Battle of the Bilge

New Email Regarding Health Care Changes

A new viral email has hit the streets that discusses new taxes on health care provided by private and public employers. While it is rooted in fact, the email leaves out an incredible number of pertinent items, most of all the fact that it won’t go into effect until 2018 and that the actual tax only applies to so called ‘Cadillac’ health insurance plans – those that cost more than $10,500 for individual plans and $27,500 for family coverage. And the tax would only be applicable to anything that exceeds the $27,500 threshold. It also contains a very clear misstatement that the cost of health care will be added to your gross income next year. A response from our Government Relations team follows the viral email.

The Email

You really need to read this……starts nextext year …This is part of the new Health Care Bill.
Contacted my Congressman about House bill HR3590 the health care bill just passed. I asked for a summary of changes.
The aid directed me to go to www.thomas.gov ; enter HR3590 in the search Box and look for summaries.
Starting in 2011 (next year folks) your W 2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of what ever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that’s a private concern or governmental body of some sort. If you’re retired, so what; your gross will go up by the amount of insurance you get.
You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen.
Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That’s what you’ll pay next year. For many it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it’s even worse.
This is how the government is going to buy insurance for 15 % that don’t have insurance and it’s only part of the tax increases.
Not believing this I researched the summaries and here’s what I’m reading:
On page 25 of 29:
TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002. “requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross income.”
Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what I just told you about.
Why am I sending you this? The same reason I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book. People have the right to know the truth because an election is coming in November.

MOAA’s Response

This is a classic case of someone taking a fact and twisting it into something else.

Yes, the new law requires an entry on the W-2 showing the cost of employer-provided care.

But that doesn’t mean the employee will be taxed on it. the purpose of including it on the W-2 is mainly to show the employee what the value of the benefit is. As for the tax aspect:

First off, there isn’t any tax on health benefits value before 2018.

Second, there won’t be any taxes imposed on plans that aren’t deemed “Cadillac” plans (which are defined as those costing more than $10,200 for individual coverage or $27,500 for a family plan)

Third, it’s not the employees, but the insurance companies that provide those plans that will be taxed on part of such value – starting in 2018.

Fourth, the tax won’t be on the total value of the plan. Insurers will be assessed a tax equal to 40% of whatever share of the value exceeds the $27,500 threshold. i.e., if the value of a plan is $30,000, the insurer will be taxed 40% of $2,500 = $1,000.

Discussion

Posts are not held for moderation so your comment will appear immediately, but may be modified if it is deemed inappropriate.

“Fairness, diligence, sound preparation, professional skill and loyalty are the marks of American military leadership.”
- General Omar Bradley

Addressing the Army’s Future Leaders

President Obama gave the commencement address at the ceremony for graduating officers of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, held at Michie Stadium, West Point, N.Y on Saturday, May 22. Below you will find the video of the speech and a link to the transcript, followed by a few key quotes.

The Speech

Via Youtube:


For a full transcript, visit CBS News.

Key Points

On the trials of the West Point and the uniqueness of their training:

You have pushed yourself through the agony of Beast Barracks, the weeks of training in rain and mud, and, I’m told, more inspections and drills than perhaps any class before you. Along the way, I’m sure you faced a few moments when you asked yourself: “What am I doing here?” I have those moments sometimes.

You’ve trained for the complexities of today’s missions, knowing that success will be measured not merely by performance on the battlefield, but also by your understanding of the cultures and traditions and languages in the place where you serve.

On the role of women in the military in a year in which they took center stage of the graduation class:

This includes your number one overall cadet and your valedictorian – Liz Betterbed and Alex Rosenberg. And by the way, this is the first time in Academy history where your two top awards have been earned by female candidates.

This underscores a fact that I’ve seen in the faces of our troops from Baghdad to Bagram – in the 21st century, our women in uniform play an indispensable role in our national defense. And time and again, they have proven themselves to be role models for our daughters and our sons – as students and as soldiers and as leaders in the United States armed forces.

