On Tuesday, January 26, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will vote on the transfer-tax assessment levied by the city of San Francisco against the Archdiocese of San Francisco. Now, in addition to the $14.4 million in taxes, the city is gunning for a $5 million delinquent penalty and $2.3 million in interest. I don’t think there’s much doubt on the outcome, although the case will end up being decided in Federal Court. Background posts on the issue are here, and here.
I've been trying to get a copy of the report on the case from the Controller’s office for more than a month. Today, I learned that it was finally finished earlier this week, but is now being revised. The finalized report is scheduled to be released on Monday, January 25, one day before the Supervisors meeting/vote on January 26.
_________________________________________________________
I’ve always been struck by the coincidence that just as the dispute between the city and the Archdiocese was taking place, the relevant law was being modified by the Board of Supervisors.
A timeline:
April, 2008: the Archdiocese reorganized, and met with the Assessor’s office about the reorganization.
November 18, 2008: Ordinance 081450 is introduced. The Board of Supervisors’ synopsis reads:
“Real Property Transfer Tax - Change of delinquency date; substitution of references to current laws; conform partnership rule to state law changes; elimination of tax stamp provision and Transfer Tax Review Board]
Ordinance amending Sections 1106, 1108, 1108.4,1115, 1115.1 and 1115.3 and deleting Sections 1109, and 1115.2 of Business and Tax Regulations Code to (1) change delinquency date; (2) replace references to prior bankruptcy, income tax, with references to current laws; (3) conform rule for partnership interest transfers to state law changes; (4) eliminate regarding documentary tax stamps; and (5) eliminate Transfer Tax Board of Review and references to that Board. Supervisor presented.RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Government Audit and Oversight Committee.”
Ordinance 081450 then began its journey through the legislative process. From the minutes of the Supervisors’ meetings:
December 9, 2008: 081450 “Continued on first reading.” Vote: unanimous.
December 16, 2008: 081450 “Passed on First reading.” Voting “no”: Alioto-Pier, Chu, Dufty.
January 6, 2009: 081450 is item #22 on the agenda. San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ meetings are videotaped, and there are also published captions from the video. The video and captions are not always complete, however. Before the January 6 vote Supervisor Bevan Dufty spoke. Because there are no captions for this segment, a transcription from video is below. But readers should also watch the video by going here then scrolling down to 1/6/09, and selecting "video." The transcripted exchange begins at 13:10 into the video.
Supervisor Dufty--signatory to Resolution 168-06; welcomed speaker at Most Holy Redeemer Church; consultant to Catholic Charities during the Family Builders by Adoption fiasco; Chair of the Honorary Committee Honoring Nancy Pelosi at the Archdiocesan partner the San Francisco Organizing Project--is out for blood:
Supervisor Dufty: I wonder if the controller could maybe speak about what that process will be for them. Cause your office will be involved in any appeals prior to enacting this ordinance.
Controller: Existing law, Supervisor, provides for the appeals process to go to the Transfer Tax Review Board, which is a three-person body, that’s myself, the Treasurer, and the Director of Property for the City. So that’s the existing process that any existing appeals would proceed through if the appellant so desired and this process would remove that process going forward.
Dufty: Do you have any recollection or knowledge of the last time this process was invoked?
Controller: I believe there was one small appeal filed last year and that was the first appeal in many years.
Dufty: And I guess, do you mind stating for the record, I guess there is a major appeal which has been filed with the city which is the basis of these questions.
Controller: There is an appeal filed in the middle of December (2008) by the Catholic Church contesting the Assessor’s opinion that a recent transfer of their properties, of all their properties in San Francisco are subject to a transfer tax.
Dufty: And I guess I just want to state I did vote against this legislation and I will continue to do so. I am concerned about changing the process at this stage and feel for my purposes I would like further consideration and discussion of this given the significance of this particular case which I think is in the range of $3-15,000,000 to the city and so I am concerned about changing a process which has not been utilized for many years and all of a sudden there is a proposal to not only change the process but we have a pending case that I am encouraged to hear will be handled under the existing system.
January 6, 2009: 081450 “Finally Passed.” Voting “no”: Alioto-Pier, Campos, Chu, Dufty.
January 6, 2009: 081450 “Previous vote rescinded.” Voting “no”: Daly, Maxwell.
January 6, 2009: 081450 “Finally Passed.” Vote: unanimous
January 13, 2009: Ordinance 081450 comes before the Board of Supervisors again. Before the vote (Item 7 on the agenda) Supervisor Dufty addressed the Board. This meeting did have the the video captioning. Here it is, from sfgov.org, (with capitalization, etc. cleaned up):
Supervisor Dufty: Thank you, Mr. President. We had a meeting on Monday that Supervisor Elsbernd and myself participated in with the city assessor and the city attorney to talk about concerns that had come up with respect to this legislation. I'm anticipating that language is going to be delivered shortly from the city attorneys office that reflects the discussion there and an agreement to continue for a sunset period for four years the existing property transfer tax, appeal board mechanism with the city controller but recognizing the -- that claims with respect to property transfer tax disputes would be filed with the city attorney's office and understanding furthermore that in the event of discrepancies of 25,000 or more or disagreements that exceed 25,000, that those would be brought before the Board of Supervisors. So colleagues I recognize we have a short agenda but I wondered if perhaps we could defer this item and bring it up after roll call or public comment or at some point prior to the special order when the amendment is delivered.
At 1:25:56 in the video, Ordinance 081450 reappears.
Board President Chiu: Back to item 7, which has already been called, Supervisor Dufty I understand you have an amendment.
Supervisor Dufty: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you. This has been distributed to our colleagues and I talked outside and asked the deputy city attorney to reflect for a moment and outline the changes made here and indicate again that these were discussed between the city attorney and the city assessor and they have come to agreement on these changes and that they would both support this legislation if amended. Deputy city attorneys Adams, would you like to walk us through.
City Attorney Adams: This proposed amendment has been prepared as a result of the discussions that you have described and the difference really in this document versus the prior document that is in your packet and before you last time is that the tax or transfer tax review board rather than being eliminated outright would be phased out so there would be a sunset and the tax board would remain operative until January1st of 2013 at which time it would then be eliminated.
Dufty: Also requires taxpayers who get a refund to record a document to show they paid a reduced property transfer tax.
I'd like to move this as an amendment. Motion, seconded by Supervisor Mirkarimi. Can we move this without objection? So moved.”
