The American Spectator

Darin| 3.26.10 @ 7:00AM

Did the exemption for unions make it in the final bill? Are Cat and John Deere union shops? How this plays out between union and non-union companies (particularly in the same industry, like auto) may be interesting.

Ross Kaminsky| 3.26.10 @ 8:54AM

Darin,

I actually don't know if the union exception made it into the bill, but that was for the excise tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans so would not apply to this situation anyway.

Given that the House moved that Cadillac Plan tax so far in the future, my guess is that it never comes into force on anyone.

FTM| 3.27.10 @ 9:36AM

Cat and Deere are both UAW shops.

Matt| 3.27.10 @ 4:00PM

Yes Deere & Cat are both UAW shops

Alice| 3.26.10 @ 7:20AM

Cat is not a union shop. They used to be heavily UAW in the Illinois-based manufacturing facilities, but that changed in the 1990's when management stared down the UAW and won. Currently, there are less than 3,000 UAW employees left out of around 90,000 employees. I don't know about Deere, but I don't think they are union either.

SB| 3.27.10 @ 11:15AM

CAT still has over 9,000 UAW members in the US, their overseas operations in the UK are unionized, Deere has nothing like the brass CAT demonstrated in the 90's and are still subject to the frequent tirades of the UAW with about 9,500 UAW workers.

CAT's recent strategy has been heavily focused on the South where workers produce more effectively, at higher quality, and are able to work with engineers and managers as a team.

These changes as a result of ObamaCare are more likely to affect retired engineers, accountants, sales, management, etc. as the UAW supposedly will take care of their own retirees (thank you government bailouts).

KE| 3.27.10 @ 4:02PM

You may want to run a fact check by those BS quality claims. The Midwest always had and always will have the best blue collar workers.

Sara| 3.27.10 @ 6:20PM

KE, have you ever been in the South? Or seen a Southern industrial operation? Check out the Mercedes plant in Vance, the next time you come to Alabama. We're doing all right.

You might as well claim superiority for Midwestern hospitality. It's that hard to prove or define.

Achilles Toejam| 3.28.10 @ 6:23PM

KE, for as long as it lasts! Midwestern manufacturing based companies are packing up and leaving for offshore and south of the border operations, thank you NAFTA :( But you can say we weren't warned, companies can't compete in the United States when their foreign competitors are paying slave wages with no oppressive regulations.

What's worse is the galactic debt we are running up to the point where China and Japan have bought so much of our debt they're holding our title, I'll predict that on top of our income taxes being raised the pack of jackals in Washington will institute a value-added tax or national sales tax to claim this will pay down the debt, problem is they plan to increase spending to pay for their socialist utopia.

God help us!

Don L| 3.26.10 @ 7:58AM

Since we live in a "what do I care about my neighbor's out of work problems" culture now. The best thing that could happen is to have those giants announce its "going our of business due to Obamacare sale" maybe waking up some voters or unfortunately feeding Cloward Piven strategy. no risk -no serious action - is guaranteed slow death.

Shamus| 3.26.10 @ 8:32AM

American government does a really poor job when compared to other developed countries. The US government created a system that spends at least twice what others do on health care while providing fairly poor quality. The bill passed by Democrats will accelerate this trend by making the cost go up, making the quality go down, and covering fewer people. In other words, the bill will do the opposite of what the Democrats tell us it will do. Cost will go up because people will be forced to buy insurance that they don't need. Quality will go down because government bureaucrats will tell doctors how to do their jobs. And more people will be insured because companies will find it cheaper to drop their coverage and pay a penalty than to continue to provide a group plan. The is basically a huge failure of government.

JayDick| 3.26.10 @ 11:44AM

"fairly poor quality"????? Are you kidding? We have the best medical care in the world, which is why rich people from around the world come here for treatment. With Obamacare, that may not be the case much longer, but it has been up until now.

There are statistics, especially from UN organizations, that dispute this assessment, but they are suspect on several fronts. And, it is true that not all Americans benefit equally from the best health care available in this country. There are also other factors that can affect the overall statistics.

But, to say that our higher expenditures (data that is also suspect) provide "fairly poor quality" is manifestly wrong.

jon| 3.26.10 @ 12:49PM

not true. we rank around 37th in the world for healthcare and rich people from other countries do not come here for healthcare b/c they can get comparable service for substantially less in other, more competitive medical markets.

JoeJoeBubbaJr| 3.26.10 @ 1:26PM

Jon,

You did not read the post carefully before replying. The UN figures are very suspect, because many statistics (i.e. infant mortality) are measured in very different ways in different countries, to the point that one can almost say the data have been "cooked".

And if you think folks from other countries don't come here frequently for advanced care, you appear not to consume any media at all. Premier of Newfoundland in Canada just three weeks ago being only the most recent case.

We have a Mercedes-quality health care system, which has two obvious consequences:

1) Many of modest means can't afford a Mercedes, and aren't (because of government regs) allowed to buy a Chevy, so they are uninsured.

2) The marginal utility of the extra cost of the Mercedes over the Chevy is subject to diminishing returns. It costs twice as much, but is not functionally twice as good. But it is (clearly) better.

JoeJoeBubbaJr

Jody| 3.27.10 @ 7:42AM

I like this JoeJoe

And if we were allowed to buy our own, we could choose how many bells and whistles we need and what deductibles we can live with. A large part of the problem started when there was a freeze on wages, but companies were permitted to compensate their employees with a tax-free product, health insurance. This led to overutilization by consumers with no financial interest in how much was spent, then out of control health spending. The new bill does nothing to fix rising costs. When costs get too high, we will hear a call for a single payer system and that may have been Obama's plan all along.

BA Cyclone| 3.26.10 @ 2:01PM

That is a farcical liberal talking point response.

