Kill Bill H.R.1586 (90% Tax on Bonuses For TARP Recipients) — Morning Bell: Government-Run Health Care by Next Thursday? — Senate Leadership Pushes for Sleazy Maneuver to Pass Anti-Gun ObamaCare Database — GOP Antiabortion Provision in Health Bill Defeated — Health Care Reform For You, Not U.S. — The Rights of Doctors and Patients Are Under Attack by Washington — H.R.1586 — Grayson Video — Grayson calls Republicans ‘knuckle-dragging Neanderthals’ *UPDATE: HEALTH CARE BILL LINKED BELOW*


Kill Bill H.R.1586 (90% Tax Bonuses For TARP Recipients)

A bill before Congress will Impose an additional income tax of 90% on bonuses paid to employees or former employees of covered Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) recipients after December 31, 2008. The bill has been approved by the House and has currently been placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 36.

Some may feel Congress is justified since taxpayer dollars are being used to bail out companies who made bad decisions. It would be naive to believe Congress is taking such an action on behalf of the people to deter companies from rewarding incompetence. Keep in mind if Congress had not given taxpayer dollars to these companies in the first place then these companies would have been at the very least forced to become more efficient via reorganization (Chapter 11) or go out of business (Chapter 7).

Capitalism would have eliminated inefficiency in either situation. Captialism has now been distorted if not eliminated thanks to Congress and the Executive branch. Instead Congress expands the size and scope of government yet again, uses the IRS as a means of punishment and control with HR 1586 and takes more money from the private sector to put in public coffers thereby taking more power from the people. It’s another blatant power grab.

It gets better. Health care has been bogged down in the Senate due to the tremendous and unrelenting pressure constituents have imposed on their Senators over the past few months. Yesterday The Senate Finance Committee rejected a government run health care plan, aka, public option.

Harry Reid is determined to pass government run health care by any deceptive means possible. His latest devious strategy is to attach a socialist health care bill to a House-passed non-healthcare bill. That bill is H.R. 1586. Ironically, nobody knows what that legislation looks like, because it has not yet been written. Yet many members plan to rubber-stamp socialist health care without reading or understanding the bill.

The first step is to get a socialist health care bill out of the Senate Finance Committee. Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) can say that the two Senate Committees, Finance Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, have passed a bill which will allow him to take extraordinary steps to get the bill on the Senate floor. The second step is to merge the two bills. Step three will be to attach the final Senate bill to H.R. 1586.

There are two methods people can take to prevent Reid and his fellow socialists from attempting to deceive yet again. First people can contact their Senators via phone, email and fax demanding such an onerous bill as H.R.1586 be defeated on a Senate vote.

The Second is method has to do with preventing any health care mark up from being voted out of committee. The Senate Finance Committee has it’s own Rules of Procedures. Rule 4 of the Rules of Procedure for the Senate Finance Committee reads: “Rule 4. Quorums. – (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) one-third of the membership of the committee, including not less than one member of the majority party and one member of the minority party, shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of business.”

That means, at least one Republican Senator on the Finance Committee needs to be in attendance in order to pass any legislation out of committee. In other words, 10 Republican Senators (Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Olympia Snowe, Jon Kyl, Jim Bunning, Mike Crapo, Pat Roberts, John Ensign, Mike Enzi and John Cornyn) could stop ObamaCare cold right now by simply saying they will not support it under any circumstances.

If those 10 Senators would simply say “no,” and deny Democrats on the Finance Committee a quorum; ObamaCare would be done and finished. It would die in committee. It is imperative people contact these ten Senators demanding they make it clear to the Democrats that Republicans will not participate in any quorum to vote a health care mark up out of committee.

Credit:  FreeRepublic Member Man50D



Morning Bell: Government-Run Health Care by Next Thursday?

Author: Conn Carroll | Posted September 30th, 2009

The Washington Post front page blares today: “Prospects for Public Option Dim in Senate.” Don’t believe it. Yes, the Senate Finance Committee did vote down two amendments that each would have added a government-run insurance plan to the committee’s health care bill. But two key Democrats who voted against Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s (D-WV) public plan, Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Tom Carper (D-DE), voted for Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) version.

According to an independent analysis of Senate Democrat public statements on the public option, that raises the number of Democrats on record supporting a public option from 47 to 49. Moreover, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), chairmen of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, told the liberal “Bill Press Radio Show” yesterday that Democrats “comfortably” have the remaining votes to reach 51 and pass a public plan once the debate moves to the House floor.

