive is a kinder/gentler term for the clusterf*#k this created. Both for health care and for employment. The field was not “leveled”… the pendulum swung in favor of Dems revenue numbers for CBO analysis to pass budget reconciliation rules, and away from the employees and shareholders.
@Ivan, At&T�s board and head officers are overwhelmingly supporters of the Republican party�granted the Dems have dont a very good job at appealing to the wealthy and corporate elites I don�t think you can say that they deserved this because of some rather paltry contribution.
Damn straight I’m saying that. You play with the devil, even for a little bit, don’t be surprised if you get burned.
Evidently jim’s accounting friends are uninformed about the regulations imposed by FASB & SEC and the different and for completely different reasons for the Treasury regulations.
There is also a difference between book or income calculated in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP) and taxable income. But why spell out the difference and explain the points to people that are never going to see the democrats as the crooks they are?
Mata
This is only the tip of the iceberg when talking about employees losing coverage or worse, being laid off. Perusing through some timelines for the implementation of the bill I have noticed several items, that, while on the surface seem pretty innocuous, will, in fact, cause loss of coverage, or lay-offs. Some examples:
And those are just for this year alone. All of those will raise premiums for those of us who purchase, through our employers, health care coverage. That employer provided health care coverage is, in some part, paid for by the company we work for. The higher cost of coverage will result in higher overheads for the companies and the result will be either dropping the benefit for employees, lowering the benefit for employees, or laying off workers to ensure the same coverage is maintained. The unexpected consequences of this bill will come to light very soon, but I expect no reporting on it from the msm either. My own company got ahead of the curve in the expectation of the tax on “cadillac” plans and dropped the coverage I have enjoyed since 2005. It was a lower deductible, higher monthly cost, but provided more coverage than the typical plan, and………….I liked it! Starting this year it was no longer an option and when asked why it was dropped, our HR rep. stated that the govt.’s plan(both the house and senate versions had this) to tax the “cadillac” health care coverage plans was the driving force. And, we find out, that union and public employee plans are exempt from the tax. Apparently, “separate but equal” is alive and well in America.
@jlfintx where have you been all my political life… LOL! Glad you’ve decided to add your expertise to the fray here on FA. Don’t be a stranger.
Ivan and Danny D. In some ways what you are rating is the pecan pie entry at the quilting bee competition. AT&T is a “heavy hitter” industry. Like most, they generally support the party in power, or most likely to be in power. In 2008, they split their contributions evenly between Dems and GOP. Check Open Secrets records for details.
As for the 2010 mid terms, they are still around the 50/50 mark, but spreading the money around to far more Dems than they are to the GOP.
Instead, you, Ivan, are taking off on a wild tangent to an individual in AT&T. The entity is publicly held. An individual is an entirely different matter. They are unrelated. Individuals can, and should be allowed, to support whomever they wish. But since you wish to bring up Randall Stephenson, maybe you should dig your nose a bit deeper into his campaign donations, eh?
The above is for the 2010 cycle only. If you want to go back thru the 2005-2008 cycles, here’s that link… a veritable cornucopia of GOPers there. And yes, he donated to both Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid, but a pittance compared to his multiple donations to John McCain individually. Does the fact that he also contributed to the GOP “Keep our Majority” PAC in 2005, and the GOP “Every Republican is Crucial” PAC in 2008 swing any weight with you?
Beware of slim pickin’s of facts when trying to make your point, Ivan. The snapshop fact trick is easily debunked.
@johngalt, I absolutely agree that the repercussions are only beginning to be felt. Frankly, I thought it would take months to a year before much of this hit the news. Amazing that the “benefits” are, indeed, showing up immediately, as the Dems promised.
I guess the “benefits” they meant were to the federal revenue. And, as you say, to the union friends of this admin.
