Episode 40. January 18, 2020
CLP Topic Category: Democrat Party Socialism
Obama’s IRMAA Stealth Tax to Punish Retired Americans.
Our podcast today expands on Rush Limbaugh’s allegation that Democrats seek to punish success. We provide an analysis of Obama’s 2015 IRMAA stealth tax as an example to support Limbaugh’s allegation.
IRMAA stands for the Social Security income-related monthly adjustment to the social security retirement check of retired citizens. The effect of the tax is to reduce the monthly income retirement check, if the tax payer had a capital gain financial success in the previous 2 years.
The stealth tax punishes retired citizens who take a one-time capital gain on real estate or stocks and bonds. The capital gain is reported by the IRS to the Social Security Administration, without the citizen’s knowledge, or consent, and the gain bumps the citizen into a penalty bracket for earning too much income.
The one-time capital gain event overrides the entire life-time of earnings, used to calculate a citizen’s monthly Social Security retirement check.
In 2018, there were approximately 10 million citizens caught by the IRMAA punishment trap. The IRMAA is equivalent to a 2.2% surtax on income. The revenue from IRMAA flows to the general government coffers, and is not used to offset the social security deficit.
The Democrats use the tax code to punish citizens who do not conform to the socialist correct-think vision of “income fairness.”
Limbaugh stated the income fairness allegation against the Democrats,
“The entire Democrat Party is structured to punish success, or at least make voters think that they are going to punish success. Obama seeks a path that punishes achievement, that punishes success, and he speaks negatively of the country.”
Most observers probably think Limbaugh is talking about the Democrat’s desire to punish rich or wealthy Americans, primarily because of the Democrat’s class war ideology that the rich do not pay a fair share of their income in taxes.
Typical of the Democrat’s anti-rich mantra is the statement by Elizabeth Warren that serves to heighten class hatred between Americans.
Warren deploys the socialist class envy ideology to convince voters that the American economic system is rigged against the average citizen, and that when she is elected, the Democrats will punish the wealthy citizens by taxing them.
“People feel like the system is rigged against them. And here’s the painful part. They’re right. The system is rigged. Look around. Oil companies guzzle down billions in profits. Billionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. And Wall Street CEOs, the same ones who wrecked our economy and destroyed millions of jobs, still strut around Congress, no shame, demanding favors and acting like we should thank them.”
According to the Democrat mantra, only the Federal government is powerful and righteous enough to overcome the unfair outcomes generated for working-class citizens by the rigged economic system of capitalism.
IRMAA contradicts the “tax-the-rich” mantra by describing how the Democrats inflict punishment on middle class citizens, not just the rich.
The Democrats punish middle class citizens by taking away social security benefits when the socialists deem the behavior of achieving a capital gain success as unacceptable.
Our podcast does not argue about the technical merits of IRMAA, or it’s justification as a method of raising revenue from retired citizens to offset the Social Security unfunded liability.
Rather, we explain the socialist logic that supports why socialists seek to punish success.
The logic of the Democrat socialist ideology of using the power of government to enforce fairness is captured by Obama’s statement, in 2010.
“I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money”
We explain that IRMAA is a representation that a one-time capital gain is not fair because the gain means the citizen has made too much money.
We conclude that nothing will ever change the behavior of Democrats because they deeply believe that they are the sole, ultimate judges of what constitutes fairness.
Victor Davis Hansen explains that the Democrat strategy is to eliminate political opposition in order to gain a one-party political monopoly, like the one that existed in North Carolina and Louisiana, in the 20th century.
If the Democrats succeed in gaining the one-party monopoly, they will permanently punish citizens, through secret, stealth taxes, like IRMAA.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this is the copyrighted Citizen Liberty Party News Network podcast for January 18, 2020.
Our podcast today is under the CLP topic category Police State Socialism, and is titled, Obama’s IRMAA Stealth Tax to Punish Retired Americans.
