Not only have we lost jobs, we have lost the Freedom of choice

As many as 24 million people would still remain uninsured in 2019; many of them otherwise eligible Americans who still can't afford the premiums. Over 60% of the American public was opposed to the new health plan, but it the Democrats had to push it through because it was all about change. The only change I see is in voting every one of them out. This plan will cost more and not save you a penny.

The new plan will phase in little by little, over the next three to four years. Ultimately all Americans will be mandated to carry coverage or face a tax penalty, except in cases of financial hardship. Insurers won't be able to deny coverage to people with health problems, or charge them more or cut them off. A family of four with annual income between $22,000 and $66,000 would face a fine ranging from $750 to $1,500 a year if they failed to buy health insurance. For families earning more than $66,000, the fine could be as steep as $3,800. Provisions of the bill cause the government to take two-thirds of any additional income of a family with a modest income of $54,000.

As a poor family earns more income, their subsidy is reduced, and the cut in the subsidy falls faster than the rise in the family’s income until the family’s income has risen to the point where it no longer qualifies for a subsidy.

A higher pay check means higher Federal income taxes. A family earning $54,000 a year is in a 25 per cent marginal tax bracket. 25 per cent of the addition $12,000 means $3,000 in extra Federal income tax.

Now, over time this family has increased earnings of $12,000, means higher Social Security and Medicare contributions of 7.65 per cent (actually, double this figure, since the employee pays the employers share in the form of lower wages, not considered here). This amounts to a deduction of another $918 from the $12,000 pay raise. So far, the government has taxed $6,718 out of the $12,000 raise.

Given all these deductions for taxes and fees, the actual amount of additional purchasing power to the example family from a $12,000 raise in pay is only about $4,000, or one-third of the supposed increase their increase in income.

Under the legislation those who now will have the most trouble finding and keeping coverage: people who buy their own insurance or work for small businesses.

Some people's taxes would go up.

Buying into Medicare won't be cheap, about $7,600 a year not counting out-of-pocket costs for deductibles and copayments.

A new report from government economic analysts at the Health and Human Services Department found that the nation’s $2.5 trillion annual health care tab won’t shrink under the Democratic proposal that senators just passed. Instead, it would grow somewhat more rapidly than if Congress did nothing. Something the Democrats just happened to leave out while the snake oil was being pushed to the public.

Also troubling was the report’s assessment that the Democrats’ plan to squeeze Medicare for $493 billion over 10 years in savings relies on specific policy changes that “may be unrealistic” and could lead to cuts in services.

The report somberly warned that a new long-term care insurance plan included in the legislation could “face a significant risk of failure” because it would attract people in poor health, leading to higher and higher premiums, and eventually triggering an “insurance death spiral.”

"Health-care reform cannot be considered successful if it makes coverage more expensive," said Scott P. Serota, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association president and CEO.

The “individual responsibility” provision in Section 1501 (pages 320-340) would require anyone who fails to obtain a qualifying health plan – with a benefit package to be defined later by bureaucrats – to pay an annual tax penalty of $750 per adult family member and $375 per child, with a maximum penalty of $2,250 per family. These penalties will be phased in from 2014 to 2016 and then indexed for inflation, which means they are likely to increase nearly every year. These taxes are fixed amounts based on family size, not income.

The rich will not pay more, and the middle class will not pay less (although the poor may qualify for exemptions). This is even worse than the House bill, which imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income above the minimum income necessary to file a tax return. A family of at least two adults and two children is actually worse off under the Senate bill if they make less than $99,350 a year and worse off under the House bill if they make more. The only nod to affordability is a “hardship exemption” if the lowest available premium for a bare-bones plan is more than 8 percent of your income. But that saves you money only if your income is less than $28,125 a year.

Companies with more than 50 employees are required to offer qualified health plans, to their full-time employees or pay a tax of $750 per full-time employee. That’s a lot cheaper than providing health insurance, and the $750 is just a tax – it doesn’t count towards the employee’s premium.

However, an employer who does offer qualifying insurance isn’t off the hook. Suppose an employer offers insurance, but has an employee from a low-income family who qualifies for a premium subsidy in the “health insurance exchange” and decides to accept it. In that case, the employer is stuck with a tax penalty of $3,000 for that employee, and every other employee who qualifies and makes that same choice – unless it’s more than a quarter of the employees, in which case the tax is capped at $750 times the total number of full-time employees. (Workers will be permitted to opt out of their employer’s plan only if they qualify for a subsidy, have insurance through another family member, or if the employer covers less than 60 percent of their premium.)