January 13, 2009: 081450 “Passed on First Reading as Amended.” Vote: unanimous.
January 27, 2009: 081450 “Finally Passed.” Vote: unanimous.
February 5, 2009: o81450 approved by Mayor Gavin Newsom
Ordinance 081450 as amended and finally passed can be read here. I leave it to lawyers to decipher how the amendments affect the Archdiocese’s case, but I don’t see how anyone can watch the video of the Supervisor in action without concluding that he amended Ordinance 081450 with the Church in mind.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query transfer tax. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query transfer tax. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
SF/ Archdiocese got to Court
The Archdiocese of San Francisco is taking the city of San Francisco to court. The move results from the city's attempt to impose a transfer tax on the Archdiocese over it's 2006 reorganization. The city is seeking $14.4 million; when interest and penalties are added the amount is $21.7 million.
It was obvious from the beginning this case would end up in court. Catholic San Francisco has more:
"On January 26, 2010, the San Francisco Transfer Tax Review Board, the members of which are all City Hall administrators, issued a written administrative finding that the Archdiocese was not exempt from a transfer tax, despite the fact that the law pertaining to intra-church property transfers of this nature is overwhelmingly in favor of the Archdiocese. Among other things, the Archdiocese argues that the imposition of a transfer tax on a purely intra-denominational reorganization is outside the San Francisco ordinance, and violates the California and United States Constitutions by imposing a tax on a church for exercising its recognized constitutional rights to choose and change those civil law corporate forms that best accommodate its religious structure and needs. The Archdiocese maintains that to impose transfer taxes, penalties and interest on a religious organization in connection with an internal restructuring involving no exchange or receipt of money from which to pay any tax is inequitable and threatens to confiscate substantial Church assets that are devoted to religious purposes. The complaint asks the court, among other things, to direct the San Francisco Transfer Tax Review Board to set aside its ruling, to direct the Recorder to withdraw his notices of delinquent tax, and to award the Archdiocese its attorneys’ fees and costs."
Our other posts on the case are here.
It was obvious from the beginning this case would end up in court. Catholic San Francisco has more:
"On January 26, 2010, the San Francisco Transfer Tax Review Board, the members of which are all City Hall administrators, issued a written administrative finding that the Archdiocese was not exempt from a transfer tax, despite the fact that the law pertaining to intra-church property transfers of this nature is overwhelmingly in favor of the Archdiocese. Among other things, the Archdiocese argues that the imposition of a transfer tax on a purely intra-denominational reorganization is outside the San Francisco ordinance, and violates the California and United States Constitutions by imposing a tax on a church for exercising its recognized constitutional rights to choose and change those civil law corporate forms that best accommodate its religious structure and needs. The Archdiocese maintains that to impose transfer taxes, penalties and interest on a religious organization in connection with an internal restructuring involving no exchange or receipt of money from which to pay any tax is inequitable and threatens to confiscate substantial Church assets that are devoted to religious purposes. The complaint asks the court, among other things, to direct the San Francisco Transfer Tax Review Board to set aside its ruling, to direct the Recorder to withdraw his notices of delinquent tax, and to award the Archdiocese its attorneys’ fees and costs."
Our other posts on the case are here.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Surprise, surprise: SF Tax Appeals Board Rules Against Archdiocese
As we predicted.
From today's San Francisco Chronicle:
Board backs city over archdiocese in tax matter
Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer
"San Francisco's tax fight with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco is headed to court.
The city's Transfer Tax Appeals Board unanimously ruled Monday in favor of San Francisco Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting's position that the archdiocese owes City Hall $14.4 million in unpaid property transfer taxes.
The panel determined that the church, in moving properties from one Catholic nonprofit corporation to another, was required to pay property transfer taxes. The taxes are collected when properties are sold or transferred to a separate and distinct legal entity.
The archdiocese maintains that the transfers were not subject to the tax because they were part of an internal reorganization to create "simple ownership models" for schools, parishes and the larger archdiocese.
Ting, however, disagreed and said the corporations involved in the transactions have different boards of directors and are legally separate.
A church spokesman called the ruling disappointing and suggested it may have been motivated by greed and politics.
"The board members, all of whom are City Hall administrators rather than members of the judiciary, apparently faced tremendous pressure in view of the city's desperate need for revenue," said Maurice Healy, spokesman for the archdiocese.
The city faces a $550 million projected deficit over the next 1 1/2 years.
The board, which held four hearings on the matter, is made up of the city controller, the city real estate director and the city tax collector, or their designees.
Healy went on to accuse Ting's office of "inexcusable delays, and, at times, arrogance," in the handling of the case, which began in the spring of 2008 when the archdiocese requested to change ownership titles of more than 200 parcels that city officials say are valued at close to $2 billion.
"We are glad that having exhausted the required administrative process we can finally proceed to a formal, neutral civil court forum," Healy said in a prepared statement.
"We trust that the civil court will carefully consider the applicable law, devoid of the sensationalism and politics that the archdiocese thus far has faced," he said...."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
From today's San Francisco Chronicle:
Board backs city over archdiocese in tax matter
Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer
"San Francisco's tax fight with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco is headed to court.
The city's Transfer Tax Appeals Board unanimously ruled Monday in favor of San Francisco Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting's position that the archdiocese owes City Hall $14.4 million in unpaid property transfer taxes.
The panel determined that the church, in moving properties from one Catholic nonprofit corporation to another, was required to pay property transfer taxes. The taxes are collected when properties are sold or transferred to a separate and distinct legal entity.
The archdiocese maintains that the transfers were not subject to the tax because they were part of an internal reorganization to create "simple ownership models" for schools, parishes and the larger archdiocese.
Ting, however, disagreed and said the corporations involved in the transactions have different boards of directors and are legally separate.
A church spokesman called the ruling disappointing and suggested it may have been motivated by greed and politics.
"The board members, all of whom are City Hall administrators rather than members of the judiciary, apparently faced tremendous pressure in view of the city's desperate need for revenue," said Maurice Healy, spokesman for the archdiocese.
The city faces a $550 million projected deficit over the next 1 1/2 years.
The board, which held four hearings on the matter, is made up of the city controller, the city real estate director and the city tax collector, or their designees.
Healy went on to accuse Ting's office of "inexcusable delays, and, at times, arrogance," in the handling of the case, which began in the spring of 2008 when the archdiocese requested to change ownership titles of more than 200 parcels that city officials say are valued at close to $2 billion.
"We are glad that having exhausted the required administrative process we can finally proceed to a formal, neutral civil court forum," Healy said in a prepared statement.