The most recent podcast of the CLP News Network is available for free. The entire text and audio archive of our podcasts are available for subscription of $30 per year, at the CLP News Network.com.
The IRMAA Punishment Trap.
IRMAA is only one of many tax tools used by Democrats to punish success.
Among the other policies are the IRA required minimum distribution, (RMD), rules that seek to punish citizens who are deemed to have too much wealth in a retirement account, after age 70, or 72.
The RMD is designed to force a citizen to deplete retirement plan balances as opposed to leaving that money to the family or the estate of the citizen.
The punishment for failing to take the required RMD results in a 50% penalty for the amount that Democrats believe the citizen “should” have taken out.
For example, an annual RMD of $40,000 that is not taken, results in a $20,000 tax penalty, deducted directly from the IRA account.
The Democrats also punish retired citizens by eliminating Health Saving Accounts, in order to punish citizens who would rather pay for their own medical care, after they retire, than be coerced into the medicare-for-all program, after age 65.
The language used by the SSA to explain the HSA punishment is revealing for the authoritarian socialist mindset of Democrats.
The SSA rules on HSA use the term “dictate” to explain the power of government to coerce behavior,
“Special rules apply to those who contribute to an HSA as they near 65, when they’ll become eligible for Medicare coverage. Current rules dictate that once you are enrolled in Medicare, you can no longer make new contributions to an HSA. That’s because you must be part of a high deductible health plan (HDHP) to put money into an HSA.”
In the punishment for Part D prescription drugs plan, the Democrats imposed a late penalty fee for failing to apply within 3 months of becoming eligible for Part D.
The Part D penalty is a lifetime tax, which can never be modified or overcome, once it is imposed.
In other words, a citizen who does not enroll in Part D, when the Democrats want the citizen to enroll, is punished forever with a tax penalty that increases the longer the citizen waits to enroll.
A fourth Democrat punishment exists for citizens who continue working after SSA benefits begin.
The rules on working after benefits start state,
“Social Security beneficiaries who continue to work after signing up for Social Security before turning their full retirement age might have part or all of their Social Security benefit temporarily withheld. Social Security recipients who are younger than their full retirement age and earn more than $17,640 in 2019 will have $1 withheld for every $2 earned in excess of the earnings limit.”
The punishment tax is applied against the monthly benefit check of the citizen. For example, a tax payer, filing single, who made over $34,000, would be taxed at 85% of the prior monthly benefit.
The main political technique of the Democrats used to punish success is to bury a small punishment provision in a much bigger piece of IRS legislation, and to authorize the bureaucrats to write the rules on how to implement the law.
In the case of IRMAA, after the law was passed in 2015, the bureaucrats kept their rule writing secret, and never disclosed to citizens what they were doing.
In the passage of IRMAA, the provisions were buried in the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA).
The title of the bill was “An Act To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal the Medicare sustainable growth rate and strengthen Medicare access by improving physician payments and making other improvements, to reauthorize the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.”
The IRMAA provisions are buried inside MACRA, under Section 402, titled, “Income-related premium adjustment for parts B and D”, which have nothing to do with children or payments to physicians.
Section 402 is a radical new penalty that fundamentally alters the benefits of the Social Security Act, but the text of Section 402 is obscure and seemingly innocuous.
The text of Section 402 of MACRA states,
“Section 1839(i)(3)(C)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 395r(i)(3)(C)(i)) is amended—
(1) by inserting after “In general.–” the following:
“(I) Subject to paragraphs (5) and
(6), for years before 2018:”; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
“(II) Subject to paragraph (5), for
years beginning with 2018.
The innocuous sounding amendments had the effect of authorizing the IRS to transmit to the Social Security Administration any and all of a citizen’s income tax filings, which are then used by the SSA to determine the level of punishment to be meted out to a citizen, if the citizen had a successful capital gain in a prior year.
The IRMAA penalty associated with Medicare Part B, and Part D, is then applied to the retirement income provisions of SSA.