Mata
One that I didn’t mention, as it won’t come around until 2014, is the $2,000 tax penalty per full-time employees(30hrs+) to companies who do not provide health care coverage to those full-time employees. My wife works at the local animal shelter, a private enterprise subsidized with a small amount from the county, works full time, makes $7.75/hr or so, and does not have healthcare coverage because they don’t offer it, and because mine is pretty good anyway. There are more people that work there without spousal health care coverage. The shelter barely makes ends meet, mostly due to enormous time contributions by board members who don’t get paid, and find donations and sponsorships from the big pet food companies. This shelter will go under very quickly if required to pay this tax penalty, or the people in the county where I live will be hit by a higher tax burden due to higher amounts for the subsidizing of not only this shelter, but other public services provided by private enterprises. And I am sure that it isn’t only happening in the small corner of the country where I live, but will happen all over. Unintended consequences for the worse.
johngalt, depending on how many work at the shelter, the company has options to provide health insurance and get some tax credits, or make a “nonelective contribution arrangement” that can equal 50% of the employees costs. I would assume that gets them out of the tax penalty. The accounting question is… is it cheaper to pay the penalty? Or 50% of the insurance?
There also seems to be some inbetween employer status. They say large employers are 50+ full time employees (and they have their own definition of “full time” and seasonal workers). The “eligible” small employer wouldn’t have more than 25. I’m sure I’m missing something between the large employers section and the small employers… like the status of those with between 25 and 50, perhaps? LOL
BTW, the small employer section starts on pg 305, Sec 1421. I’m guessing the animal shelter doesn’t employ more than 50, right?
Maybe our new FA accounting wiz, jlfintx, can shed more light. The more I read, the more vague and clear-as-mud this gets.
@johngalt:
Part time workers must be counted for fine assessment as well.
I don’t recall off the top of my head what the formula is but I know that part timers must be accounted for.
I will try to research it later this evening after the gardening work is done.
Sorry Mata, I did not see your post and have been fighting a software problem most of the day.
I will have to read and digest before I do any bloviating, but generally speaking, penalties are usually not tax deductible whereas the other deductions are. So not quite apples to apples, but to make a quantifiable comparison, you need to know the dollar value in after tax terms.
I probably need to read the part of the bill that you are speaking of. Do you have a link?
Also, many times when a company is in a penalty situation, at least with the IRS, their cpa will usually request an abatement of penalties (such as late paying, late filing, etc) and the majority of the time the IRS will abate, depending on the situation of course.
FYI, I am not an accounting wiz per se, but a tax accountant primarily. TX-CPA.
jlfintx, you’ll need a couple of links
The first is to HR 3590… the Senate amended bill as passed in Dec, and accepted by the House unchanged for payola, EOs, and arm twisting.
Here’s the link to the GovTrack page. The bill is large – 2409 pages – so what I did when it passed… along with all the other sundry versions prior… was to download the PDF to my desktop for easy referral and searching. This forms the basis of O’healthcare.
The second bill you need is HR 4872… what people call “the reconciliation bill”, but is actually a second bill and the “fix it”… sorta… bill. It did not remove things such as the Cornhusker Amendment and other state perks, nor did it incorporation… as promised by this lying arse POTUS… GOP ideas. It did add the Student Loan/Pell Grants language as an additional rider. HR 4872 is 150 pages long, and an easier download. But sometimes it takes a bunch of jumping back and forth between the two. There has been no signing of this bill since it’s passage in the Senate because that chamber amended it, and it has to go back to the House for a new vote. But here’s a PDF to the latest version on GovTrack.
I’d say a CPA has it over the layman on accounting wizardry…. so don’t shortchange yourself. Make sure you have a full bottle of your favorite beverage when you tackle this horse manure….
Again,
Mata
You are right about one thing, lol. The more I read, the more vague and clear-as-mud this gets. I tried to tackle some of the lighter reading of the bill today, but got a head-ache after just a handful of pages.
Okay. I will see if my eyes pop out of my head within 5 minutes.
@jlfintx
You should fare better than I did. I can read most things pretty well, but when it comes to the crap that congress puts out, I usually have to stop after just a couple of minutes. Too much lawyer talk for me, lol.