"We trust that the civil court will carefully consider the applicable law, devoid of the sensationalism and politics that the archdiocese thus far has faced," he said...."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
SF and the Church: More Evidence that We Are Right
There's another interesting article in this week's Catholic San Francisco. It deals with the issue we've been blogging about this week: San Francisco's attempt to impose a transfer tax on the Archdiocese following it's reorganization:
The article then relates something we had not known:
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
"Archdiocese challenges determination of San Francisco County Assessor/RecorderJune 10th, 2009
In a fight to preserve the freedom of religious organizations to restructure, the Archdiocese of San Francisco is contesting an attempt by the San Francisco County Assessor/Recorder to impose a property transfer tax on an internal reorganization involving Archdiocesan parish and school properties.
An administrative hearing to decide the issue will be held on June 16, 2009. The panel consists of the San Francisco Tax Collector, the Chief of Real Estate and Controller. The decision of the panel can be appealed, if necessary, to the civil courts."
The article then relates something we had not known:
"The same transfers at issue in San Francisco were made promptly without the imposition of a tax in both San Mateo and Marin counties more than a year ago...As we wrote yesterday:
(Archdiocesan attorney Jack) Hammel said, 'The San FranciscoAssessor/Recorder is alone among county recorders in taking such an extreme position.'"
"... there is an irreconcilable conflict between what the homosexual activists want and the teaching of our Church. Today the government of San Francisco, controlled by homosexual activists, has moved far beyond the bludgeon of program defunding. In payback for our Church’s defense of natural marriage, they are now trying a new interpretation of the tax code to punish the Church."The Archdiocese of San Francisco covers three counties: San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin. The fact that only one one of the three counties has seen fit to try and impose new taxes on the Church seems to to support our argument.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Judge Rules for SF Archdiocese in Transfer Tax Case
From today's Catholic San Francisco:
"A Superior Court judge on Nov. 18 issued an opinion that would throw out an attempted multi-million-dollar “delinquent” tax bill imposed on the Archdiocese of San Francisco by the San Francisco assessor/recorder, Phil Ting, after a more than three-year legal fight.
Judge Richard A. Kramer issued a 43-page “Tentative Statement of Decision” in favor of the archdiocese, Catholic San Francisco, the newspaper of the archdiocese, reported Nov. 22. A case management conference is scheduled Jan. 9, 2012....Kramer agreed with the archdiocese’s central arguments: The transfers were not “realty sold,” and the transfers were a change in the form of ownership that did not make them subject to transfer tax.
“The Archdiocese of San Francisco is delighted that the Superior Court has vindicated the position the archdiocese has taken all along,” said George Wesolek, director of communications for the archdiocese.... “It would have chilled the missions of this and all churches, religions and non-profit organizations in the city, and would have sent ripples through the for-profit community as well... Fortunately, the court saw through this attempt.”
Mr. Wesolek then notes that this is another case of San Francisco Democratic Party politicians using the legal system to harass good people at public expense, just like they are doing right now with First Resort:
“The Assessor/Recorder apparently expected the archdiocese to roll over in the face of this attack but underestimated the resolve of the church. It is unfortunate that the miscalculation forced the archdiocese to spend more than three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees to defeat this illegal action, but the archdiocese is hopeful that the Assessor/Recorder’s office will now be dissuaded from taking similar measures in the future.”
Don't hold your breath, George.
You can read our previous posts on the issue here.
"A Superior Court judge on Nov. 18 issued an opinion that would throw out an attempted multi-million-dollar “delinquent” tax bill imposed on the Archdiocese of San Francisco by the San Francisco assessor/recorder, Phil Ting, after a more than three-year legal fight.
Judge Richard A. Kramer issued a 43-page “Tentative Statement of Decision” in favor of the archdiocese, Catholic San Francisco, the newspaper of the archdiocese, reported Nov. 22. A case management conference is scheduled Jan. 9, 2012....Kramer agreed with the archdiocese’s central arguments: The transfers were not “realty sold,” and the transfers were a change in the form of ownership that did not make them subject to transfer tax.
“The Archdiocese of San Francisco is delighted that the Superior Court has vindicated the position the archdiocese has taken all along,” said George Wesolek, director of communications for the archdiocese.... “It would have chilled the missions of this and all churches, religions and non-profit organizations in the city, and would have sent ripples through the for-profit community as well... Fortunately, the court saw through this attempt.”
Mr. Wesolek then notes that this is another case of San Francisco Democratic Party politicians using the legal system to harass good people at public expense, just like they are doing right now with First Resort:
“The Assessor/Recorder apparently expected the archdiocese to roll over in the face of this attack but underestimated the resolve of the church. It is unfortunate that the miscalculation forced the archdiocese to spend more than three years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees to defeat this illegal action, but the archdiocese is hopeful that the Assessor/Recorder’s office will now be dissuaded from taking similar measures in the future.”
Don't hold your breath, George.
You can read our previous posts on the issue here.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
SF Supervisors Table Vote on Church's $21 Million+ Tax Assessment
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors were scheduled to vote on the Transfer Tax Reassessment against the Archdiocese at 3:00 PM today, but the votes were tabled.
The Archdiocese is challenging the reassessment, which amounts to over $21 million, including penalties and taxes, on the grounds that it was just a shift of properties within the Archdiocesan umbrella--as I understand it, no new owners, nothing was sold.
But the city, which has a history of hostility toward the church, maintains otherwise. This case is being watched by nonprofits nationwide.
From todays meeting transcribed while I listened:
President David Chiu: "Supervisor Dufty, these are your items."
Supervisor Dufty then moved to table the items: " ..table these items while we await the report of the Transfer Tax Review Board. Wait for completion of the secondary report"
President Chiu then tabled the two items, numbers 39 & 40 on today's agenda.
So these are now "Supervisor Dufty's items." That makes sense. Our last post on this subject included transcripts and video of Supervisor's meetings that showed Dufty was amending the relevant law with the Church in mind.
We've point out before that Supervisor Dufty is a homoactivist politician, and one of the signatories of Resolution 168-06, which called the Church "hateful," etc. That resolution resulted in a lawsuit against the city by San Francisco Catholics, which is currently being heard in Federal Court. We point out again that he was the consultant to Catholic Charities in the disastrous adoptions "compromise" which resulted in Catholic Charities supplying funding/staffing to Family Builders by Adoption who were required by contract to "increasing the number of GLBT adoptions."