Without citizen consent, or due process, the monthly retirement check of the penalty is coercively deducted from the prior monthly level on social security income.
For example, if the monthly SSA retirement check had been $1000, before the IRMAA penalty, after the penalty, the monthly check is reduced to $750, without due process.
The IRMAA penalty is not eligible for an administrative appeal as a “one time life-time event,” like divorce, that would qualify for an appeal of the IRMAA penalty.
In other words, there is no provision for citizen appeal, in a capital gain event, after the IRMAA penalty has been applied, because the bureaucrats determined that a capital gain was not a one time event.
In addition to the income deduction, the IRMAA penalty acts to increase the monthly premium paid by the citizen on Medicare Parts B and D.
The IRMAA success penalty hits the citizen twice, once in the reduction of the monthly retirement income, because the Democrats find that the capital gain violated their sense of fairness of too much income, and, second, in the monthly premium because the Democrats reason that the citizen has more money, after the capital gain, and could afford the increase in premiums.
The MACRA law of 2015 authorized the left-wing bureaucrats in SSA to write the IRMAA rules, which became effective in 2018. The bureaucrats deployed their own socialist sense of “fairness” on income distribution to write their rules.
In writing the delayed 3-year rules, the SSA bureaucrats explained that they were not required to disclose or inform the public of what they were doing.
The SSA staff stated,
“We find that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to issue this regulatory change as a final rule without prior public comment. We find that public comment is unnecessary because this final rule merely makes our regulations (20 CFR 418.1115, 418.1120, 418.2115, and 418.2120) consistent with the MAGI ranges specified by MACRA and BBA 2018. Importantly, we have no agency discretion for establishing these figures. Accordingly, we find there is good cause to issue this final rule without prior public comment.”
In addition, the IRMAA rules bypassed a citizen safeguard of review by the Office of Management and Budget, housed in the President’s Executive Branch.
The SSA rules stated, dryly,
“Thus, OMB did not review the final rule.”
In other words, no citizen, or elected representative, had an opportunity to review, modify, or amend the IRMAA success punishment provisions, prior to their implementation, for tax year 2018.
Their implementation constitutes an act of sheer totalitarian bureaucratic power of the deep state to impose the penalty, for which there is no due process or right of redress.
The socialist staffers inside the SSA who wrote the administrative rules followed the example of Lois Lerner in using the IRS as a weapon against the citizens.
The rules state,
“We use your tax filing status and your modified adjusted gross income for the tax year to determine which income-related monthly adjustment amount to apply to you. The dollar amount of income-related monthly adjustment for each range will be set annually for each year after 2019.”
There is no Congressional authorization for the IRS to provide citizen tax data to another federal agency, in the absence of a subpoena.
The SSA rules explain,
“…if the enrollee’s modified adjusted gross income exceeds the threshold amounts specified in 20 CFR 418.2115… We tie the additional amount you pay to the base beneficiary premium, not your own premium amount. If you’re a higher-income beneficiary, we deduct this amount from your monthly Social Security payments regardless of how you usually pay your monthly prescription plan premiums.”
On both parts of the penalty, the part on reducing the monthly retirement check, and the amount of increase in premiums, the rules state,
“On the income you report to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). You’ll pay monthly Part B premiums equal to 35, 50, 65, 80, or 85 percent of the total cost, depending on what the law specifies that the amount is determined using a base premium. To determine your 2019 income-related monthly adjustment amounts, we use your most recent federal tax return the IRS provides to us. Generally, this information is from a tax return filed in 2018 for tax year 2017.”
In other words, a capital gain taken in 2017 shows up two years later as the two part IRMAA penalty.
The SSA notes that it is the general budget of the U. S. Government that obtains the tax, not the SSA.
“The Part D IRMAA penalty amount is paid directly to the federal government, not to your Part D plan.”