The Prime Minister of Canada was in Miami only 2 weeks ago getting his premium health care...with no long waiting lines.

Ranked according to health outcomes, rather than austere U.N. reporting surveys, the U.S. system compares very favorably (almost always better) than every socialized/European system.

Ross Kaminsky| 3.26.10 @ 2:17PM

Jon,
That 37th place statistic is utterly bogus. Go read the study and see what went into it. It's a model of socialist political correctness, and just barely about the actual quality of health care.
Ross Kaminsky

Goodoldboy| 3.26.10 @ 3:49PM

That is an interesting statement. Certainly generic and uninformed. I don't know about rankings, but the hospital that treated me developed the state of the art procedure to CURE what ailed me. The poor sobs in England that I chatted with, bragged that their medicine and supplies were paid for. Fortunately for me, an operation was able to eliminate the cause of my suffering. 14 years later, their supplies are still paid for.
I'll take you at your word though. I'm sure that all the patients who said they were from Canada and the eastern hemisphere were lying about their nationalities. I'll keep in mind that "Jon is the one who is above reproach and the conspiracy is real."
When I was subsequently employed by a hospital, the patients I met must have been in on the same conspiracy ( Some of the doctors too, although they seemed to come from Europe for better pay).

JohnR22| 3.26.10 @ 4:45PM

Jon, I strongly recommend you google that stat about our health care being 37th in the world...you'll see it's a worthless stat. The study that deemed us 37th looked at a variety of factors which have little to do with health care. For example, life expectancy if determined far more by drug/alochol use, violence, and diet than it is by quality of doctors/nurses/hospitals. Same with infant morality. The quality of our doctors/hospitals is absolutely world class. It's our culture that sucks. You're also wrong about rich foreigners coming to the US for care. They do it because the quality is superb and to avoid the lengthy waiting lines in their own socialist systems.

Michelle Tebo| 3.26.10 @ 6:32PM

I'm sorry, but how do you know people come to the US for health care because they want to avoid the lengthy wait in the own socialist system? I have been in the ER many many times in the US and once in France. The difference is unbelievable!!!! So was the cost! $4500.00 and a 6 hour wait for an ear infection gone wrong. They ordered a CT scan and I was checked out by an ENT on call. $100.00 for care for 3 nearly smashed fingers that needed x rays, cleaning and wraps. I was seen by an MD and we waited only 15 minutes to be seen. They didn't even know what to charge us for the care in Reims. Also, the doctor would have come to our hotel but we didn't know that.

The French don't have to use their ER as a general walk-in clinic for the uninsured because everyone has care. We have a family friend that lives in Reims and she even had help for free after her baby arrived.

Also, I'd love to see proof of the "suspect" data everyone is talking about with regard to infant mortality etc.

Finally, I work with a major hospital in a large metro area. The care there is horrible, billing is a nightmare and patients are at risk. The US isn't perfect.

Jerry| 3.27.10 @ 12:57AM

The care will only be as good as the personnel who are administering the care. Poorly trained, uncaring staff = poor care.

Jody| 3.27.10 @ 7:46AM

Please. "For free." Is the French government conjuring money out of thin air to provide this service for her? Or perhaps she had the service at taxpayer expense.

FTM| 3.27.10 @ 6:49PM

I worked for a Japanese automobile manufacturer during the late 80s and all through the 90s. A Japanese manager that I worked for all of a sudden turned up gone. Nobody would say what had happened. The manager was gone, his wife and kids, everybody gone. The only explanation that we got was that he had to return to Japan suddenly and that there was an emergency.

A couple months later we found out that the manager had been diagnosed with leukemia. We, the folks that worked in the press shop, had no idea what shape that this manager was in, we couldn't get any information.

Later in the year one of the team leaders went to Japan for a tooling buy-off and found out what had become of the manager.

Did you know that the Japanese have state run, single payer healthcare?

Anyway the Japanese manager had been shuffled off to a "home." Basically the Japanese healthcare system decided that his life wasn't worth the cost of his care. That's the bottom line. They sent the guy off to a home and that's where he died. It took a couple years but eventually the guy died. Two whole years of pain and decrepitude.

Now, the liberal left will say that I'm lying but I'm not. Truth of the matter is that this is where we're heading.

FTM| 3.27.10 @ 9:46AM

A comment...

A friend of mine in Toronto, Canada works at the Chrysler Assembly plant. Used to any way. This guy's father was a cardiac surgeon in Canada. The dad was diagnosed with a heart condition and was given a 50/50 chance of living six months and had to wait three months for the surgert in Canada. The dad had the surgery done by a guy he went to medical school with in Cleveland, Ohio in less than a week and paid for the job out of pocket.

Frankly speaking I don't see how this Marxist/Progressive hijacking of the last free country on the planet is going to work at all.

Christopher Holland| 3.28.10 @ 11:05PM

You know that something is wrong with the health care bill when, before the ink is dry on the paper, Mexico says that they are expecting Americans to go there for cheaper and faster treatment. If Americans get cheaper and faster medical treatment in Mexico then the health care wagon is well and truely stuck in a ditch with the wheels in the air.

Radegunda| 3.26.10 @ 9:38PM

I just heard from someone who works in a business that's devoted to facilitating travel to the United States for medical treatment, by people from various countries whose government-run systems either denies them the care, or makes them wait too long, or was unable to generate the appropriate level of care in the first place because the government crushed the incentives.

Ellen K| 3.27.10 @ 12:22AM

It's apples and oranges. You cannot compare a large diverse population to nations that about the size of some of our states. Likewise Canada is a much smaller population and even they struggle to meet their expectations for healthcare. So much so that two years ago their system allowed private health insurance. This mirrors the British system which also has a two tier system. How is that different? But the bottom line is that if you lose jobs, you lose tax revenue. And since this program is thinly and inadequately funded for what it is mandated to do, the Democrats can ill afford for one taxpayer to go without an income.