In other words, if a company has a lot of low-income workers, they can save money by dropping their health plan and just paying the $750 per-employee tax. (And they can make as many employees as possible part-time.) However, if they have mostly middle-income workers, they face a heavy penalty — $3,000 – every time they hire a worker from a low-income family. This goes by the employee’s family income, not the income the employee is paid by any particular company. So a company could save $3,000 by hiring, say, someone with a working spouse or a teenager with working parents, rather than a single mother with three children.

Even worse, if at least a quarter of the employees qualify for a premium subsidy based on their income and family size, the company is going to end up paying the same $750 per-employee tax – whether they offer insurance or not! So companies with a lot of low-income employees will essentially be encouraged to drop their health plans entire, dumping the remaining higher-income employees into the federal exchange at their own expense.

Employers will have a strong tax incentive to lay off the workers who need the jobs most – people without other sources of income.

New taxes and fees imposed on businesses will "discourage companies from hiring or continuing to employ low-income and moderate-income workers. Small-business owners who do not generate enough revenue to pay their workers' wages in addition to the new taxes and fees would be forced to lay off their lowest-paid employees to comply with the law. So in essence the next person in line would be the next lowest-paid employee?

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke stated, "By holding down the growth of national saving and real capital accumulation, the prospective increase in the budget deficit will place at risk future living standards of our country." And according to the Congressional Budget Office, "Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress income growth in the United States. Over time, the accumulation of debt would seriously harm the economy.”

As prospective cuts to Medicare Advantage are made, writes Michael D. Tanner of Cato, "many insurers are expected to stop participating in the program, while others will probably increase the premiums they charge seniors." The Congressional Budget Office agrees, saying that cuts to Medicare Advantage "could lead many plans to limit the benefits they offer, raise their premiums, or withdraw from the program," devastating seniors' health care options.

A number of proposals will assume steep cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. It would cut payments to doctors by 25 percent in 2011, with even steeper cuts later, the Wall Street Journal says these cuts "will cause many doctors to quit the program."

Medicare patients already have difficulty finding doctors, especially in some markets, would be exacerbated as the number of doctors willing to treat Medicare patients will shrink at the very time the number of Medicare recipients is increasing (due to the retirement of baby boomers, and other factors).

The new Health Plan will erode your privacy by expanding the IRS and mandating that insurers, employers and government agencies share with one another your personal financial information. They will have the authority at some point to invade you savings or checking to determine whether you can afford health care or not.

The National Federation of Independent Business estimates that mandating that employers provide health care will cost an additional 1.6 million jobs by 2013.

Unemployment is at a 25 year high, yet the White House and Congress continue to ignore the ruinous cost health care reform legislation will have on small business.

It is small businesses that drive our economy. This bill will not only kill jobs, it will prevent job growth and expansion.

We can look towards higher insurance premiums, more and higher taxes, fewer jobs, lower wages, a reduced standard of living and an erosion of privacy and individual liberty.

This is a bill about control and nothing else. We are now being mandated by our government to carry healthcare or be penalized if we don’t.

This is a sickening abuse of governmental power and a violation of every American's right to decide what is best for themselves and his or her family.

We as Americans have lost another freedom, the freedom of choice.

How much longer before we lose our right to vote?

~ Joe Sinagra

Regrets and Thank You

First and foremost, I would like to thank the voters of the 18th District who showed their tremendous support in wanting to change the course of New Jersey legislature, and for not believing in the negative, malicious attacks against me. I firmly believe it is the voters of this state who come first; I do not take their concerns lightly, nor take their votes for granted.

Thanks to my family for their patience in putting up with endless hours of campaign talk, phone calls, posters, flyers, the literature strewn about the house, friends for their support and the people of the district who cast their vote in my run for state office. Congratulations to the winners and my congratulations to those who weren’t so fortunate in their bid for holding office. I congratulate them as well for trying as they did not lose, a loser is one who never tries, and trying is the only way you will ever win.

My running mate Bob Jones, for working tirelessly non-stop in his door to door efforts, and my thanks to one of the best campaign teams I have had since entering the political arena. The volunteers who spent hours each day campaigning for candidates they believed in, I cannot thank you enough. It is because of your efforts and dedication, that we came as close as we did.

By coming so close to winning, I believe the voters of this district and throughout the state, regardless of party affiliation are tired of politics as usual and have spoken. Voters who are tired of corruption, high taxes, unfulfilled promises, and citizens looking for government they can believe in, government that will represent them.

My only regret is that I will not have the opportunity to represent those who believed I could make a difference.

Who knows what the future may hold, until then I believe we are well on our way to a better New Jersey and a brighter future.