But what about Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus’ (D-MT) claim yesterday that, “No one has been able to show me how we can count up to 60 votes with a public option.” That may be true, but it is also irrelevant. The question is not whether Democrats can muster 60 votes to pass Obamacare; they only need 51 votes to do that. The only time the number 60 will be relevant is when the Senate votes on whether to end debate and vote on the final bill. This is a separate question. We can see Senators from red states like Ben Nelson (D-NE), Blanch Lincoln (D-AR), and Kent Conrad (D-ND) voting against an amendment creating a public option. But voting with Republicans against their party and against their President to support a Republican filibuster? That would take a lot of courage. It would guarantee that these Democrats would face fierce opposition from their leftist bases back home. Just ask the left’s new whip for the public option, Michael Moore. Speaking to women’s groups and unions in Washington, DC, yesterday, Moore warned:

To the Democrats in Congress who don’t quite get it: I want to offer a personal pledge. I – and a lot of other people – have every intention of removing you from Congress in the next election if you stand in the way of health care legislation that the people want. That is not a hollow or idle threat. We will come to your district and we will work against you, first in the primary and, if we have to, in the general election.

Moore is, of course, the perfect spokesman for the public option. He is in Washington promoting his new film “Capitalism: A Love Story” in which Moore argues that “Capitalism is an evil, and you can’t regulate evil.” A more succinct summation of theory behind the public option does not exist. While supporters of the plan, including the White House, insist that the purpose of the public option is to bring “choice and competition” to the health care, nothing could be further from the truth. As Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Anthony Weiner (D-NY) Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein, and Noble Prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman have all candidly admitted, the public option is nothing more than a Trojan horse for a single-payer, government-run health care system. Moore even told Rolling Stone magazine this summer:

If a true public option is enacted — and Obama knows this — it will eventually bring about a single payer system, because the profit-making insurance companies won’t be able to compete with a government run plan and make the profits they want to make.

So just how close are we to being inflicted with the Obama/Moore dream of anti-capitalist, competition-free, government-run health care? Closer than many realize. Multiple sources on the Hill have told The Foundry that as early as next week, the Senate could be debating Obamacare. Senate Majority Leader Reid has stated an intention to take the HELP Committee product and merge it with the Senate Finance Committee markup that is expected to be over by this Thursday or Friday. Their plan is to proceed to a House passed non-health care bill to provide a shell of legislation to give Obamacare a ride to the House and then straight to the President’s desk.

Quick Hits:



Senate Leadership Pushes for Sleazy Maneuver to Pass Anti-Gun ObamaCare Database

GOA – Friday, September 18, 2009

Charles Babington of the Associated Press reported yesterday about the Senate Democratic leadership’s latest sleazy maneuver to pass the anti-gun health care bill.  And this is contemptible even by their admittedly low standards:

White House and Democratic officials are quietly talking with key senators, hoping to craft a thread-the-needle strategy on health care with little or no help from Republicans.  The officials are asking a handful of moderate Democrats to do something that might be hard to explain to voters:  Cast a Senate vote that could be interpreted as favoring a bill that the lawmakers ultimately plan to oppose on final passage.

In other words, they are trying to convince the swing votes — Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, perhaps Joe Lieberman of Connecticut — to “throw” their vote on a pivotal filibuster vote.  Bottom line:  they are being asked to side with the ObamaCare supporters when it comes to the all important “cloture” vote — which is the real hurdle that ObamaCare supporters must overcome if they are to pass the bill in the Senate.

The cloture vote determines whether a filibuster will continue or not, and it requires the support of 60 Senators.  Siding with the ObamaCare supporters on the cloture vote would allow the “swing voters” to oppose the bill on final passage, where only 50 votes (plus the Vice-President) are needed.

Under this scenario, the moderate Democrats would then go back to their constituents and claim to have opposed the anti-gun health care bill because they voted against it on “final passage.” But the critical vote which will have determined the real outcome of ObamaCare will have been the cloture vote.  They will claim that the cloture vote was only a “procedural vote.”

It is hard to imagine that anyone with an IQ over 50 would think anyone would swallow this scumbag trick.

But, just to make sure, we are asking our members to let senators know what the response will be for any senator who casts a deciding vote to pass the anti-gun health care bill on cloture, and then tries to trick them.

ACTION: Please write your Senators.  Let them know that the 60-vote-margin votes on “cloture” are the important health care votes.  No one will be fooled by a senator who votes wrong on these and then casts a meaningless vote against final passage…]


Senate Finance Committee members, from left, John Kerry (Vietnam Veteran) (D., Mass.), Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) talk Wednesday on Capitol Hill prior to the panel’s hearing on health-care legislation.