Steve Schaper| 3.30.10 @ 10:54AM

You mean like the Premiere of Newfoundland and Labrador who came here just a few weeks ago for a heart operation not available in "enlightened" Canada?

I live in Med City, and I assure you that the wealthy and powerful of the world come here for medical care.

huh?| 3.26.10 @ 4:45PM

I suspect JayDick and most of the rest of you that continue to say "America has the best medical care in the world" have never been out of America.

Ellen K| 3.27.10 @ 12:23AM

And I suspect you think that health care for tourists is the same as for residents. It varies. And sometimes those differences don't appear until after you have been in the system a very long time.

Mike| 3.26.10 @ 12:46PM

The government did not "create" our current system. It has evolved from a purely private (hope you're not poor) system to a mixed system that provides some modest support to senior citizens, the very poor, veterans, and a few others. Every step of this evolution has been opposed by the insurance industry, pharmaceuticals, and conservatives.

US health care is great if you've got money. It is really poor if you don't.

BA Cyclone| 3.26.10 @ 2:06PM

Government "creation" of the current system refers to the portion of the tax code (you know, government) in the 1950's that gave preferential tax treatment of employer-based health benefits.

The "absence of a real market" refers to the fact that government benefits are actual purchasers of over 50% of health care services...and usually at prices that shift a great portion of real costs onto private plans. Further, the greatest portion of the remaining balance of HC services are not purchased by individuals, but by insurance plans - usually workplace benefit plans.

US health care is great, by any standard with which you choose to measure it.

If you are going to refute points, please try to do your homework first.

Tim| 3.26.10 @ 2:11PM

How old are you Mike? I'm only 50, yet when I was a kid my parents could afford all the medical care we needed. And we even had house calls. My family was far from rich. Dad was self employed so no employer provided insurance. I recall the clininc my mom would take us to even had a menu of services and prices posted on the wall. Things sure have changed since then and not for the better and that IS because of government meddling in a private market. If you doubt me lets look and a medical procedure that so far has escaped government meddling: Lasik eye surgery. Notice how the price for that has actually come DOWN since its inception? Same for cosmetic surgery like breast implants. Know why? Free market forces, thats why.

Ellen K| 3.27.10 @ 12:27AM

I remember that as well. That was because at the time everyone carried major medical for big things and paid out of pocket for daily things and check-ups. And every medical expense was deductible. That went away when they set the 7.5% threshold in order to stampede us into HMO's. When HMO's proved less than successful with their increase in paperwork and red tape, PPO's came into being. The two biggest factors in cost were the lack of tort law reform-which is still an issue thanks to Obama and the trial lawyers association-and paperwork required by insurance with makes it where doctors must hire personnel to handle the paperwork or contract out for services. If you simply cut payments without considering that each private doctor is a businessman and that everything from rent to power to water is rising in cost, then you have solved nothing. And that's what this bill does-it solves nothing.

Dave Ryan| 3.26.10 @ 2:50PM

I have been fortunate ... I happen to work for a company that provides access to good healthcare and I live in a city that excellent health services. But I live in a state (AZ) that for the poor and uninsured has the worst health care access in the nation. Lack of health care access, lack of jobs providing access, and structural bias holding the poor from upward mobility is disgusting. The status quo for our society is not acceptable!

Radegunda| 3.26.10 @ 9:43PM

And therefore we should make the system worse for almost everyone? We should punish 10 percent of physicians for referring to specialists more often than the other 90 percent, thus triggering a race to the bottom? Put insurmountable roadblocks in the way of building doctor-owned hospitals? Effectively push thousands of doctors out of the profession?

Who exactly will benefit when medical resources quickly become more scarce?

Oh, silly me: The people in government who have power to ration it out. That's who.

Ellen K| 3.27.10 @ 12:31AM

So how about this? First, I live in Texas. Our public hospitals, especially toward the border, are economically slammed by those here illegally. Quite often they work for employers who have insurance, but they choose not to get it. Millions of dollars go to Mexico every Friday-it floats their economy. So what would happen if there were a tax on wired money? As it is, there are many people in positions who are here illegally. At my school the custodial and food services are contracted and the people hired by that company are about 50% illegals (they get picked up every once in a while). This particular service company does offer insurance, but nobody buys it. Why? Because they can go to the public hospital for free. How many of the truly poor who are here legally would be better served if we did not have millions taking out of the system without putting in one thin dime?

Footballfan| 3.28.10 @ 3:14AM

Thank you for making that point Ellen. The illegals and the generations of welfare recipients are the main reason for increased costs in healthcare, and everything else for that matter. Those who choose to work and pay taxes are subsidizing those who choose not to work, or are here illegally.

Goodoldboy| 3.26.10 @ 3:57PM

US health care is REALLY good if you have a job that gives benefits and you do a little research to find the right doctor(s). It is still pretty good if you don't. My old boss at the hospital told me that we would be wearing orange jumsuits if we turned anyone away for inability to pay.

JohnR22| 3.26.10 @ 4:47PM

So now with Obamacare it will be really poor for all of us. Remember...a free market is the unequal distribution of wealth; socialism is the equal distribuion of poverty.

ann| 3.26.10 @ 5:50PM

And now it will just be really poor for all of us. The money we spend on healthcare - which is a lot - fuels the research, the best doctors with great training on cutting edge procedures. When you're sick - I think there's no better care in the world. That's what we pay for - but it won't survive in this new Obamacare boondoggle.

KE| 3.27.10 @ 4:05PM

"US health care is great if you've got money. It is really poor if you don't"

So make something of yourself starting in school and you'll have money/a job with provided healthcare.

tailgunner| 3.30.10 @ 3:33PM

Canada spends $1 billion per year sending their citizens to the US for care.