Joe Sinagra
2009 18th District NJ Assembly Candidate

Conservative Majority New Jersey Assembly Endorsements: 18th Legislative District

CWA-NJ Executive Committee | 29 October


18th Legislative District
We have added one more late Assembly endorsement to the list of challengers, (and may still have one last one later today). This endorsement is from the 18th Legislative District where Conservative Majority New Jersey has endorsed Joe Sinagra for Assembly.

If anyone can face a strong challenge that is in front of him and overcome it, it is Joe Sinagra. An Air Force veteran during the Vietnam War, a husband, father and a good man, there needs to be more Joe Sinagra’s serving in Public Office.

Joe has received endorsements for this race from the New Jersey Right to Life, the NRA with a AQ rating, and PENPAK Commerce & Industry Association of New Jersey (CIANJ).

Please join us in supporting Joe Sinagra’s campaign for the Office of Assembly in the 18th Legislative District.

Please visit Joe’s website to find out how you could help by donating or volunteering.

Jones, Sinagra will fight for lower taxes

I find it appalling that our current assemblymen Patrick Diegnan and Peter Barnes would resort to sending out mailers with so many untruths.

Marching in lockstep with Corzine, they voted for every increase the governor asked for. The voting record is on the web; I didn't have to look very hard. They would rather sling mud than to talk about your record of voting "yes" to $9 billion in tax increases, cutting school funding, increasing municipal taxes, and penalizing small business owners throughout New Jersey.

Joe Sinagra and Bob Jones have stuck to the issues; you have not and have thrown the first stone. Mr. Diegnan and Mr. Barnes deliberately sent out mailers through the Democratic Party attacking two standup gentlemen to steer us away from their own voting records.

Anyone who has followed Joe Sinagra, his letters, and campaigns would know these mailers are nothing but propaganda to try and sway the voters. Mr. Sinagra has been fighting for lower taxes since 2002, has been an advocate for the taxpayers of this state, had stuck up for the seniors and veterans. His letters in regards to taxes have always been in favor of the voters, not government, and he has been endorsed twice by the Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey. Mr. Sinagra is a bi-partisan candidate who can work with both parties, as he is for the people first and not business as usual in Trenton.

Bob Jones was a member of the South Plainfield Board of Education and has numerous awards through several organizations, and was endorsed by the Women's Political Caucus of New Jersey, among many other respectable organizations.

Having been to several Tea Parties, and very active politically in New Jersey, I can tell you, Bob Jones and Joe Sinagra have no intent to increase taxes. Bob and Joe both have ideas for bringing jobs back into the state.

Personally, I would like to know why my taxes have risen so high, why has it become so costly to live in this state, why is our state unemployment so high, why education costs are being cut, why was our state funding cut?

This has all happened while the Barnes and Diegnan have been in office. Rather than answer those questions, they would rather confuse the voters with nonsense. They'd rather become re-elected through deceit, smoke and mirrors, only to elevate our taxes once more.

It's time to shake up the Trenton political attitude. You cannot continue continue to replenish the state's pockets at my expense. Household incomes are shrinking; looking at mine, let me ask you a question Mr. Barnes and Mr. Diegnan: "What have you done for me lately? "

S. B.

East Brunswick

Trough Candidate wins Home News endorsement again

Despite the fact Assemblyman Barnes first act after winning the assembly seat in 2007 was to appropriate $100,000 to the entire budget of the Edison Symphony Orchestra in a year when we supposedly had no money and raised the sales tax 1% to help property taxes, has voted to raise taxes 115 times since then, voted yes for $9 billion dollars (along with Patrick Diegnan) in tax increases, received an “F” rating with the NFIB, he still managed to receive the Home News Editorial Endorsement.

One of the editors wanted to know why we don’t mandate private business to raise their salaries. My response to Mr. Racz, was if we have business moving out of state because they can’t afford to stay in New Jersey, how would you then mandate they raise their salaries, and expect them to return? And, how would you mandate this? I also pointed out that many minorities and uneducated have higher unemployment levels, and are being displaced because of the current job market, and mandating higher salaries from the private sector would only make it worse. Is this the next wave of liberal thinking, to try and mandate the salaries of private business? There is a reason it is called free enterprise.

I ran for Congress, knowing full well my chance of upsetting the Congressional seat was slim, but nevertheless I ran a hard campaign, again on limited funds against a well entrenched establishment. Politickernj had said that I received only 2% less votes than Buster Soaries, who in a better year spent over $1 million. One editor from the Courier News actually jumped out of his seat and pointed his finger at me calling me prejudice and walked out of the room for my stating of the facts on illegal immigration when I ran for Congress. It could be this same editor still holds a grudge as he was partial to favoring my opponent.