GOP Antiabortion Provision in Health Bill Defeated

By GREG HITT | October 1, 2009

WASHINGTON — The Senate Finance Committee turned back Republican-led efforts to tighten abortion restrictions in health-overhaul legislation, and the Senate’s top Democrat said he wants to bring a sweeping bill to the floor in two weeks.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said Wednesday that he expected to begin Senate debate the week of Oct. 12, which would be the biggest step forward yet for legislation designed to accomplish President Barack Obama’s goal of extending health-insurance coverage to tens of millions of Americans.

Many hurdles remain before the bill is ready for debate in the Senate. Mr. Reid must referee a blending of the Finance Committee package with a more liberal bill approved by the Senate health committee. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office must come up with a price tag for the bill. And Mr. Reid must solidify support among Democratic centrists worried about the cost of the bill, which is estimated at between $800 billion and $900 billion over a decade.

Mr. Reid, however, put the Senate on notice that he wants to move quickly, saying he is canceling a planned recess the week of Columbus Day. “I think with health care, which is really beginning to ferment, it wouldn’t be right for us to be gone,” he said.

In the House, Democratic leaders continued efforts Wednesday to nail down details of a bill to bring to the House floor. House leaders want to include a government-run insurance plan and are considering a proposal to require it to negotiate payment rates directly with health-care providers. That would be a concession to moderate Democrats, who had complained about a proposal to tie payments to low rates used by Medicare…]

Copyright ©2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved


Health Care Reform For You, Not U.S.

IBM Editorial

Government: Federal employees are squawking that Congress might change their gold-plated health coverage, with its wide array of choices. Why isn’t what the politicians plan for us good enough for them?

The National Association of Retired Federal Employees sent an e-mail to its members this week warning of two amendments to the Senate’s health bill that “threaten the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).”

One was a proposal from Iowa’s Charles Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. It required federal workers and members of Congress to join state-based health exchanges to purchase health insurance instead of the FEHBP.

The Finance Committee changed it to make enrollment in the exchanges optional rather than mandatory for federal employees and lawmakers. But the NARFE warned that “Grassley’s staff has said they still plan to push the stronger language.”

The interest group warned its members that “the Grassley amendment would effectively end FEHBP and require federal workers to join the health exchanges. You worked too hard for your FEHBP health benefits, and we cannot allow them to be taken away.”

A second amendment giving the federal worker advocate group the jitters comes from liberal Democratic finance panel member Ron Wyden of Oregon. Wyden wants to, as NARFE puts it, “open the FEHBP to certain low-income, nonfederal civilians.”

NARFE insists “that any proposal to open the FEHBP to the public must include separate risk pools, which the Wyden amendment does not contain … Risk pools are used to calculate health plan premiums based on the cost of providing coverage to enrollees.”

The group warns its members that “without the opportunity to study nonfederal enrollees in a separate FEHBP risk pool, the introduction of any new community into the FEHBP could result in unanticipated premium increases.”

And so, the NARFE is asking members to contact senators and urge them “to oppose any amendment to health care reform legislation that would force federal workers and annuitants into the exchange system and/or would open FEHBP to nonfederal civilians without a separate risk pool.”

A list of key senators was provided to NARFE members so they could “make an all-out effort” to influence lawmakers who “play a leading role in shaping the legislation.”

The way these federal worker lobbyists are panicking, you’d think they were about to have the crown jewels stolen from them. Well, that’s about right.

Should it really be a surprise that politicians in Washington have bestowed upon themselves the best health care scheme available? Should it amaze anyone that even liberal lawmakers pushing for a single payer Euro-socialistic health system for the rest of us found that a system squarely based on robust competition and the widest range of consumer choice was what they would want for themselves and their families?

The number of private health insurance plans available to federal employees through FEHBP is well over 200, ranging from fee-for-service policies to HMOs and PPOs. The geographical location of the federal worker may limit availability, but no government employee has fewer than a dozen choices available.

Plus, every year, the millions of Americans who form the federal work force can switch their plan if they’ve decided they don’t like it, and every year tens of thousands of them do just that.

“This puts tremendous pressure on health plans to be competitive and innovative,” notes Dr. David Gratzer, a Canadian physician and senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute. “Not surprisingly, most are.” And while most U.S. private employers don’t offer consumer-driven health insurance plans, the FEHBP offers a selection of more than a dozen such schemes.

Uncle Sam helps out with the premiums too, to the tune of over 70%, and regulation is very much on the light side: no state-mandated benefits or premium taxes and no specification of standard benefits by the federal government.