On Afghanistan:

And as we end the war in Iraq, though, we are pressing forward in Afghanistan. Six months ago, I came to West Point to announce a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. And I stand here humbled by the knowledge that many of you will soon be serving in harm’s way. I assure you, you will go with the full support of a proud and grateful nation.

We face a tough fight in Afghanistan. Any insurgency that is confronted with a direct challenge will turn to new tactics. And from Marja to Kandahar, that is what the Taliban has done through assassination and indiscriminate killing and intimidation. Moreover, any country that has known decades of war will be tested in finding political solutions to its problems, and providing governance that can sustain progress and serve the needs of its people.

On hope beyond the wars:

Now even as we fight the wars in front of us, we also have to see the horizon beyond these wars – because unlike a terrorist whose goal is to destroy, our future will be defined by what we build. We have to see that horizon, and to get there we must pursue a strategy of national renewal and global leadership. We have to build the sources of America’s strength and influence, and shape a world that’s more peaceful and more prosperous.

And on the ‘long war’ we are facing with militant Islam, which the president seemed to be channeling President Bush:

More than anything else, though, our success will be claimed by who we are as a country. This is more important than ever, given the nature of the challenges that we face. Our campaign to disrupt, dismantle, and to defeat al Qaeda is part of an international effort that is necessary and just.

But this is a different kind of war. There will be no simple moment of surrender to mark the journey’s end – no armistice, no banner headline. Though we have had more success in eliminating al Qaeda leaders in recent months than in recent years, they will continue to recruit, and plot, and exploit our open society. We see that in bombs that go off in Kabul and Karachi. We see it in attempts to blow up an airliner over Detroit or an SUV in Times Square, even as these failed attacks show that pressure on networks like al Qaeda is forcing them to rely on terrorists with less time and space to train. We see the potential duration of this struggle in al Qaeda’s gross distortions of Islam, their disrespect for human life, and their attempt to prey upon fear and hatred and prejudice.

So the threat will not go away soon, but let’s be clear: Al Qaeda and its affiliates are small men on the wrong side of history. They lead no nation. They lead no religion. We need not give in to fear every time a terrorist tries to scare us. We should not discard our freedoms because extremists try to exploit them. We cannot succumb to division because others try to drive us apart. We are the United States of America. We are the United States of America, and we have repaired our union, and faced down fascism, and outlasted communism. We’ve gone through turmoil, we’ve gone through Civil War, and we have come out stronger – and we will do so once more.

Summary

While there can be no doubt that the president is an excellent orator and this was a great speech, we didn’t see much in the way of new information or news. It was a pep talk, and a rather good one, which is what these fine graduates need and deserve.

Discussion

Posts are not held for moderation so your comment will appear immediately, but may be modified if it is deemed inappropriate.

Ongoing Catastrophe

The oil gushing out of the Earth as a result of the April 20th explosion aboard the now underwater Deepwater Horizon drilling platform has captured the attention and concern of the nation. The accident, that appears at this time to be caused by faulty safety equipment and practices during an attempt to move the platform. But as BP, Halliburton and Transcean point fingers at each other and congress grows frustrated, other groups become targets. Such is the case with MOAA member service National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA). As the oil keeps on coming, NOAA has taken its share of criticism.

Extent of Damage

From the best available evidence, even the best case scenario is catastrophic.

From the AP:

At least 6 million gallons have gushed into the Gulf – more than half the amount the Exxon Valdez tanker spilled in Alaska in 1989 – since the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform exploded 50 miles off the coast April 20. Eleven workers were killed.

The slow-motion disaster could become far wider. Government scientists said a small portion of the slick had entered the so-called loop current, a stream of fast-moving water that could carry the mess into the Florida Keys and up the state’s Atlantic Coast, damaging coral reefs and fouling beaches.

NOAA Criticized

In today’s New York Times, an article appeared that quoted scientists that have criticized NOAA’s performance and response to the Gulf Oil Disaster. The article’s most prominent critic did not hold back:

“Rick Steiner, a marine biologist and a veteran of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, assailed NOAA in an interview, declaring that it had been derelict in analyzing conditions beneath the sea.