I had made some comments regarding Corzine at that same Review Board, having told them why someone would vote for this man for governor, when he won’t tell us his tax plans until after he is elected. The next day it was as if I wrote their Editorial Opinion page, it was printed almost verbatim, as witnessed by my running mate that year. As it turned out, the governor came out with his infamous asset monetization plan two months after he took office.

What I find ironic is that I received the Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey endorsement (CIANJ) from a panel of New Jersey businessmen. An endorsement I received because of my vision and plans on bringing business and jobs back into the state, and ways to place people back in the job market. An endorsement I place much more regard in, than that of an Editorial Review Board, an endorsement that is not given lightly by the business community.

The editorial failed to mention that I missed winning the last go around by less than 6%, with little money, and being outspent 20 to 1. I don’t put much faith in the Editorial Boards Opinion as it is only their opinion, what I find disturbing is how they go out of their way to make personal comments.

With that said, I would like to congratulate my running mate Bob Jones for his receiving the honors this year. I couldn’t have asked for a better person to campaign with. Bob is also concerned about the high taxes in this state, coupled with a sputtering economy. His insight to cutting costs if elected would be an asset to the voters in this state.

Joe Sinagra
NJ 18th District Assembly Candidate

Calling all jobs, where are you?

New Jersey should put an ad in the careers section of the paper for “JOBS WANTED.” At the current rate of unemployment we have more people out of work than job creation. We know Jon Corzines claim of creating 13,000 jobs was a farce, since we lost 12,000 jobs last month.

I have received the Commerce and Industry Endorsement due to my plan and views on bringing business back to this state. We need to focus jobs, industry; careers to jump start this economy and bring back companies that left, while enticing new start-up companies to build in New Jersey. We need to eliminate the corporate tax, penalties, and regulations that hinder business from growing and expanding.

Chris Christie "renewable energy initiative" is a plan to make New Jersey more attractive to industry by making our state business-friendly and actively seeking out renewable energy manufactures. Bringing the next generation of industry and better paying jobs for the middle class. Offering tax credits and eliminating costly and time-consuming “use variances” or zoning changes for solar energy construction.

To have a true end to a recession, you need a strong economy. Without a growing job market, we can only expect more lost incomes, foreclosures, less spending, less savings, and more families leaving the state.

Corzine and our assembly are the cause of the State’s current dilemma, contrary to what they want you to believe. They want to run for reelection to fix this state? The Democrats have had since 2002 to prove themselves, and have failed miserably.

We need representatives that will put the people first, something the taxpayers of this state currently do not have.

Joe Sinagra
NJ 18th District Assembly Candidate

Assemblymen Diegan and Barnes Sink to a New Low

These two Assemblymen are grasping for votes, their numbers are sinking and are putting out mailers that are blatant lies, misrepresentation, and non-factual, in an effort to regain their footing. They can't run on their record of voting YES of increasing you're taxes to $9 billion, so they have resorted to mudslinging.

Dear Mr. Diegnan and Mr. Barnes:

You recently sent a campaign mailer into the 18th District accusing me of being a tax cheat. A mailer, which for all intents and purposes, is designed to put in the minds of the voters that while they are struggling to pay their taxes, I do not pay mine. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Allow me to set the record straight:

My oldest son had a plumbing business under which I was the principal of the corporation.

Although I never received any funds or checks from the business - and drew no salary - ultimately as the corporation I was responsible for the business. As my son’s business base closed up, his bills became greater.

My son, in efforts to save his business, started out by laying off his help, closing his office and moving it into his home, hoping that the business would regain momentum. When it became evident this was not going to happen, he finally closed up shop.

In your recent mail piece, you state that I did not pay my State and Federal taxes. Get your facts straight - it was not a failure to pay taxes, but rather a lien against my son's business and the corporation. The liens - every penny of them - were satisfied several years ago.

Having lost one son through an accident in the Marines, my wife and I made a promise to do whatever we could to help our remaining son and daughter. I do not know of any responsible , loving parent who would not go out of their way to help their children get ahead, or help them if they were in trouble.

My son was in trouble with paying the back taxes and we paid them for him.

I did not run away from my responsibilities as a parent, or a businessman. I confronted the situation head on and did what was necessary to pay off this debt.

This is the same representation I will give the taxpayers if I am elected to office. I will not run or evade the hard issues we face ahead.

As our sitting Assemblymen, you should both be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. This desperate attack on me and my family shows the lengths you will go to keep your current seats; obviously you will resort to anything. You have crossed the line - attacking not only me, but my family.

Knowing what it is to lose a beloved son, I have no regrets. I would do it again for my family. . . even at the risk of another smear tactic such as this one.
　
Joe Sinagra

Regards,
Joe Sinagra, Sr.
18th District Assembly Candidate