2 out of 3 doctors in the UK and Canada send their patients to the US for treatment.

The US develops most of the world's groundbreaking drugs, medical devices and surgical procedures.

The only things out-of-date in the US are the massive socialist restrictions, cost controls and constant socialist demagoguery by liberals.

Jonathan| 3.31.10 @ 3:24PM

Hahaha. Look at Britain's NHS or the way the Japanese negotiate prices of everything (from MRIs to brain surgery) before each fiscal year. Lots of government control. Very effective. The system needed to be changed, and somebody is beginning that change. So what if we don't get it right immediately?

tailgunner13| 4.1.10 @ 10:06AM

Try telling that to your grandparents, pal.

Tim| 3.26.10 @ 8:35AM

Soviet Industry is buildink more tractors!

R Hanson| 3.26.10 @ 8:42AM

The US gives some firms tax-free reimbursement for their costs providing retirees with drug benefits. Under old lw they could tghen deduct their payment for the drugs. Obamacare merely corrects this obvious tax law error. It merely denies a deduction for a tax-free reimbursed cost.

Indiana Alex| 3.26.10 @ 8:50AM

Nice correction of an obvious error. The timing is wonderful. At least all of the newly unemployed will have subsidies for health insurance.

JP| 3.26.10 @ 9:40AM

Only a lib would say something like that. What hypocrites. For 40 years Dems castigated the GOP for "cost cutting". But now, The Anointed One needs to show "savings". And miracles upon miracles he finds plenty of savings with retirees. A decade ago, the Left would have stormed DC for shtting off a subsidized benefit like this.

This benefit wasn't an accounting error, or an error in the law. It incentivized private firms to provide thier retirees with drug benefits. Not only will they lose this, but the retirees will also be losing a very popular Medicare Advantage benefits; Obama will also be cutting $500 billion of Medicare benefits and using that money to subsidize non-retiree benefits. You don't see a pattern here?

Sara| 3.26.10 @ 8:44AM

These increased costs to equipment companies will have two effects: 1) Construction companies which buy their products will have to pay more for them and have to raise their bids for the work they do—sewer and water infrastructure, for instance. Those increases will be paid by the same folks who pay for everything. Taxpayers. And 2) The purchasers of heavy equipment, in order to keep their bids low, will be forced to buy lower-priced foreign-made heavy equipment. And two more long-standing American companies, employing thousands, will be put out of business. Thank you again, Democrats.

confused| 3.26.10 @ 10:26AM

Sara - If you think this has even the slightest possibility of putting either of these companies out of business then you don't understand this industry at all. Cat and Deere own certain market segments with little to no competition. Take mining for example. Cat owns most of that market and has the distribution and service network in place to support it. You can't find a Chinese manufacturer that could build and support the equipment or a buyer willing to take that risk. Do you know what it costs to shut down a mining operation because of an idle piece of equipment? The small amount of money saved by purchasing an inferior Chinese, Indian, or Eastern European is evaporated within the first few minutes of the mine being shut down.
This bill closed a loophole - why should companies get to deduct a subsidy?

$150 million to CAT is like a nickel to you or I - it has no material impact on their wellbeing as evidenced by Wall Street's reaction - stock is doing fine this morning.

Inthe Industry| 3.26.10 @ 10:42AM

What are you smoking? Ever hear of Komatsu (Japan), Volvo (Sweden), Liebherr (German), or Doosan/Moxy (Korean)? These are all major players in this industry. This won't shut CAT down, but if you think for one minute that CAT owns this business you are mistaken. This will have an impact across the entire spectrum. Especially with this being a fully global economy. it is no longer necessary to employ people in the US to produce high quality more cost effective equipment. Take notice of CAT's new massive industrial park in China for engines, excavators, parts, trucks, etc. Do you think they have to pay them the same costly health benefits? Wrong again.

confused| 3.26.10 @ 11:16AM

I know all of those companies very well. I guess the leadership of CAT must have been smoking something when they announced less than two weeks ago that they would likely bring excavator production BACK to the US from their Asian plant and in the process build a new plant and employ thousands of Americans?

In the Industry| 3.26.10 @ 11:36AM

Less than two weeks ago it looked like there was a slight chance that this future unfunded liability would not pass. If they bring that plant back here I hope it makes up for the jobs that will be lost when CAT moves their backhoe production out of Clayton, NC to the UK in the near future.

Also in the industry| 3.26.10 @ 11:56AM

You mean the Desford factory - the CAT COE for BHL? Why wouldn't they do that?

billb| 3.26.10 @ 11:07AM

I work for Cat; the cutbacks have been huge. My company cell phone is gone (Im on call 24 hrs), my short term incentive pay which is part of my total compensation (I took a pay cut), gone, and all pay has been frozen for two years with no merit raises in sight. I was in Peoria last week. Plants working at 1/4 capacity, the AB building has entire floors that are just empty cubicles. The plant I work at has just laid off our last remaining HR person because "you can call an 800 number and get the same service." The company does not treat this like a drop in the bucket.

Ellen K| 3.27.10 @ 12:36AM

I am so sorry. We've been weathering this as well. My husband is in communications sales. NOBODY IS BUYING. In fact two of my husband's biggest clients said that if the hit was as big as they expected, the doors would close. That's hundreds of jobs directly and thousands in terms of suppliers, reps and distributors. I honestly do not think this gang in power have a clue how businesses work. They see all profit as evil and don't understand that without profit there is no job expansion and without job expansion there is no growth. My son works as a manager in fastfood-he's got a college degree but there are no jobs-their part time jobs are going away. They will be consolidated into fewer full time jobs. Pity the poor college student or moonlighter or seniors trying to make ends meet because those jobs will be gone. Such is the future in the Age of Obama. Revolutions were fought over less than this.