Hardly the man to take ownership of this issue if you think the Church deserves a fair hearing.
UPDATE: They may vote on this later today.
The Archdiocese is challenging the reassessment, which amounts to over $21 million, including penalties and taxes, on the grounds that it was just a shift of properties within the Archdiocesan umbrella--as I understand it, no new owners, nothing was sold.
But the city, which has a history of hostility toward the church, maintains otherwise. This case is being watched by nonprofits nationwide.
From todays meeting transcribed while I listened:
President David Chiu: "Supervisor Dufty, these are your items."
Supervisor Dufty then moved to table the items: " ..table these items while we await the report of the Transfer Tax Review Board. Wait for completion of the secondary report"
President Chiu then tabled the two items, numbers 39 & 40 on today's agenda.
So these are now "Supervisor Dufty's items." That makes sense. Our last post on this subject included transcripts and video of Supervisor's meetings that showed Dufty was amending the relevant law with the Church in mind.
We've point out before that Supervisor Dufty is a homoactivist politician, and one of the signatories of Resolution 168-06, which called the Church "hateful," etc. That resolution resulted in a lawsuit against the city by San Francisco Catholics, which is currently being heard in Federal Court. We point out again that he was the consultant to Catholic Charities in the disastrous adoptions "compromise" which resulted in Catholic Charities supplying funding/staffing to Family Builders by Adoption who were required by contract to "increasing the number of GLBT adoptions."
Hardly the man to take ownership of this issue if you think the Church deserves a fair hearing.
UPDATE: They may vote on this later today.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
City of San Francisco Goes After Church
From today's San Francisco Chronicle:
"San Francisco will try to collect up to $15 million in taxes from the Archdiocese of San Francisco, which is refusing to pay certain taxes on properties the church is transferring from one Catholic nonprofit organization to another.
That tax bill would be the second largest of its kind in San Francisco history. But the archdiocese has appealed the charge, saying the church should be exempt from property transfer taxes for a variety of reasons - primarily because the properties are being moved among groups that all are a part of the same overarching organization: the Archdiocese of San Francisco."
This action comes right on the heels of the Archdiocese's support of Proposition 8, which was opposed by the entire power structure of San Francisco, and it is in keeping with the City's hostility to the Church, notably expressed in Resolution 168-06, which was unanimously passed by the City's Board of Supervisors on March 21, 2006, and which called the Catholic Church "hateful and discriminatory" for asserting that adoptive children should be raised in a home with a mother and a father. Faithful San Francisco Catholics have sued the city in Federal Court over that action, and a ruling is pending.
Is there a connection between the Church's defense of natural marriage and the City Assessor's action? Jack Hammel, attorney for the Archdiocese of San Francisco said:
"The city has applied the law in an uneven fashion (e.g. We are aware of non-Archdiocesan, non-Catholic charities which have transferred property to other charities and no transfer tax has been levied)."
City Assessor Phil Ting responded:
"San Francisco Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting said the tax is fair and equitable. He said his office spent months investigating the archdiocese's case and considering all of the reasons the church might be exempt from the tax."
Phil Ting, Phil Ting....where have we heard that name before? That's right, he's the city official who in June, 2008 officiated at at least one same-sex “wedding.” From Sing Tao Daily:
“Phil Ting spoke after the ceremony and said that he is very glad to marry gay and lesbian couples and very happy to see the day that the California government will allow their gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.”
And of course Mr. Ting was one of the "Honorary Committee" members at the going-away party for immediate past Catholic Charities Executive Director Brian Cahill. Quite the "Catholic" organization, Catholic Charities.
The fact that the Archdiocese is being singled out by the government of the city should not trouble San Francisco Catholics. Our city officially and annually welcomes events like the "Folsom Street Fair. " If they ever like us, then it's time to worry.
A city review board will hear the Archdiocesan appeal. This should be interesting.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
"San Francisco will try to collect up to $15 million in taxes from the Archdiocese of San Francisco, which is refusing to pay certain taxes on properties the church is transferring from one Catholic nonprofit organization to another.
That tax bill would be the second largest of its kind in San Francisco history. But the archdiocese has appealed the charge, saying the church should be exempt from property transfer taxes for a variety of reasons - primarily because the properties are being moved among groups that all are a part of the same overarching organization: the Archdiocese of San Francisco."
This action comes right on the heels of the Archdiocese's support of Proposition 8, which was opposed by the entire power structure of San Francisco, and it is in keeping with the City's hostility to the Church, notably expressed in Resolution 168-06, which was unanimously passed by the City's Board of Supervisors on March 21, 2006, and which called the Catholic Church "hateful and discriminatory" for asserting that adoptive children should be raised in a home with a mother and a father. Faithful San Francisco Catholics have sued the city in Federal Court over that action, and a ruling is pending.
Is there a connection between the Church's defense of natural marriage and the City Assessor's action? Jack Hammel, attorney for the Archdiocese of San Francisco said:
"The city has applied the law in an uneven fashion (e.g. We are aware of non-Archdiocesan, non-Catholic charities which have transferred property to other charities and no transfer tax has been levied)."
City Assessor Phil Ting responded:
"San Francisco Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting said the tax is fair and equitable. He said his office spent months investigating the archdiocese's case and considering all of the reasons the church might be exempt from the tax."
Phil Ting, Phil Ting....where have we heard that name before? That's right, he's the city official who in June, 2008 officiated at at least one same-sex “wedding.” From Sing Tao Daily:
“Phil Ting spoke after the ceremony and said that he is very glad to marry gay and lesbian couples and very happy to see the day that the California government will allow their gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.”
And of course Mr. Ting was one of the "Honorary Committee" members at the going-away party for immediate past Catholic Charities Executive Director Brian Cahill. Quite the "Catholic" organization, Catholic Charities.
The fact that the Archdiocese is being singled out by the government of the city should not trouble San Francisco Catholics. Our city officially and annually welcomes events like the "Folsom Street Fair. " If they ever like us, then it's time to worry.
A city review board will hear the Archdiocesan appeal. This should be interesting.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Sunday, October 31, 2010
H. R. 4646
Someone with interest went to the THOMAS (Library of Congress) and printed out and read all 15 pages of this bill which has been given the "Short Title" of "Debt Free America Act." It is the most socialistic thing I have ever read. Just think, if you deposit $5,000.00 into your checking account or savings account the bank has to take out 1% or $50.00 of that money and send it to Washington . Then, any checks or cash you take out of your bank they will deduct 1% from what is still in the bank and send it to Washington . This bill spells it out that everyone will pay the Government 1% of their gross income.