As Dr. Gratzer puts it, comparing the FEHBP to federal health care entitlements, “the federal government’s role in the FEHBP is to pay the bills; under Medicare, Washington is the designer of benefits.” What’s more, FEHBP costs have grown at a far lower rate than private insurance spending. That’s the beauty of an arrangement that embraces competition.

Politicians and the federal work force know that consumer choice works for their own health coverage. Whatever they impose on the rest of us, it’s a safe bet they won’t ruin the great competition-based deal they got for themselves.


The Rights of Doctors and Patients Are Under Attack by Washington

Doctors on Strike For Freedom in Medicine

Washington politicians are poised to inject a massive, lethal dose of statism into the heart of healthcare:

The right of doctors and patients to make personal, private, and independent healthcare decisions that often have life or death consequences.

Since Ancient Greece, we have been well-served by a well-established tradition in which doctors and patients make healthcare decisions that (a) are informed by the professional training and experience of the doctor, and (b) are individually tailored to the unique needs of the patient.

We have been doing all of this for centuries without any uncaring, untrained government bureaucrats forcing us to do what they tell us to do.

The healthcare sector of the economy is already clogged with more government control than any other industry. This is a big part of the problem.

The massive dose of marxist medicine now coming from Washington would induce grave waves of arrhythmia – inflation, price controls, lower quality, doctor shortages, waiting periods, and rationing.

These disturbances would become so emotionally distressing to the American people that Alinsky-inspired statists — opportunists that they are — would be able to exploit each new “healthcare crisis” as another opportunity to inject another dose of marxist medicine into the system.


As a health care professional, I have been trying to figure out the best way to stop this march toward medical madness. As a 61-year old patient with my own share of health concerns, I really do not want to participate in any government-run health care system. As a father, I am really worried about the long-term future of medicine and the mountain of debt being piled on the back of my son’s generation and the ones to follow.

Some people who read this will undoubtedly accuse me of being “selfish.” I’ll take that as a compliment if it means that I am trying to live my whole life well by acting on reasoned choices without violating the rights of others along the way. I urge others in this healthcare debate to adopt an ethic of rational self-interest while rejecting the alternatives of being self-sacrificial or predatory in their relationships with all the players in the health care system.

I hope you embrace the ethic of rational self-interest and encourage others to do the same. And support the strike — if it comes to that!

Dr. Gregory L. Garamoni
Founder and Executive Director,
Doctors on Strike for Freedom in Medicine

The Doctor Is Out

Nearly half of doctors surveyed said that they would consider leaving medicine rather than put up with the government interference, red tape, and underpayment currently proposed under “Obamacare.” This would happen at the same time that millions of additional patients were being added to the nation’s healthcare roles.

Title: To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 3/18/2009)      Cosponsors (51)
Related Bills: H.R.1518H.R.1527H.R.1542H.R.1543H.R.1572H.R.1598H.R.1801H.R.3452
Latest Major Action: 3/23/2009 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 36.

There are 3 versions of Bill Number H.R.1586 for the 111th Congress

1 . To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients. (Introduced in House)[H.R.1586.IH]
2 . To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients. (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.1586.EH]
3 . To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients. (Placed on Calendar in Senate)[H.R.1586.PCS]


To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients. (Placed on Calendar in Senate)