Bob| 3.26.10 @ 11:17AM

Confused,
Your comment "$150M is like a nickel to you or I" is laughable. Try $5000 to $6000 to you or I if you make $50,000 per year. Thats a lot of nickels. 120,000 to be exact. This ultimately will make Cat and Deere less competitive. Or, Cat and Deere will move more of their operations overseas. Both will be bad.

confused| 3.26.10 @ 11:48AM

Bob,
I didn't want to have to give a math lesson, but since you said my argument was "laughable" I feel I must.
Cat revenues in 2008 was roughly $51.3 Billion USD. $150 Million would account for for .29%.
Using your example, at $50,000 income, .29% amounts to roughly $146 - not quite a nickel like I said but a FAR CRY from $5000 - $6000 that you claim. So I was a little off, it's not like a nickel, it's like 2,920 nickels to be exact.

By the way, CAT is doing quite the opposite. They are considering moving their excavator line to the US away from Japan.
Do you have any more facts that you would like to dazzle me with Bob or do you just want to continue to toe your party lines?

Eric Cartman| 3.26.10 @ 1:00PM

Out of Sales and revenues you are correct. Out of profit, its $4.2%. That's more like $2,100 to you and me @50K a year.

I believe this will come after EBIT, so it will be little less, but more that you are saying. Whatever it is in percentage, $150M is not nickles and dimes to any company.

And it doesn't matter it is a subsidy - the U.S. Government at some time thought the benefits of CAT doing this was worth it so they set up the system to accommodate that. Now they are saying, "Uh, let me be clear, uh, screw you!" Now more expense setting up another system. It's a hideous health plan.

confused| 3.26.10 @ 1:27PM

Eric - The $150M does not have a 1:1 relationship to the bottom line. Presenting it as a percentage of profit doesn't paint an accurate picture.

Explain how this new plan for CAT specifically is more expensive. How could you possibly know that?

There is a difference between recieving a subsidy and having a tax-free subsidy. I loved the comment from the CAT spokesman that said "we cannot afford a tax increase". A tax increase??? On free money??? I would have assumed the Tea Party, Libertarians, and Conservatives would have had a field day with that comment but I haven't really noticed anybody talking about it...

Eric Cartman| 3.26.10 @ 2:10PM

Never said it was a 1:1. It's a onetime payment (1st Quarter) from earnings because the "subsidy" they receive will be taxed. Now - follow me - at some point the government thought this was a good idea to help implement Bush's crappy Medicare Part D program. So CAT and the Feds set up the mechanisms to implement the stupid program. Now they are being told "Uh, let me be clear, uh, suck it!" So because of GAAP they will have to take this charge now, instead of when it takes effect. This is a loss.

The tax increase on Obama's crappy health care plan will be reflected on the 2010 reports in 2011. What they will be is unknown at this time ""The full extent of this tax increase - and other possible cost increases related to the law and the mandates included in it - is not yet clear. However, the new law will increase Caterpillar's cost of providing health care benefits, which is likely to have an impact on Caterpillar employees and retirees." (And the costs will grow over the next 4-years.)

What can be said is that $150M will be paid from earning this quarter because of SarbOx and GAAP. This is not nickels and dimes. CAT is the largest equipment company, so to grow 1% is no mean feat. To make up a $150M loss is not a walk in the park, especially now. This closing of a "tax loophole" on this "subsidy" reflects the cost of the program, not a gift from the dumbass government as that lying little weasel Gibbs is inferring.

CAT's first mistake was getting in bed with the government in the first place - they (the now Socialist Government) can't seem to stick to their word, let alone run a country. Maybe the reason you are confused are the machinations of the government!

confused| 3.26.10 @ 4:42PM

No Eric, I'm confused by your poor understanding of corporate finance and your willingness to throw around words like socialism without the slightest hint of irony. Do you have children? Do they go to public schools? You should pull them out of that government run, socialist enterprise at once, comrade!

Sounds silly, huh? Then STOP hurling the word just because a bunch of uneducated mouthbreathers (Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc) tell you to. I saw a tea party rally where an old lady had a sign that said "keep your damn government hands off my Medicare" on one side and "Obama's a socialist" on the other. Have you guys lost all touch with reality?

Eric Cartman| 3.26.10 @ 5:17PM

Sorry, confused. You're confused because you're a Lety ahole who knows little if anything about business accounting, income statements, balance sheets GAAP, SOX and your own wonderful world of government. Your head is so far up Olbermann's ass he pisses out your mouth. And your pointing to some old lady's sign as proof of what, ahole? You know what you're talking about? You can go back masturbating to MSNBC now. Putz.

Marie| 3.27.10 @ 5:49AM

You sir, are a classic example of what is commonly referred to as "white trash" and a disgusting beyond words.

Eric Cartman| 3.27.10 @ 4:29PM

And you, Madame, are a sniveling coward bound up that your delicate sensibilities have been offended by the rough language of war. Either that or your a Lying liberal feigning disgust. Either way, you are useless to the fight. Please, avert your delicate eyes or adjust your snood so you cannot see, as war gets messy.

JimE| 3.28.10 @ 10:49PM

And you are a moron, "white trash" is a racist remark. Now go back to servicing drunk negroes in the toilet.

jody| 3.27.10 @ 8:00AM

Yeah I have children. Four of em. And not one has ever set foot in a public school. They have all been educated at home or in private school at the expense of their parents. In addition I pay $6 per year in property taxes to support the public schools. On an AGI of 118 K, my husband and I paid 42 K last year in tuition for the three youger ones in school and college. The oldest one is on her own. She's a CPA.

jody| 3.27.10 @ 8:01AM

excuse me 6K per year in property tax

Ellen K| 3.27.10 @ 12:38AM

Revenue doesn't equal profit. Revenue means sales-then you have to put money back in for equipment, sales, employees and such. I don't know what CAT will do, but if they have to move overseas to keep costs competitive with other large manufacturers, then jobs will be lost here. Do you think those folks will appreciate the wonders of Obamacare then?