Page 9 states the House and Senate shall convene not later than November 23, 2010 and Page 11 states the vote on passage shall occur not later than December 23, 2010.
SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. EVERYONE NEEDS TO CONTACT THEIR CONGRESSMAN AND SENATOR AND TELL THEM TO VOTE 'NO' ON THIS BILL. If you don't know who your Congressman or Senator is, go to Google, type in "(your state) Congressman email address". When it comes up, click on "Complete E-mail address for Congress/House, Senate, Governors and get both e-mail and FAX info.
The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter DeFazio Dem-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin Dem-Iowa. It is now in committee and will probably not be brought out until after the Nov. election. Suggest that you pass this along and also to your state senator and representative and US Congressman and Senators.
One percent transaction tax is proposedPresident Barack Hussien Obama's finance team is recommending a transaction tax. His plan is to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar. This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution i. e. Banks, Credit Unions, etc.. Any deposit you make, or move around within your account, i. e. transfer to, will have a 1% tax charged. If your paycheck or your social Security or whatever is direct deposited, 1% tax is charged. In other words, you are taxed 1% of every dollar which goes into your bank account and 1% on every dollar which comes out. That’s really a 2% overall tax on money on which you have already paid taxes. Plus the “death tax” which you are taxed on when you die. Consider all the taxes you also have to pay to buy something when you actually spend your money.This from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new taxes.Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn. Remember: once the tax is there they can raise it at will.
Snopes:
http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=H.+R.+4646&getit=Go&sp-a=00062d45-sp00000000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0
=
Page 9 states the House and Senate shall convene not later than November 23, 2010 and Page 11 states the vote on passage shall occur not later than December 23, 2010.
SEND THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. EVERYONE NEEDS TO CONTACT THEIR CONGRESSMAN AND SENATOR AND TELL THEM TO VOTE 'NO' ON THIS BILL. If you don't know who your Congressman or Senator is, go to Google, type in "(your state) Congressman email address". When it comes up, click on "Complete E-mail address for Congress/House, Senate, Governors and get both e-mail and FAX info.
The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter DeFazio Dem-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin Dem-Iowa. It is now in committee and will probably not be brought out until after the Nov. election. Suggest that you pass this along and also to your state senator and representative and US Congressman and Senators.
One percent transaction tax is proposedPresident Barack Hussien Obama's finance team is recommending a transaction tax. His plan is to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar. This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution i. e. Banks, Credit Unions, etc.. Any deposit you make, or move around within your account, i. e. transfer to, will have a 1% tax charged. If your paycheck or your social Security or whatever is direct deposited, 1% tax is charged. In other words, you are taxed 1% of every dollar which goes into your bank account and 1% on every dollar which comes out. That’s really a 2% overall tax on money on which you have already paid taxes. Plus the “death tax” which you are taxed on when you die. Consider all the taxes you also have to pay to buy something when you actually spend your money.This from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new taxes.Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn. Remember: once the tax is there they can raise it at will.
Snopes:
http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=H.+R.+4646&getit=Go&sp-a=00062d45-sp00000000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0
=
Sunday, June 7, 2009
San Francisco Versus the Church
Since the mid 1990s, there has been a state of war between the government of the city of San Francisco and the Catholic Church. The city and archdiocese had grown up together, in reasonable harmony, and this state of war was a new thing. What had changed? Simply this: by the mid 1990s, homosexual activists had taken power in the city. As the homosexual activists grow more powerful the war grows hotter.
If you attempt to promote Church’s teaching on homosexuality in San Francisco you face an implacable enemy. This is not only true in San Francisco. We've seen the same thing in Connecticut, where Bill #1098, authored by two homosexual activist legislators, attempted essentially to facilitate a takeover of the Church in Connecticut by forcing a restructuring of Church governanace.
In San Francisco, there were two important event this past week. First, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the lawsuit brought by two San Francisco Catholics against the city and county of San Francisco. The suit was provoked by the City’s Resolution #168-06, which called the Catholic Church “hateful” and “discriminatory". Resolution 168-06 was provoked by Vatican insistence that children being placed for adoption by Catholic adoption agencies should not be placed in same-sex households--that to do so would be to deliberately deny such children of their fundamental right to be raised by a mother and father. This rather commonsensical insistence was, in turn, provoked by the actions of at least two branches of Catholic Charities (Boston and San Francisco), which had already placed children in such households. More on this below.
The second event was the ongoing attempt by the city to levy somewhere between $3 million and $15 million dollars of new taxes on the Archdiocese. The city is attempting to justify this on the basis of an Archdiocesan restructuring of assets. Other non-profit organizations are watching this closely.
The San Francisco Chronicle first reported this on January 14, 2009:
“San Francisco will try to collect up to $15 million in taxes from the Archdiocese of San Francisco, which is refusing to pay certain taxes on properties the church is transferring from one Catholic nonprofit organization to another.
‘The city has applied the law in an uneven fashion (e.g. We are aware of non-Archdiocesan, non-Catholic charities which have transferred property to other charities and no transfer tax has been levied),’ wrote Jack Hammel, legal counsel for the archdiocese, in an e-mail to the assessor's office.
San Francisco Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting said the tax is fair and equitable. He said his office spent months investigating the archdiocese's case and considering all of the reasons the church might be exempt from the tax.”
We thought then, and we think now, that this action by the city was in response to the Church’s support of Proposition 8. (We also contend that the actions of the Connecticut legislators was in direct response to the Connecticut Diocese’s opposition to same-sex “marriage” in that state). As we mentioned at the time, Assessor Ting had made news in 2008 for officiating at same-sex “weddings.” The Sing Tao Daily reported:
‘Phil Ting spoke after the ceremony and said that he is very glad to marry gay and lesbian couples and very happy to see the day that the California government will allow their gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.’
Yesterday, June 6, 2009, the Chronicle had a follow-up story:
“Both sides agree that the year-long battle, which will come to a head at a June 16 appeals hearing, isn't only about the millions of dollars at stake for the local Catholic Church and city coffers. It could also have wide-ranging implications for hundreds of other nonprofit groups…”
“A city appeals board - made up of the city controller, treasurer and head of the real estate division - will hold the hearing on June 16 to determine whether the church owes the taxes. If his office is successful, Ting estimates the archdiocese could owe between $3 million and $15 million in taxes.”