The practical effect of the Democrat’s IRMAA punishment is that a single capital gain event in 2017, of over $160,000, wipes out 80% of the citizen’s previous monthly social security retirement check, beginning in 2019.
Once the IRMAA penalty is applied, that act causes the citizen to be continually reviewed and monitored by the SSA for possible future one-time capital gains, so that the IRMAA penalty can be reapplied.
The one-time capital gain event, in 2017, raises the monthly premium that a citizen pays for Part B and Part D medical insurance, for 12 months, after which the SSA looks back to 2018, to determine if the citizen had another capital gain event in 2018 that would enable the penalty to be continued.
The capital gain event, in 2017, overrides a lifetime of earnings history of a citizen for obtaining a monthly retirement check and increases the citizen’s monthly premium for health insurance.
The penalties for both Part B and Part D, and the penalty of the capital gain success are withheld directly from the individual’s monthly Social Security check.
As a final form of punishment, after the IRMAA penalty has been applied, the citizen becomes ineligible for the so-called “Hold Harmless” rules that limit annual inflation increases to Medicare Part B premiums.
The Logic of the Democrat’s Ideology of Justice as Fairness.
IRMAA is a deliberate result of the Democrat Party socialist ideology about society and government. The essence of socialist ideology is that individual citizens are incompetent to make decisions about their own health care because those individual decisions do not incorporate concerns for social fairness.
As he explained in his book, A Politics of Tensions, Robert Hoffert stated that, “a government based upon communist socialist principles sacrifices order and individual liberty to the promotion of the “general will.”
The socialists seek to replace the constitutional concept of individual liberty to pursue happiness, with the socialist constitutional mandate to seek fairness.
Fairness is how the socialists define promotion of “the general will.” The purpose of the Constitution, for Democrats, is to allow socialists to pursue their end goal of social justice, or fairness, unhindered by the consent of the governed.
The socialist provocateur, Cass Sunstein, argues that the purpose of his revised socialist constitution is to provide the power and authority of the government to enforce “fairness,” through the application of the police power, primarily using tax policy.
In Sunstein’s version of the constitution, socialist elites are the judges of the “pre-commitment strategies” outlined in the socialist constitution. As a result ot the pre-commitment provisions, the socialist elites determine the “general will” without the need to consult citizens.
According to Sunstein, whenever social disadvantage arise that are visible for all to see, the socialists obtain Leviathan’s power to equalize the disadvantages of birth. (Designing Democracy: What Constitutions Do, 2001).
In socialist ideology, a citizen is born into poverty, as a member of a disadvantaged group, and the person is trapped forever in the capitalist system, like a serf or a slave, by the accident of their birth.
In order to insure equal outcomes, the socialists aim at equalizing the accidents of birth, where some are born into privilege, (born on third base).
The cause of social misery is inherent in the capitalist market exchange system.
The role of government, according to the socialists, is to use the tax power of government to equalize the unfair advantages of the capitalist elite that they use to keep the disadvantaged groups locked into a life of poverty.
When Warren states that the political system is rigged, she is citing the Marxist concept that all laws are created by elected representatives who are from Madison’s natural aristocracy, and that the laws that are passed serve those elite financial interests.
Wilson Carey McWilliams gets at part of the socialist totalitarian idea in, (On Equality as the Moral Foundation for Community,) when he explains the difference between cultural values of liberty and the values of socialism:
The contrast is between societies that aim at similarity and likeness and societies whose institutions are based upon exchange relationships…in socialist societies, individual dignity derives for the quality of one’s devotion to the common socialist values.”
Friedrich Hayek observed that the notion of “social justice” requires discretionary contextual decision-making, exclusively by socialist elites, rather than subjecting governance to equally-applied rules that aim at a commonly-held notion of individual liberty.
The logical contradiction of the socialist ideology, for a democratic representative republic, is that the imposition of fairness cannot be achieved through democratic voting procedures.