Nick| 3.26.10 @ 11:56AM

Pay no attention to 3/5 Bob's comments, folks.

For those who don't know, he is known as 3/5 Bob, because until last June, he thought that blacks had 3/5 of a vote, under the original U.S. Constitution.

He also doesn't know the scientific fact of when human biological life begins because he is unsure of when "ensoulment" happens.

He also claimed he translated the Bible from the original Aramaic when he was a teenager.

He is a pseudo-intellectual and an anti-Christian bigot.

Don't waste your time arguing with him.

BA Cyclone| 3.26.10 @ 2:22PM

$100 million is not a nickel to any respectful business, including these.

Why does "shutting them down" have to be the standard? Do you not care about increasing regulation and cost, providing less opportunity for investments in future employees and innovation, and the health of American companies?

And the increase of said costs has yet to show any relevance to increasing the quality or access to health benefits, outside of an Obama speech.

Did you read the article, or just dismiss the idea that company profits are a direct avenue to the health of the company...and its employees, customers, and communities in which they operate?

Why should any government operate in such a way to hinder business, rather than increase the availability of a market for it to operate within? Is it any wonder that "jobs are being exported" from the U.S.?

Liberals continually operate in a world where profit is evil, and anything not taken first by the government is charity.

In the Industry| 3.26.10 @ 6:32PM

Ooops...AT&T just announced that they will be taking a $1 billion hit against their earnings in the first quarter, telling their employees that benefits will either be more expensive or lesser plans offered to both retirees and current employees. Verizon hasn't commented yet, and 3M stated it would take a $90 million hit. analysts expect the hit to be over $14 billion shortly.

SC Mike| 3.26.10 @ 8:54AM

I suppose it wouldn’t do any good to note that some of the trade agreements the Obami are sitting on would help Deere and Caterpillar. For example, Colombian goods now enter the US free of tariffs / duties. The Colombian Free Trade agreement would end duties / tariff’s on US heavy equipment going into Colombia. (I believe the duties raise import costs 15%...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_–_Colombia_Free_Trade_Agreement

Sesara| 3.26.10 @ 9:07AM

Yawn. I actually live in Peoria, and know several CAT execs, and this has made a lot more traction in the right wing blogosphere than it has in the local news, because it's not actually going to do anything near what Caterpillar is claiming to the WSJ. And our economic recovery is dependent on Caterpillar re-hiring much of their administrative staff that got laid off. They haven't made any changes to their plans to re-hire.

Of course, the fact that the newly selected president of CAT has made in-house speeches where he referenced our "South-American style socialist administration" and how that always turns out badly, in response to a question about how the stimulus was affecting CAT, might tell you why they're taking this position. Their soon to be CEO is a right winger. Shocker.

Ross Kaminsky| 3.26.10 @ 9:26AM

Sesara,

The "economic recovery" is shallow and fragile. Housing continues VERY weak. And Europe looks to be in trouble.

Why would a major industrial company rehire now?

Furthermore, with so much uncertainty being caused by the Obama Administration's desire to pass disastrous legislation like cap-and-trade and Card Check, the idea that any big industrial company would be doing a lot of hiring now is not plausible.

Dr. Johnny Fever| 3.26.10 @ 9:30AM

The ahole Socialist Democrats who wrote an almost 3000 page useless plan that will bankrupt the country, kill jobs and worsen health care - all the while not fixing what was really wrong - and the newly elected guy who is friends with Commies and a scumbag terrorist who bombed the Pentagon and is running the party responsible are all Left-Wing, Socialist aholes. Shocker?

I think you meant that to be up here. And no, it ain't a big shocker.

Indiana Alex| 3.26.10 @ 9:32AM

But what you idiot lefties are missing is that each of these bombs going off as people find out what is actually in this bill will continue to stoke more and more people all the way through November.

What this case does is expose two incredibly dumb arguements used to pass this idiot bill.

First, if you like your plan you will get to keep it. Of course everyone knew this was not true, since Obama first said, "let me be clear", which means he is about to tell a whopper, but I imagine some people actually believed this.

Retirees from Verizon, Cat, Deere and many others will now be thrown into Medicare Part D for prescriptions, and likely pay a lot more than they currently do.

Second, of course everyone knew this would cost a lot more than represented, and wouldn't lower the deficit, but become quickly a ticking bomb as businesses and individuals attempted to make the best they could of the new situation.

Welcome to more people dependent on Medicare for RX drugs.

This situation is worse for them, and worse for the budget.

Welcome to the wonderful world of liberalism.

Radegunda| 3.26.10 @ 9:48PM

Obama's "let me be clear" functions much like Hillary's "you know": as the set-up for a statement out of conformance with facts.

JP| 3.26.10 @ 9:46AM

Sesara,
There you libs go again. Change the subject and personalize the debate. You did nothing to counter the facts here - a $100 million increase in operating costs for CAT due to ObamaCare. Forget about the CEO. Do you have any evidence that those numbers are false?

And our recovery is mainly in the public sphere (ie a combination of federal spending and federal hiring. That is called wealth transfer). This recovery is contingent upon a)continued defecit spending b)0 % interest rates and c)Obama's hope for a surge in exports. We all know what a and b will lead to (hyper inflation). And c) will be quite impossible considering the plunge in the Euro due to thier fiscal crisis.