HR 1586 PCS

Calendar No. 36 111th CONGRESS 1st Session

H. R. 1586


March 19, 2009

Received and read the first time

March 23, 2009

Read the second time and placed on the calendar


To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


    (a) In General- In the case of an employee or former employee of a covered TARP recipient, the tax imposed by chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for any taxable year shall not be less than the sum of–
    • (1) the tax that would be determined under such chapter if the taxable income of the taxpayer for such taxable year were reduced (but not below zero) by the TARP bonus received by the taxpayer during such taxable year, plus
    • (2) 90 percent of the TARP bonus received by the taxpayer during such taxable year.
    (b) TARP Bonus- For purposes of this section–
    • (1) IN GENERAL- The term `TARP bonus’ means, with respect to any individual for any taxable year, the lesser of–
      • (A) the aggregate disqualified bonus payments received from covered TARP recipients during such taxable year, or
      • (B) the excess of–
        • (i) the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer for such taxable year, over
        • (ii) $250,000 ($125,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return).
      • (A) IN GENERAL- The term `disqualified bonus payment’ means any retention payment, incentive payment, or other bonus which is in addition to any amount payable to such individual for service performed by such individual at a regular hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, or similar periodic rate.
      • (B) EXCEPTIONS- Such term shall not include commissions, welfare or fringe benefits, or expense reimbursements.
      • (C) WAIVER OR RETURN OF PAYMENTS- Such term shall not include any amount if the employee irrevocably waives the employee’s entitlement to such payment, or the employee returns such payment to the employer, before the close of the taxable year in which such payment is due. The preceding sentence shall not apply if the employee receives any benefit from the employer in connection with the waiver or return of such payment.
    • (3) REIMBURSEMENT OF TAX TREATED AS TARP BONUS- Any reimbursement by a covered TARP recipient of the tax imposed under subsection (a) shall be treated as a disqualified bonus payment to the taxpayer liable for such tax.
    (c) Covered TARP Recipient- For purposes of this section–
    • (1) IN GENERAL- The term `covered TARP recipient’ means–
      • (A) any person who receives after December 31, 2007, capital infusions under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which, in the aggregate, exceed $5,000,000,000,
      • (B) the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,
      • (C) any person who is a member of the same affiliated group (as defined in section 1504 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, determined without regard to paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (b)) as a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B), and
      • (D) any partnership if more than 50 percent of the capital or profits interests of such partnership are owned directly or indirectly by one or more persons described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
    • (2) EXCEPTION FOR TARP RECIPIENTS WHO REPAY ASSISTANCE- A person shall be treated as described in paragraph (1)(A) for any period only if–
      • (A) the excess of the aggregate amount of capital infusions described in paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such person over the amounts repaid by such person to the Federal Government with respect to such capital infusions, exceeds
      • (B) $5,000,000,000.
    (d) Other Definitions- Terms used in this section which are also used in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall have the same meaning when used in this section as when used in such Code.
    (e) Coordination With Internal Revenue Code of 1986- Any increase in the tax imposed under chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by reason of subsection (a) shall not be treated as a tax imposed by such chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under such chapter or for purposes of section 55 of such Code.
    (f) Regulations- The Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary’s delegate, shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section.
    (g) Effective Date- This section shall apply to disqualified bonus payments received after December 31, 2008, in taxable years ending after such date.

Passed the House of Representatives March 19, 2009.




Calendar No. 36

111th CONGRESS 1st Session

H. R. 1586


To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients.

Grayson calls Republicans ‘knuckle-dragging Neanderthals’

CNN Political Ticker

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Freshman Congressman Alan Grayson refused to back down Wednesday from controversial remarks he made on the House floor the night before saying the Republican health care plan calls for sick people to “die quickly.”

In fact, Grayson — a Democrat who represents a central Florida swing district that includes Orlando — made another floor speech in which he apologized to the dead and their families for not acting sooner on health care reform, and then defended both speeches on CNN’s “The Situation Room.”

“What I mean is they have got no plan,” Grayson told Wolf Blitzer. “It’s been 24 hours since I said that. Where is the Republican plan? We’re all waiting to see something that will take care of the pre-existing conditions, to take care of the 40 million Americans who have no coverage at all.

“That’s what I meant when I said that the Republican plan is don’t get sick. And if you do get sick, die quickly.”

Republicans pounced on Grayson’s late-night speech and demanded an apology.

“That is about the most mean-spirited partisan statement that I’ve ever heard made on this floor, and I, for one, don’t appreciate it,” Tennessee Republican Rep. Jimmy Duncan told the Politico.

On Wednesday, Grayson apologized, but it wasn’t the apology the Republicans wanted. Citing a Harvard University study released earlier this month that said 44,000 Americans die each year because they have no health insurance, Grayson called on Democrats and Republicans “to do our jobs for the sake of those dying people and their families.”

“I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven’t voted sooner to end this holocaust in America,” he said.

That prompted National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Ken Spain to issue a stinging rebuke saying that Grayson is “doubling down on his despicable remarks and he is dragging his party with him.”

“This is an individual who has established a pathological pattern of unstable behavior,” Spain said. “He is derailing the national debate on health care reform and embarrassing his constituents as a result.”…]


Related Links:

The Hill:  Senators turn back ID requirement for immigrant healthcare

Human Events:  Congress’s Secret Plan to Pass Obamacare

CATO: All the President’s Mandates: Compulsory Health Insurance Is a Government Takeover

Hot Air:  Video: And now, an important message from non-celebrities on ObamaCare

The Hill Blog: Harkin: No GOP at the table when Senate merges healthcare bills & Johanns: GOP must participate in healthcare bill merge

NY Post: (DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN) The most squalid ‘reform’ deal yet

READ Without Downloading: **** Draft of the Senate Finance Committee’s Health-Care Reform Bill ****

PDF VERSION (262 pAGES): Text of the America’s Healthy Future Act as Amended

Update:  Add Above Draft of HC Bill – end