The Chronicle tells us the review will be heard by “A city appeals board - made up of the city controller, treasurer and head of the real estate division …”
And who are they? The city controller is Mr. Ben Rosenfield. So far, so good. But the treasurer is Mr. Jose Cisneros. Mr. Cisneros sits on the Board of Directors of Equality California, the group whose mission is to shove same-sex "marriage" down the throats of Californians. (Assessor Phil Ting also sits on the board.) Here’s Mr. Cisneros (center), protesting the passage of Proposition 8. The man to his right is San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty.
If you attempt to promote Church’s teaching on homosexuality in San Francisco you face an implacable enemy. This is not only true in San Francisco. We've seen the same thing in Connecticut, where Bill #1098, authored by two homosexual activist legislators, attempted essentially to facilitate a takeover of the Church in Connecticut by forcing a restructuring of Church governanace.
In San Francisco, there were two important event this past week. First, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the lawsuit brought by two San Francisco Catholics against the city and county of San Francisco. The suit was provoked by the City’s Resolution #168-06, which called the Catholic Church “hateful” and “discriminatory". Resolution 168-06 was provoked by Vatican insistence that children being placed for adoption by Catholic adoption agencies should not be placed in same-sex households--that to do so would be to deliberately deny such children of their fundamental right to be raised by a mother and father. This rather commonsensical insistence was, in turn, provoked by the actions of at least two branches of Catholic Charities (Boston and San Francisco), which had already placed children in such households. More on this below.
The second event was the ongoing attempt by the city to levy somewhere between $3 million and $15 million dollars of new taxes on the Archdiocese. The city is attempting to justify this on the basis of an Archdiocesan restructuring of assets. Other non-profit organizations are watching this closely.
The San Francisco Chronicle first reported this on January 14, 2009:
“San Francisco will try to collect up to $15 million in taxes from the Archdiocese of San Francisco, which is refusing to pay certain taxes on properties the church is transferring from one Catholic nonprofit organization to another.
‘The city has applied the law in an uneven fashion (e.g. We are aware of non-Archdiocesan, non-Catholic charities which have transferred property to other charities and no transfer tax has been levied),’ wrote Jack Hammel, legal counsel for the archdiocese, in an e-mail to the assessor's office.
San Francisco Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting said the tax is fair and equitable. He said his office spent months investigating the archdiocese's case and considering all of the reasons the church might be exempt from the tax.”
We thought then, and we think now, that this action by the city was in response to the Church’s support of Proposition 8. (We also contend that the actions of the Connecticut legislators was in direct response to the Connecticut Diocese’s opposition to same-sex “marriage” in that state). As we mentioned at the time, Assessor Ting had made news in 2008 for officiating at same-sex “weddings.” The Sing Tao Daily reported:
‘Phil Ting spoke after the ceremony and said that he is very glad to marry gay and lesbian couples and very happy to see the day that the California government will allow their gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.’
Yesterday, June 6, 2009, the Chronicle had a follow-up story:
“Both sides agree that the year-long battle, which will come to a head at a June 16 appeals hearing, isn't only about the millions of dollars at stake for the local Catholic Church and city coffers. It could also have wide-ranging implications for hundreds of other nonprofit groups…”
“A city appeals board - made up of the city controller, treasurer and head of the real estate division - will hold the hearing on June 16 to determine whether the church owes the taxes. If his office is successful, Ting estimates the archdiocese could owe between $3 million and $15 million in taxes.”
The Chronicle tells us the review will be heard by “A city appeals board - made up of the city controller, treasurer and head of the real estate division …”
And who are they? The city controller is Mr. Ben Rosenfield. So far, so good. But the treasurer is Mr. Jose Cisneros. Mr. Cisneros sits on the Board of Directors of Equality California, the group whose mission is to shove same-sex "marriage" down the throats of Californians. (Assessor Phil Ting also sits on the board.) Here’s Mr. Cisneros (center), protesting the passage of Proposition 8. The man to his right is San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty.
(Photo courtesy Steve Rhodes and Flickr.)
The head of the real estate division is Ms. Amy L. Brown. Here she is, coaching other city employees on how to perform same-sex “marriages.”
(Photo courtesy Brant Ward, San Francisco Chronicle)
Ms. Brown was also a donor to “No on 8-Equality California” the PAC of Equality California.
That’s the same “Equality California” on whose board city treasurer Jose Cisnero and city Assessor Phil Ting sit.
With Cisneros and Brown as two of the three members of the review board, will the Church get a fair hearing? We doubt it. Look for this to end up in court, where public attorneys--paid in part by the tax dollars of Catholics--will try to hamstring the Church.
______________________________________________________________
That’s one story. The other was the dismissal by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the lawsuit against the city by San Francisco Catholics over Resolution 168-06.
It is important to recognize that the genesis of that lawsuit was not the action by the city but the action by Catholic Charities CYO of San Francisco.
As we said above, the lawsuit was in response to the resolution by the city, which was in response to a statement from the Vatican, which was in response to actions by Catholic Charities. The entire series of events was set in motion by Catholic Charities’ defiance of the teachings of the our Church. It is also important to recognize that throughout that conflict Catholic Charities was on the side of the city, not the Church.
While it is bad that the city government is now an enemy of our Church, it is far worse that elements within Catholic Charities, using the name “Catholic,” actively work to undermine Church teaching. Despite its name, the fact is that Catholic Charities is more an arm of the city than it is of the Church. In 2007-2008 Catholic Charities CYO received over 68% of its entire operating revenue ($21,471, 994 of $31,072,409) in the form of government contracts.
One of those sponsoring Resolution 168-06 was the openly homosexual Supervisor Bevan Dufty. Reader of “A Shepherd’s Voice” will remember that, following the resolution, Catholic Charities tried to finesse Church teaching, by outsourcing their adoptions service to “Family Builders by Adoption” who call themselves “the gayest (adoption) agency in the country.” The “consultant” for this partnership was the same Supervisor Bevan Dufty who not only voted for but was a sponsor of Resolution 168-06--the same Supervisor Bevan Dufty who is pictured above with city treasurer Jose Cisneros, who will rule on the Church’s tax appeal next week.
As has been amply demonstrated, the partnership obligated Catholic Charities to “increase the number of children placed in “LGBT” households. And Catholic Charities was well aware of this when they signed on.