RL| 3.26.10 @ 10:54AM

JP - It's not a $100m in operating costs. It's a one time charge they are taking a year early.
Let me ask you this, do you get to deduct any subsidies that you recieve? Why should CAT or anyone else. This was a sweetheart loophole that is now closed.

JP| 3.26.10 @ 11:26AM

They are subsidizing the purchase of druge for thier retirees. So, no it isn't a one time cost but an annual one. It will be a one time cost however if you realzie that these firms will no longer offer the benefit.

The end result is that the retirees will have to go to Medicare to get thier drugs (ie the taxpayers).

Joel| 3.26.10 @ 10:06PM

There is NO company on the face of this Earth that chooses to pay $100M immediately rather than in a year's time when it's due. Funny stuff.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.26.10 @ 10:00AM

Yawn...OK Sesara, you did your job for Mr. Soros for today. Now you can go back to sleep. gnight.

In the Industry| 3.26.10 @ 10:50AM

It's one thing to live in Peoria and it's another thing to work in the industry. For your information, the almost 30,ooo global employees that CAT laid off weren't all "white collar" workers. they were assemblers, welders, machinists, etc. I actually work in upper management for a major US competitor of both CAT and Deere, and I can assure you that this will affect employment and equipment costs, especially in a down global economy with a smaller economy of scale regarding the number of machines sold world wide (over 50% down from a couple years ago). This will drive jobs overseas...period. It has nothing to do with being right wing or left-wing. This bill is just another future unfunded liability like Social Security and Medicare.

also in the industry| 3.26.10 @ 10:59AM

I also work for the corporate headquarters of a major US competitor to both CAT and Deere - maybe we work for the same company. This will have minimal impact, if any, on equipment pricing as $150m absorbed across all of the pieces of equipment is miniscule. If you want to talk about an impact, let's talk about the EPA regulations forcing cleaner engines. HUGE impact that our friends in lesser regulated countries like China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc don't have to contend with.

In the Industry| 3.26.10 @ 11:04AM

While I disagree with you regarding the cost this bill will have on US employment (the $100m is just the tip of the end cost), I do fully agree with you that Tier IV will be a very costly burden on OEMs, especially smaller ones that don't have the ability to stock Tier II, Tier III, and Tier IV engines for the different parts of the world that equipment is sold into.

jenn| 3.27.10 @ 9:02AM

Oh, so my mini-cad plan that has a fairly low deductible is sacrificial by lib standards? Does no one know that part of this bill taxes the low deductible plans offered by employers to force them to lower plan coverage? I have a 2500 $ deductible and my plan covers everything up to 80%...so my company is going to be FORCED to increase my deductible, which in turn increases my out of pocket expenses, which in turn lowers the quality of my care how am I supposed to afford a 5-7k deductible and a plan that only covers 30-50% of care expenses? This bill is NOT worth it to me...They say the middle class does not see anything hit with this bill, guess what, I make 27k a year, I see A LOT with this bill affecting me. This IS in the health care bill. I hope it gets repealed, I know I don't want this. Because of this health care bill, my husband WILL be enlisting just so we can get the Tricare benefits so we can AFFORD my care, and I have pre-exsisting conditions, I cant get another plan like I have now...so I guess IM in a lurch?

Gerry| 3.26.10 @ 1:37PM

Wow, lets not forget, we are talking about tax subsidies...these are socialist things..everyone know that the right hates anything that comes remotely close to socialism. I have a aquaintance that believes Health Care Reform is evil, and that people should pay their own way. Forget that he is on disability and has medicare. Socialism for Corporations is good, Socialism for average citizens is bad. Wow that is just INSANE!

Eric Cartman| 3.26.10 @ 2:19PM

Hey look, everybody! The "Obama Money!" lady has a computer and goes by the name of Gerry! The "tax subsidy" is the cost of implementing the program the Government - your god - wanted implemented. Caterpillar is producing goods and services and helping implement a government - your Daddy - program. You, on the other hand, are a Crack Ho with no discernible skills because you went through the Detroit Public Schools. Um, aren't you late for your next John?

Jake| 3.26.10 @ 3:16PM

And Sesara is a "left winger", shocker!!! Make an argument based on facts that don't come from the local "left wing" blogosphere and more people will respect your opinion. Make adhomenem attacks based on your own "left wing" beliefs taken from the "left wing" blogosphere and people will ignore you.

Econ101| 3.28.10 @ 5:09AM

You are either
1) a complete idiot if you actually believe this

or

2) a flat out liar since a simple search shows that this has recived significant coverage at yahoo finance, bloomberg, wall street journal and the ever popular right wing blog of teh NY Times business section

JimE| 3.28.10 @ 10:58PM

SESARA, hit the road you drive by soros paid transgender freak.

Eric Cartman| 3.26.10 @ 9:22AM

The ahole Socialist Democrats who wrote an almost 3000 page useless plan that will bankrupt the country, kill jobs and worsen health care - all the while not fixing what was really wrong - and the newly elected guy who is friends with Commies and a scumbag terrorist who bombed the Pentagon and is running the party responsible are all Left-Wing, Socialist aholes. Shocker?

t22| 3.26.10 @ 9:44AM

Some very interesting consequences of this. Not only will these companies and I'd guess hundreds more, have to resort to a new round of layoffs (to add to the growing public sector slashing), they'll have to raise the price of equipment needed for the stimulus bill, making those funds not go as far.

The good news is that in 2 1/2 years we can start the American Recovery.

TZM| 3.26.10 @ 9:52AM

They're complaining because they have to treat a subsidy as income. And Kaminsky styles himself a libertarian?

Indiana Alex| 3.26.10 @ 10:00AM

Everyone should complain because it is (was) cheaper for gov't to subsidize this through tax treatment then to pay for it directly through medicare.

This will cost more, and more people will be dependent on government, rather than their former employer.

Wait, i think i see a pattern developing here.