Mr. Steiner said the likelihood of extensive undersea plumes of oil droplets should have been anticipated from the moment the spill began, given that such an effect from deepwater blowouts had been predicted in the scientific literature for more than a decade, and confirmed in a test off the coast of Norway. An extensive sampling program to map and characterize those plumes should have been put in place from the first days of the spill, he said.

“A vast ecosystem is being exposed to contaminants right now, and nobody’s watching it,” Mr. Steiner said. “That seems to me like a catastrophic failure on the part of NOAA.”

NOAA Response

When contacted by Battle of the Bilge for reaction, NOAA PAO Jana Goldman offered the following:

We are mobilizing every possible NOAA asset to get a more accurate picture of the environmental damage. We have several NOAA research vessels fully involved and we have the r/v Gordon Gunter moving to map and characterize the plume through sophisticated acoustical sonar. We are also hiring more fishing vessels and contracting more university vessels to do scientific sampling work. This is not so much the number of hulls as it is making sure the right capability is there.

-Jana Goldman, Public Affairs Officer, NOAA Office of Communications

Too Much Smoke

Very little access to the raging inferno. The public is not getting a definitive answer, and by the looks of it, nobody has one. It will be a long time before this catastrophic event fades from public scrutiny, and an even further time before we know what happened. But by all accounts, the men and women in NOAA are doing everything they can as quickly as they can. The likelihood of the plume creation was predicted, in a 2003 National Research Council report:

NRC_DeepwaterPredictions

But why not take measurements from the site to confirm what is theoretical in this environment? Hats off to NOAA and the Coast Guard for this mess you have to deal with and the long hours on the job you have in your future.

NOAA is updating their progress daily at their site

There’s also a Wiki Page following the developments.

Special thanks to NOAA and Jana Goldman for her prompt attention to requests for information.

Discussion

Posts are not held for moderation so your comment will appear immediately, but may be modified if it is deemed inappropriate.

“Television to brainwash us all and Internet to eliminate any last resistance.”
- Paul Carvel

The ‘Obama is anti-military’ talking point

You see it in your emails, hear it on the radio and watch it on TV. A concentrated effort to portray President Obama as anti-military. Using terms regarding the president’s actions that range from indifference to the traitorous, opponents of the administration pull out all the stops to make the powerful voting community of military veterans and service personnel and their families and friends firmly believe this.

We’ve seen little reduction in the number of emails circulating and pundits spewing misinformation. Yet each new allegation or poorly supported op-ed piece gets people riled up and helps to confirm the narrative the opposition has been attempting to write. But what has been the reality of how the president has conducted affairs of state since he took office as compared to his campaign promises?

Luckily, the folks over at PolitiFact have had a running ‘Obameter’ to track campaign promises and what has happened since the election. They have a specific subsection of the Obameter dealing directly with military issues.

The Obameter

The system used by PolitiFact is best described from their site:

PolitiFact has compiled more than 500 promises that Barack Obama made during the campaign and is tracking their progress on our Obameter.

We rate their status as Not Yet Rated, In the Works or Stalled. Once we find action is completed, we rate them Promise Kept, Compromise or Promise Broken.

The Obameter collected 33 campaign promises made by then-Senator Obama in his run for the office of the president that were specifically about the military. All 33 promises have been acted on to varying degrees and so far there hasn’t been a single one broken. Many have stalled, some have been kept, there has been one compromise and most are ‘in the works’. Here’s how those promises and ratings break down:

Promises Kept

• Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan
• Strengthen and expand military exchange programs with other countries
• Make greater investment in advanced military air technology
• Make U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on anti-terror efforts
• Appoint a White House Coordinator for Nuclear Security
• Bolster the military’s ability to speak different languages