Thankfully the contract between Catholic Charities and Family Builders by Adoption ends this month, and it will not be renewed. That is strictly due to the outrage expressed by Catholics faithful to our Church’s teaching. Catholic Charities claimed that the partnership was only intended to be short term, but that claim does not stand up to scrutiny. And the departure of the former Executive Director, Mr. Brian Cahill, gives reason for hope. But the problem predated Mr. Cahill, and the relationship between Catholic Charities and the same people who called the our Church “hateful” continues to this day—as it must, since those are the same people from whom Catholic Charities receives the vast majority of its operating revenue.
This Thursday, June 11, Catholic Charities will host its annual “Red House” fundraiser to benefit those suffering from AIDS. Look at the Honorary Committee. It includes Mayor Gavin Newsom, Supervisor Bevan Dufty, and transvestite male entertainer “Donna Sachet,” who is also a board member of Equality California. Below is "Sachet" (in red) with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (Photo courtesy Malcom and Cook's Boulevard)
Why are people like that still being honored by Catholic Charities? Given this, is it right for Catholic Charities to still be one of the very few organizations for which there is a mandated second collection in every church in the Archdiocese?
As long as the Church teaches that it is better for a child to be brought up by a mother and a father than by a homosexual couple, and as long as the church teaches that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman, and as long as there are homosexual activists running the government of San Francisco, this enmity will continue.
Since our Church cannot change its teaching on this issue, the activists--in conjunction with likeminded persons both inside and outside the Church--will try to intimidate the Church from without and undermine it from within. The Thomas More Law Center will appeal the Ninth Circuit’s verdict--but the more dangerous issue, the undermining of Church teaching from within, can only be addressed by the Archdiocese.
More on Tuesday.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Judge Kramer Confirms Earlier Ruling in Favor of Archdiocese Against City of San Francisco
Gosh, I hope the Archdiocese sues the city to recover their legal costs. From U.S. Catholic:
SAN FRANCISCO (CNS) -- A Superior Court judge made final his earlier tentative decision to throw out a multimillion-dollar "delinquent" tax bill imposed on the Archdiocese of San Francisco by the San Francisco assessor-recorder.
Judge Richard A. Kramer Jan. 9 confirmed a 43-page "Tentative Statement of Decision" he issued in favor of the archdiocese Nov. 18.
For more than three years, the archdiocese fought an attempt by Phil Ting, head of the Office of the Assessor-Recorder, to impose transfer taxes totaling more than $20 million on more than 200 parish and school properties involved in an internal reorganization by the archdiocese.
The archdiocese maintained that the effort came despite the fact that the city's "documentary transfer tax" ordinance, as it is called, applies only to property "sold" in San Francisco and specifically exempts internal reorganizations of this kind.
The church also countered that state and federal law have long recognized that intra-church reorganizations are not transfers and are not subject to such taxes.
"This has been a very frustrating experience," said Jack Hammel, general counsel for the archdiocese.
He said Ting's and his chief assistant's refusal "to recognize well-established law on this subject" and the "repeated delaying tactics" church officials encountered for three and a half years have "caused a considerable disruption to the charitable activities of the archdiocese."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
SAN FRANCISCO (CNS) -- A Superior Court judge made final his earlier tentative decision to throw out a multimillion-dollar "delinquent" tax bill imposed on the Archdiocese of San Francisco by the San Francisco assessor-recorder.
Judge Richard A. Kramer Jan. 9 confirmed a 43-page "Tentative Statement of Decision" he issued in favor of the archdiocese Nov. 18.
For more than three years, the archdiocese fought an attempt by Phil Ting, head of the Office of the Assessor-Recorder, to impose transfer taxes totaling more than $20 million on more than 200 parish and school properties involved in an internal reorganization by the archdiocese.
The archdiocese maintained that the effort came despite the fact that the city's "documentary transfer tax" ordinance, as it is called, applies only to property "sold" in San Francisco and specifically exempts internal reorganizations of this kind.
The church also countered that state and federal law have long recognized that intra-church reorganizations are not transfers and are not subject to such taxes.
"This has been a very frustrating experience," said Jack Hammel, general counsel for the archdiocese.
He said Ting's and his chief assistant's refusal "to recognize well-established law on this subject" and the "repeated delaying tactics" church officials encountered for three and a half years have "caused a considerable disruption to the charitable activities of the archdiocese."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Read & Weep--Then Speak
Subject: Obama Care Highlights
This person has been reading the 1000 page house bill and posting it at Twitter…… The bill is worst than you thought! Peter Fleckstein (aka Fleckman) is reading it and has been posting on Twitter his findings. This is from his postings (Note: All comments are Fleckman’s)
PG 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
PG 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get
PG 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!
PG 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise PG 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access to individual's finances & a National ID Healthcard will b issued!
PG 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your bank accts for elect. funds transfer
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).
PG 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange to bring priv HC plans under Govt control. PG
84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs for priv. HC plans in the Exchange
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration ur Healthcare!
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example - Translation for illegal aliens
PG 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels for Plans. #AARP members - U Health care WILL b rationed
PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice PG 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt Monop
PG 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what you can make.
PG 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE PG 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families. PG 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Emplyr with payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll PG 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesn't prov. pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll PG 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC accrdng to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of inc PG 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from indiv. taxes. (Americans will pay) PG 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans finan/pers recs
PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that
PG 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician svcs for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected
PG 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same
PG 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr’s time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.
PG 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries
PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs
PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT of CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
PG 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals for what Govt deems preventable readmissions. PG 298 Lines 9-11 Drs, treat a patient during initial readmiss-Govt will penalize you.
PG 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.
PG 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand
PG 321 2-13 Hospitals have oppt to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can you say ACORN?!! PG 335 L 16-25 PG 336-339 - Govt mandates estab. of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing PG 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority to disqual Medicare Adv admiss that results in a Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps iti2 Govt plan PG 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs ppl!. My sis has down syndrome!!
PG 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Cmtte. Can you say HC by phone?
PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life
PG 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory! PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides apprvd list of end of life resources, guiding you in death PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends PG 429 Lines 1-9 An “adv. care planning consult” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates
PG 429 Lines 10-12 “adv. care consultation” may incl an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV PG 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment u will have at end of life
PG 469 Community Based Home Medical Services = Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!?
PG 472 L 14-17 Payment to community-based org. 1 monthly payment to a community-based org. Like ACORN?