This difference between a socialist society and a representative democratic republic is one reason why a socialist regime is always authoritarian. Under socialism, the citizens have only one choice to elect representatives in a one-party political system, such as in North Carolina, after the Democrats gained one-party rule, in 1898.
After an election, the socialist elites obtain unilateral, authoritarian power to impose their notions of fairness on society.
In the case of the creation of the IRMAA punishment rules, the SSA staffers, hidden in the deep state, assumed the power of the elected representatives to determine fairness.
The key to understanding the economy and obedience to the rule of law of under social justice is to understand the socialist construct of “value” because their concept of economic value is intertwined with the operation of the capitalist political system.
The function of government, in the social justice rule of law, is to restore the “value” that was “unjustly” taken away from labor, and also taken away from all the other disadvantaged collectivist groups, as a result of the operation of the capitalist exchange system.
Justice, as fair rules, relies on a set of elites who judge the fairness of welfare outcomes, and have the power to shift resources from one social group to another, in order to make the outcomes fair.
When John Rawls addressed this question of fair income distribution, he concluded that no collective political decision should be made that did not improve the welfare of the least advantaged member of the society. (A Theory of Justice, 1990).
Rawls made a slight adjustment in his definition of “member of society” by modifying member from an individual citizen to collectivist groups that are disadvantaged by the outcomes in capitalist exchange.
Rawls’ conclusion that no collective political decision be made that does not benefit the least advantaged “social group” is a prescription for an all-powerful collectivist totalitarian government.
As Rawls noted in his work, a fair system of justice modifies the equal application of the law to an unequal application of rights, when the “minimum for moral personality is not satisfied.”
In other words, Rawls establishes a contingent condition for equal rights associated with the condition of a moral personality.
In socialism, only socialist elites possess a moral personality, similar in concept to Madison’s application of virtue, that only the natural aristocracy possessed virtue.
This interpretation of justice relies on a set of elites who judge the fairness of welfare outcomes in market exchanges.
This socialist interpretation of fairness suggests that no process of exchange, either by majority voting of citizens or through the price mechanism of the market, can be fair if it does not first remedy the exploitation of workers by the capitalist class.
The interpretation and adjudication of what constitutes a “fair” distribution of wealth, as proposed by Rawls, requires an institutional mechanism based upon an institutional separation of power between the power of government and the exchange outcomes in the capitalist system.
In the Democratic Party version of justice, the end goal of government is to alleviate suffering by aiming at “social justice,” in order to correct the unfair distribution of income that results from the class privileges of the wealthy capitalist class.
On the front end of the definition of justice, Rawls substitutes “equal chances,” for equal opportunity. On the back end, Rawls substitutes fair outcomes in place of reward based upon merit.
In the middle, Rawls substitutes the authority of a panel of socialist judges to determine fair outcomes in place of democratic citizen voting.
Neither market exchanges, based upon the price mechanism in capitalist exchange, nor political exchanges, based upon voting, can provide evidence to the panel of judges on the question of fairness in the distribution of wealth.
Searching for fairness requires an independent objective panel of judges to determine equal outcomes, which are disconnected from the consent of the governed.
This hypothetical independent panel of judges would be required to judge merit in the initial conditions of exchange in order to adjust benefits in the outcome of the exchange.
Adjusting benefits occurs after the morally unfair exchange takes place, and would thus require that the independent panel continually be empowered to judge all economic and financial transactions, both before and after the exchange had occurred.
In the case of IRMAA, the socialist bureaucrats act as the panel of judges to determine fairness, after a capital gain has occurred. One can visualize a group of SSA socialist bureaucrats sitting around a table, in 2016, in secret, saying to each other,
“Yes, a punishment of 80% on a capital gain of $160,000 seems fair, and a punishment of 40% of a capital gain of $85,000, also seems fair.
Jeffrey Reiman, added to Rawls’ theory of justice, (Justice and Modern Moral Philosophy), by suggesting that in addition to the two capacities of the moral personality, the rules of justice required a special type of initial constitutional agreement over the definition of moral authority.