Compromise

• Ensure the Guard and Reserves can meet their homeland security missions

In the Works

• Begin removing combat brigades from Iraq
• Increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps
• Increase special operations forces and civil affairs
• Make military deployments predictable for troops and families
• Limit Guard and Reserve deployments to one year for every six years
• End the “Stop-Loss” program of forcing troops to stay in service beyond their expected commitments
• Fully and properly equip troops
• Work with Russia to move nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert
• Review weapons programs
• Modernize ships and invest more in small vessels
• Set standards for when the government should hire defense contractors
• End the abuse of supplemental budgets for war
• Create a system of incentives and penalties for defense contracts
• Work to end NATO restrictions on forces in Afghanistan
• Train and equip the Afghan army
• Better integrate efforts of federal agencies with the military through new Mobile Development Teams
• Spend $5 billion over three years on cooperative programs with foreign intelligence agencies
• Expand federal bioforensics program for tracking biological weapons
• Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy

Stalled

• Create a specialized military advisers corps
• Create a military families advisory board
• Restore 24-month limit on cumulative Guard and Reserve deployment time
• Make National Guard leader a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
• Establish transparency standards for military contractors
• Clarify legal status for defense contractor personnel
• Call for a consultative group of congressional leaders on national security

I strongly recommend that you visit the site here for more details on each individual issue above.

PolitiFact – Checking the source

While PolitiFact has proven extremely reliable over the years, there are always forces at work behind the scenes that are almost always partisan. So the source of ratings and information must be examined. From their site:

PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times to help you find the truth in politics.

Every day, reporters and researchers from the Times examine statements by members of Congress, the president, cabinet secretaries, lobbyists, people who testify before Congress and anyone else who speaks up in Washington. We research their statements and then rate the accuracy on our Truth-O-Meter – True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True and False. The most ridiculous falsehoods get our lowest rating, Pants on Fire.

We also rate the consistency of public officials on our Flip-O-Meter using three ratings: No Flip, Half Flip and Full Flop.

So who is behind the St. Petersburg Times? We follow the rabbit hole down by taking the red pill, mixing analogies, and bring up Google, which leads us to wikipedia (sadly quickly becoming the most fact based source on the internet):

The Times traces its origins to the West Hillsborough Times, a weekly newspaper started in Dunedin, Florida in 1884. By 1912, the paper had been sold six times, had been relocated to St. Petersburg, and was published six days a week. Publisher Paul Poynter bought the paper in September 1912 and published it seven days a week. Paul’s son Nelson Poynter took majority control of the paper in 1947. Nelson Poynter died in 1974, having willed the paper to the Poynter Institute. In 2003, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described the St. Petersburg Times as a “usually liberal” newspaper

Another brief stopover in Googleland takes us to a website curiously focused on Russian politics for a Florida newspaper. We kick ourselves for not noticing the .ru extension and click on ‘back’ (ok we checked out that one story first).

With an adjusted search term we find a reliable dictionary that confirms the belief that they are left leaning. Via NationMaster.com:

Encyclopedia > St. Petersburg Times
The St. Petersburg Times is a daily newspaper based in St. Petersburg, Florida, that serves the larger Tampa Bay area. The Times sells 334,742 papers per day Monday through Saturday, making it the largest paper in Florida and the 23rd largest in the United States. On Sunday it sells 420,251 papers, and the Times estimates about 755,000 people read the daily edition, while on Sundays it is approximately one million.

It traces its origins a newspaper that started in Dunedin, Florida, in 1884. Its editorial leanings are generally considered to be liberal, in contrast to its more conservative-leaning competitor, the Tampa Tribune.

The Times is published by the Times Publishing Company, which is owned by the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit journalism school in St. Petersburg directly adjecent to the University of South Florida campus in St. Petersburg. The Poynter Institute is a school and resource for journalism, located in St. Petersuburg. The University of South Florida (USF) is a public university located in Tampa, Florida, USA, with branch campuses in Saint Petersburg.