PG 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage
PG 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Svcs including defining, creating, rationing those svcs
This person has been reading the 1000 page house bill and posting it at Twitter…… The bill is worst than you thought! Peter Fleckstein (aka Fleckman) is reading it and has been posting on Twitter his findings. This is from his postings (Note: All comments are Fleckman’s)
PG 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
PG 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get
PG 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!
PG 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise PG 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access to individual's finances & a National ID Healthcard will b issued!
PG 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access to your bank accts for elect. funds transfer
PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).
PG 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange to bring priv HC plans under Govt control. PG
84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs for priv. HC plans in the Exchange
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration ur Healthcare!
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example - Translation for illegal aliens
PG 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan
PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels for Plans. #AARP members - U Health care WILL b rationed
PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice PG 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt Monop
PG 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what you can make.
PG 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE PG 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families. PG 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Emplyr with payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll PG 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesn't prov. pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll PG 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC accrdng to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of inc PG 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from indiv. taxes. (Americans will pay) PG 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL Americans finan/pers recs
PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that
PG 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician svcs for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected
PG 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same
PG 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr’s time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.
PG 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries
PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs
PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT of CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!
PG 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals for what Govt deems preventable readmissions. PG 298 Lines 9-11 Drs, treat a patient during initial readmiss-Govt will penalize you.
PG 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.
PG 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand
PG 321 2-13 Hospitals have oppt to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can you say ACORN?!! PG 335 L 16-25 PG 336-339 - Govt mandates estab. of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing PG 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority to disqual Medicare Adv admiss that results in a Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps iti2 Govt plan PG 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs ppl!. My sis has down syndrome!!
PG 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Cmtte. Can you say HC by phone?
PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life
PG 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory! PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides apprvd list of end of life resources, guiding you in death PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends PG 429 Lines 1-9 An “adv. care planning consult” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates
PG 429 Lines 10-12 “adv. care consultation” may incl an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV PG 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.
PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment u will have at end of life
PG 469 Community Based Home Medical Services = Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!?
PG 472 L 14-17 Payment to community-based org. 1 monthly payment to a community-based org. Like ACORN?
PG 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage
PG 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Svcs including defining, creating, rationing those svcs
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Words of Wisdom from Wise Men
1) Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself.
.....Mark Twain
2) I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
..Winston Churchill
3) A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
.....George Bernard Shaw
5) Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
.....James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
6) Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
...Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University
7) Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
.....P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
8) Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors
to live at the expense of everybody else.
...Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)
9) Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
.....Ronald Reagan (1986)
10) I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.
.....Will Rogers
11) If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what
it costs when it's free.
.....P.J. O'Rourke
12) In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
.....Voltaire (1764)
13) Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you.
....Pericles (430 B.C.)
14) No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.
...Mark Twain (1866)
15) Talk is cheap ... except when Congress does it.
....Unknown
16) The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.
.....Ronald Reagan
17) The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
.....Winston Churchill
18) The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.
....Mark Twain
19) The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
.....Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)
20) There is no distinctly native American criminal class...save Congress.
....Mark Twain
21) What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.
.....Edward Langley, Artist (1928 - 1995)
22) A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
....Thomas Jefferson
.....Mark Twain
2) I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
..Winston Churchill
3) A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
.....George Bernard Shaw
5) Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
.....James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
6) Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
...Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University
7) Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
.....P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
8) Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors
to live at the expense of everybody else.
...Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)
9) Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
.....Ronald Reagan (1986)
10) I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.
.....Will Rogers
11) If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what
it costs when it's free.
.....P.J. O'Rourke
12) In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
.....Voltaire (1764)
13) Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you.
....Pericles (430 B.C.)
14) No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.
...Mark Twain (1866)
15) Talk is cheap ... except when Congress does it.
....Unknown
16) The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.
.....Ronald Reagan
17) The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
.....Winston Churchill
18) The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.
....Mark Twain
19) The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
.....Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)
20) There is no distinctly native American criminal class...save Congress.
....Mark Twain
21) What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.
.....Edward Langley, Artist (1928 - 1995)
22) A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
....Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Words of Wisdom--Quotable Quotes
1) Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of
Congress.
But then I repeat myself.
.....Mark Twain
2) I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is
like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
..Winston Churchill
3) A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
support of Paul.
.....George Bernard Shaw
5) Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting
on what to have for dinner.
.....James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
6) Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people
in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
...Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University
7) Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car
keys to teenage boys.
.....P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
8) Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors
to live at the expense of everybody else.
...Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)
9) Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short
phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And
if it stops moving, subsidize it.
.....Ronald Reagan (1986)
10) I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the
facts.
.....Will Rogers
11) If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what
it costs when it's free.
....P.J. O'Rourke
12) In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money
as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
....Voltaire (1764)
13) Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean
politics won't take an interest in you.
.....Pericles (430 B.C.)
14) No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature
is in session.
...Mark Twain (1866)
15) Talk is cheap ... except when Congress does it.
....Unknown
16) The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy
appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.
.....Ronald Reagan
17) The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
blessings.
The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
.....Winston Churchill
18) The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the
taxidermist leaves the skin.
...Mark Twain
19) The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is
to fill the world with fools.
.....Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)
20) There is no distinctly native American criminal class...save
Congress.
....Mark Twain
21) What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.
.....Edward Langley, Artist (1928 - 1995)
22) A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have.
....Thomas Jefferson
Congress.
But then I repeat myself.
.....Mark Twain
2) I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is
like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
..Winston Churchill
3) A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
support of Paul.
.....George Bernard Shaw
5) Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting
on what to have for dinner.
.....James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
6) Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people
in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
...Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University
7) Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car
keys to teenage boys.
.....P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
8) Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors
to live at the expense of everybody else.
...Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)
9) Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short
phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And
if it stops moving, subsidize it.
.....Ronald Reagan (1986)
10) I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the
facts.
.....Will Rogers
11) If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what
it costs when it's free.
....P.J. O'Rourke
12) In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money
as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
....Voltaire (1764)
13) Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean
politics won't take an interest in you.
.....Pericles (430 B.C.)
14) No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature
is in session.
...Mark Twain (1866)
15) Talk is cheap ... except when Congress does it.
....Unknown
16) The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy
appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.
.....Ronald Reagan
17) The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
blessings.
The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
.....Winston Churchill
18) The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the
taxidermist leaves the skin.
...Mark Twain
19) The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is
to fill the world with fools.
.....Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)
20) There is no distinctly native American criminal class...save
Congress.
....Mark Twain
21) What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.
.....Edward Langley, Artist (1928 - 1995)
22) A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have.
....Thomas Jefferson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