Reiman stated that,
“moral authority requires establishing the validity of the implicit claim of such moral authority to override people’s judgments about their own sovereign life mission.”
The key to understanding the totalitarian socialist ideology is to understand what Reiman means when he uses the term “override a citizen’s sovereign life mission.”
Reiman and Rawls both ask the same question: When should civil society invoke the collective police power of the state to override an individual’s own judgment about the pursuit of happiness?
The Rawls and Reiman appeal to justice is based upon the facade that all individuals gave prior consent to the irrevocable constitutional grant of power to the state.
The flaw in their rules is easily understood by contrasting their concept of justice with the concept identified by James Buchanan, in his work, The Reason of Rules.
“Just conduct,” writes Buchanan, “consists of behavior that does not violate rules to which one has given prior consent.”
To accept Rawls and Reiman, one must accept that the common citizens, after they defeated King George, knowing in advance where they would end up financially, would give their consent to the constitutional rules that leave them in a perpetual state of subjugation to the state.
Once granted, as in the case of the Leviathan, all subsequent generations of citizens were bound by the original consent. The socialist government, forever, has the power to commit citizens to something that the citizens reject because there is never on-going consent of the governed in socialism.
The SSA government bureaucracy, under Obama, was created to serve a unified socialist ideology. The socialists in the SSA bureaucracy who wrote the IRMAA rules maximized socialism as fairness, without being told what to do by Obama, or the Democrat Party socialist elites.
They also never told the citizens what they were doing because they possessed the socialist moral personality that empowered them to determine what constitutes fairness.
This is my conclusion: Trump must defeat the socialist threat to liberty.
The IRMAA punishment of success contradicts the “tax-the-rich” mantra by describing how the Democrats inflict punishment on middle class citizens.
The Democrats punish middle class citizens because the citizens engaged in a capital gain market transaction that was not fair to other citizens, as determined by the socialist panel of judges.
In IRMAA, the SSA socialists punish citizens by taking away social security benefits when the socialists deem the behavior of taking a capital gain as unacceptable.
The logic of the socialist ideology is based upon their arbitrary and capricious idea of social fairness. The IRMAA penalty will never satisfy the socialist lust for punishment of behavior, which they deem “unfair.”
Cody Cain, a socialist writer at Salon, in his October 27, 2019, article, “Even a wealth tax isn’t enough: It’s time for an income tax based on economic inequality,” provides an insight into the socialist mentality of the ever increasing arbitrary rules of fairness.
Cain states that the IRMAA penalty tax does not go far enough to gain fairness.
“A market-based solution to inequality is needed that imposes a punitive tax on the wealthy that goes away when social inequality is reduced.”
Cain describes the elaborate IRS tax rules required to implement his idea.
“Wealth must be returned from the top back down to the working class in order to restore fairness and stability in our democracy. The key mechanism would be to link income taxes on the wealthy to the level of inequality in society. Under this paradigm, inequality in the economy would be measured on a regular basis. Whenever inequality in society becomes too great, such as today, an income tax on the wealthy at the very top would automatically be triggered (no action required from Congress).”
Obviously, Cain does not define “wealthy” because his tax mechanism would punish the middle class, as well as the rich, just like IRMAA.
Cain notes the collectivist group identity of “the marketplace,” and “working class,” as the entities that would be subject to his punishment.
“If the marketplace failed to reduce inequality voluntarily on its own, then the inequality tax would remain in effect and its revenue would be used to fund a multitude of public programs designed to reduce inequality throughout society. Either way, voluntarily or through a tax on the wealthy, income inequality would be improved.”
Cain leaves out the part that it is a panel of unelected socialist bureaucrats who judge the marketplace failure, and then apply the punishment. As Cain notes, the imposition of the penalty is automatic because, as he states, “no action is required from Congress.”