In comparison to the rest of the pundit and pundit watch universe, PolitiFact is center of the road, especially in this partisan atmosphere. What’s more important however is their track record. And the information they have put out over the past two years especially has been solid, fair and analytical. Watching several sites constantly gives you a good feel for who to trust and who to visit to look for material. PolitiFact is certainly in the former category.

Conclusion/Editorial

So what does this mean to us? That depends on who you are and how you feel about President Obama. There are facts and there are lies, on both sides of the spectrum. But if people believe that President Obama is actively working to harm the military family they probably have not consulted the proper evidence available to them. That information likely came from sources of opposition to the president, and there has been no shortage of misinformation from those sources. By all evidence available and cross checked with other sources, President Obama has been pro-military and pro-military families in his first year and 4 months. The trust level seems to be rising slowly and subtly, but it is on an upward track. Facts have a way of making it out, and are pretty resistant to attempts to destroy them. Even if it takes a long time and usually, unfortunately, it is too long to make a difference and we all give ourselves a collective facepalm. History is full of examples.

(My pre-emptive apologies for offending anyone as well as the usual disclaimer that this is not necessarily an opinion of MOAA in this editorial is by now a tacit understanding, right? If not or you are new to the site, there you go.)

Our political and social leanings determine our level of enjoyment of sources, and we naturally trust those sources to provide correct information. We associate debunking and counter-propaganda with the ‘other side’. It is the nature of Americans to be as competitive as possible at all times. We don’t have a realistically existential threat to the nation right now, so as usual we become more competitive with each other and protective of the borders, and as we have seen recently we sometimes combine them for an extra level of strife. Let’s just keep the fringes on the fringe and make sure rhetoric doesn’t lead to violence and going places we won’t be able to come back from as a nation. So question everything, all the time. Post your counter evidence and speak your mind, or do like most people have and leave it all behind and speak from your gut with the assumption that the other person is lying. But at the end of the night, everyone turn off their computer and get some rest. We all need it.

Discussion

Posts are not held for moderation so your comment will appear immediately, but may be modified if it is deemed inappropriate.

New Feature

Today we’re rolling out a new monthly feature for Battle of the Bilge – Comments of the Month. Each month, we’ll choose from the comments made in the previous month and restate it. The criteria is simple, any comment that generates discussion, hits the proverbial nail on the head or is a good example of industry or ideological clone web troopers that re-iterate the same issue that others have said. April was a pretty slow month for comments (and articles, with my apologies), but this one was definitely not a comment that reflected the general calm on the email front lately. And it is dead on.

Reader Comment of the Month

In response to the artile debunking the myth that the health care reform bill created a ‘Private Army’, a reader using the name Mark RN posted the following:

You are pretty much on track. I work for the Bureau of Prisons as a RN. I work with many USPHS Officers. And let me attest to this, a secret militia they are not… USPHS serves in many different areas. Mostly they are stuck working the government medical jobs nobody else wants. Like in Federal Prisons, Indian Health Services, etc. I think they are also involved in the CDC and some other areas. They are all Dentists, Dental Hygienists, Nurses, Nurse Practioners, Pharmacists, Doctors, Medical Record Specialists, and I think even some Engineers. As far as a militia… they are not even allowed to participate in the firearms training here at the prison (mandatory for every other employee) because under their USPHS oath, they are to never knowingly or willfully bring harm to a human being. (Similar to the nursing oath, I think) I am actually thinking about transitioning to USPHS, but am concerned about being pulled away from my family when deployed for national needs. But on the other hand, I would like the opportunity to be dispatched to areas in need of emergent health care… kind of what I got inot nursing for. Anyways, I guess if the USPHS is Obama’s secret personal militia, then there are a bunch of middle aged overweight liscensed medical people out there just waiting to be called to arms!… as long as we don’t have to do push-ups and there is decent coffee available

Now that’s a great comment. Factual, coming from someone in the know and with a good amount of experience to back him up and very good humored as well, especially the last sentence.

Discussion

Posts are not held for moderation so your comment will appear immediately, but may be modified if it is deemed inappropriate.