Sorry, a little lengthy and I have not added the reasons for, but this is a spreadsheet of the times in the two bills that the word penalty and penalties are used. I will come back with the reasons later.
HEALTH CARE BILLS
INSTANCES OF THE WORD(S) “PENALTY(IES)
BILL BILL’S PURPOSE SECTION-REASON FOR PAGE #
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 3
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 8
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 44
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 62
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 142
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 143
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 155
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 156
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 157
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 158
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 162
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 163
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 164
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 165
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 177
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 182
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 210
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 211
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 212
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 213
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 218
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 219
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 220
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 296
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 316
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 367
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 368
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 434
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 437
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 450
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 555
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 588
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 589
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 590
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 591
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 592
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 593
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 594
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 595
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 597
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 598
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 599
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 600
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 601
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 602
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 603
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 604
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 605
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 640
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 642
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 643
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 644
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 686
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 688
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 689
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 692
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 693
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 696
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 697
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 698
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 699
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 713
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 715
HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION 729
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 7
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 44
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 62
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 142
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 143
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 155
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 156
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 157
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 158
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 162
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 163
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 164
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 165
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 177
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 182
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 212
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 214
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 215
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 227
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 228
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 229
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 305
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 327
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 328
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 377
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 378
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 444
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 448
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 461
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 567
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 599
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 601
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 602
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 603
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 604
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 606
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 607
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 608
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 609
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 610
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 611
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 613
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 614
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 615
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 616
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 617
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 652
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 654
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 655
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 656
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 698
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 700
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 701
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 704
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 705
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 706
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 708
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 709
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 710
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 711
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 725
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 727
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 741
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1033
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1038
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1081
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1102
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1195
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1212
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1213
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1214
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1215
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1218
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1219
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1220
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1233
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1238
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1267
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1268
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1274
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1275
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1276
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1277
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1352
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1372
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1423
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1424
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1490
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1493
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1506
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1611
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1644
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1645
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1646
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1647
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1648
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1649
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1650
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1651
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1653
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1654
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1655
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1656
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1657
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1658
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1659
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1660
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1661
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1696
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1698
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1699
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1700
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1742
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1744
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1745
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1748
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1749
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1750
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1752
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1753
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1754
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1755
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1769
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1771
HR4872 RECONCILIATION 1785
By the way, I get 189 times they words appear in the two bills.
I am expanding it quite a bit. Here is an example what it will look like, although I do not have the reason/topic of penalty column filled out; but please let me know if anyone would like a spreadsheet (excel) of the finished project when I am done. We can figure out a private way to get them to whomever later.
This are the column headings and one row completed except for the reason for a penalty (ties)
The rows are from left to right.
# BILL BILL’S PURPOSE IF NEW AGENCY, NAME OF IT TOP BUREAUCRAT IN AGENCY WHICH BRANCH OF GOVT ANSWERS TO WHOM? SECTION-REASON FOR PAGE #
41 HR3200 ORIGINAL LEGISLATION HEALTH CHOICES ADMINISTRATION HEALTH CHOICES COMMISSIONER EXECUTIVE INDEPENDENT 598
@jlfintx
I’m interested, although, I won’t have much time this week to go through your spreadsheet.
I’ve got a public address you can use: stylin_geek at hotmail dot com
Thanks in advance.
Blake
Blake:
Okay, I will try and email you later on this week. I have some meetings this week and will have to come back to it.
@jlfintx, I sure don’t want to be the bearer of bad news, advising you that your parsing homework is faulty. But if you used HR3200, which was the Dingall bill introduced last July, instead of the link I provided to you for HR3590, written by Rangel and passed by both chambers, you’re using all the wrong legislative language. They are two completely different critters.
The proper combo is HR 3590 for the full Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and HR 4872 for the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010… which Obama signed into law just this AM.
Oh, okay. I have that one too. I will edit the 3200 part in there.