The socialist lust for punishment of success is linked to the idea that citizens are not competent to make the rights decisions about their own health and welfare.
In his argument against privatizing Social Security, Christian Weller, senior socialist economist at the Center for American Progress, pointed out in his June 15, 2004, testimony before the U.S. Senate, that even those retirees who have the means to invest for their own retirement should be compelled to remain in the public Social Security program, because they faced “investment market risk.”
Weller used the example that a natural disaster, like a hurricane, was equivalent to market investment risk, and that since the Federal government provided communities with disaster relief, that the Federal government should provide market risk relief.
As a socialist method of overcoming the investor’s market risk, Weller explains that it is the role of government to equalize the outcomes of investing in the capital markets.
Weller explains the role of government by stating,
“Providing every American with a base level of protection from disaster, plus the opportunity to save beyond that, is a far more appealing program than betting old age economic security on the vagaries of the market.”
Victor Davis Hansen explains the current socialist mentality of punishment is based upon the achievement of Democrat one-party rule.
“Democrat Party socialism is not centered on the dictatorship of the proletariat and expropriation of private property – it is based on a single party rule and creating government dependence. As long as the government controls the economy and is able to replace the free-market capitalist economy with a political economy, and be in a position to control profits, the objectives of socialism — economic equality — can be achieved.”
Hansen omits any criticism of the Republican Party as complicit with the Democrats in collaborating with the socialist Democrats to enact Obama’s MACRA of 2015.
The 2014 elections gave the Republicans control of the Senate and the House. At the time of enactment of MACRA, the Republicans had 248 seats in the House and 54 seats in the Senate.
MACRA was written by Obama staffers, and was introduced in the House as H.R. 2, by Republican Michael C. Burgess, on March 24, 2015.
Two days later, on March 26, 2015, the Obama legislation passed the House, on a vote of 392–37.
Two weeks later, on April 14, 2015, MACRA passed the Senate, 92–8.
Two days later, on April 16, 2015, President Barack Obama signed the MACRA law, with the IRMAA punishment provisions.
In contrast to Hansen’s analysis of the Democrats, a more accurate description of the politics in America is that the Democrats and establishment, crony capitalist Republicans collaborate on moving the socialist agenda forward.
In his second term of office, President Trump can begin to remove the punishment of success inflicted on middle class citizens by targeting for elimination of the following punishment laws:
- Repeal IRMAA for both the monthly retirement and Parts B and D premiums.
- Repeal the authorization of the IRS to share tax payer returns with other agencies, in the absence of a subpoena.
- Repeal the prohibition of the Health Savings Account for retired citizens.
- Repeal the Required Minimum Distribution rules on IRAs and 401Ks.
- Repeal the rules on working after SSA benefits begin.
- Repeal the penalty for late enrollment on Medicare Part D.
The citizens in the Nation are evenly divided between Democrat socialists, who want more power to promote their concept of fairness, and natural rights conservatives who want more individual liberty.
The ideological divisions between the protection of individual liberty and the promotion of collectivist socialism are irreconcilable, and beyond compromise.
The Democrats are absolutely certain that they have a moral authority to impose their idea of fair income distribution on natural rights conservatives.
The only peaceful, non-violent solution to the nation’s ideological conflict is to dissolve the nation into two new nations:
The Socialist States of America.
The Democratic Republic of America.
And, the only leader capable of protecting individual liberty, and leading the citizens to the new Democratic Republic of America is Donald Trump.
I am Laurie Thomas Vass, and this podcast is a copyrighted production of the CLP News Network.
You can subscribe to all of the audio and text of our podcasts, for $30 per year, at our website.
You can join the political movement to create a natural rights republic and contribute our mission at CLPnewsnetwork.com
You can learn more about the decentralized federalist, state sovereignty framework of the new constitution of the Democratic Republic of America at GABBYpress.com
Thank you for joining me today and please visit our entire archive of podcasts at clpnewsnetwork.com