TZM| 3.26.10 @ 10:10AM

The only patterns I see on this blog so far are 1) unsupported assertions like the two you just made --- do you have backup? and 2) supposed conservatives complaining about a subsidy being cut.

Indiana Alex| 3.26.10 @ 10:25AM

There should be absolutely no doubt that it was cheaper for the gov't to subsidize these private plans, and that the bill writers and CBO knew this.

There is also absolutely no doubt that demcrats lied terribly to get this nonsense passed.

I am thankful though for all thier unintended consequences. That means it will be easier to repeal.

TZM| 3.26.10 @ 10:27AM

Then you should have absolutely no trouble supporting your argument with an independent source.

Indiana Alex| 3.26.10 @ 10:32AM

I could spend the time finding this, but i know how you loons operate.

If you actually believe that everybody is better off under medicare part D, which is where all of these retirees are headed, nothing is going to convince you differently. This is because you don't think, you feel your way around issues like this, or you simply read your fax machine or email to know what to say, without thinking at all.

TZM| 3.26.10 @ 10:41AM

"I could spend the time finding this, but i know how you loons operate. "

Asking for a source to support your argument is lunacy?

"If you actually believe that everybody is better off under medicare part D, which is where all of these retirees are headed, nothing is going to convince you differently. This is because you don't think, you feel your way around issues like this, or you simply read your fax machine or email to know what to say, without thinking at all. "

Whether or not people are better off under one plan or another, or whether or not one plan is cheaper than another (which was your original point), shouldn't a true libertarian be against any government subsidy?

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.26.10 @ 10:46AM

Alex, here I am, your impeccable independent source.
Alex, you are entirely correct, and TZM...is ...well, heh.....nothing more than a .....
T
Z
M

TZM| 3.26.10 @ 10:48AM

Ken -- looking forward to seeing a post with stats or studies supporting Alex's argument.

Indiana Alex| 3.26.10 @ 10:53AM

Thank you Ken. I should know better than engage in mental gymnastics with the short bus children.

The arguement in this thread is for/against Obamacare, not the overall merrits of libertarians or the correct posture for ski jumping.

I am thankful that nuggets like this will continue to come out between now and November, and i remain hopeful that this will not doom the dream that my children will be able to give thiers everything they had.

i'm with TZM| 3.26.10 @ 11:05AM

Indiana Alex - until you can provide independent sources to support your argument, it looks like you've taken a pummel horse to the nuts while the short bus child just stuck his landing with a score of 10, 10, 10, 10, 6 (Russians naturally).
Asking for facts is lunacy???

TZM| 3.26.10 @ 11:11AM

"The arguement in this thread is for/against Obamacare, not the overall merrits of libertarians or the correct posture for ski jumping"

And the purported problem with Obamacare on this thread -- the "nugget" -- is that it's reducing a subsidy. But the purported libertarians on this thread should be jumping for joy about that, as a point of principle, regardless of the effect. And if we are going to argue about the effect, you would need to come up with some support.

Ross Kaminsky| 3.26.10 @ 11:21AM

I am not for "corporate welfare", subsidies, etc. But that's not the key point here.

The point is that the parts of the Medicare system which the Obama Administration is going after were not selected based on levels of subsidies.

They're primarily going after the two parts (prescription drugs and Medicare Advantage) which include private health insurer involvement.

This is an exercise in destroying an entire private industry. Anyone who says it isn't hasn't been paying attention to the left's explicit rhetoric on the issue. Here's one example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfOWnZ82Pm4

Furthermore, keep in mind that if my two choices are a subsidy or government taking over the same role at an even higher cost to taxpayers, I'll live with the subsidy even though, as you properly note, I don't support subsidies. If the choice were getting rid of the subsidy AND getting government out of the business at the same time, I'd be all for it.

TZM| 3.26.10 @ 11:35AM

Please support the assertion that government taking over the rule of industry rather than paying the subsidy would result in higher cost to taxpayers.

Ross Kaminsky| 3.26.10 @ 11:51AM

My answer is primarily empirical: Look at the actual cost of Medicare versus its projected costs.

On the other hand, look at the actual cost of Part D versus projections: Although it is part of a government plan, it relies on private insurers. And its cost estimates have shrunk because of the inherent competition in that structure.

Government abhors competition and has no profit incentive to keep taxpayers' costs down. How about if you show me any place outside of the military where government is more effective than a similar service provided in the private sector.

By the way, just watch what happens to the student loan industry now that gov't is taking it over.

Every once in a while, something that "everybody knows" actually turns out to be true. The FACT that government is much less efficient than private businesses is one of those things. Your request for supporting that obvious fact says a lot about you.

TZM| 3.26.10 @ 12:01PM

"Empirical" would mean that you can point to a study that supports your argument. If you're relying on something that that turns out to be true "every once in a while," that's a pretty low rate.

Ross Kaminsky| 3.26.10 @ 12:10PM

I did point to data: The actual cost of Medicare versus its projected costs when it was begun.

I would also add the fact that public sector unions have been able to force up the cost to taxpayers of government employees. That's not going to change soon, so almost by definition, with public sector employees so overpaid on average, the private sector is more efficient.

http://online.wsj.com/article/.....95246.html

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-59.pdf

Also, how about the actual outcomes of ObamaCare-style plans in several states, inc. Tennessee and Maine and Massachusetts which have been anywhere from small disasters to huge disasters?

TZM| 3.26.10 @ 12:24PM

Not clear to me how your first point proves your assertion.

Re the opinon pieces you cite for your second point, that's only an issue if the high pay to public sector employees ends up in higher costs than paying for-profit businesses to do the same thing. Any support on that end?

And support for your last assertion -- not just that they have been disasters but similarities to Obama's plan?

Gerry| 3.26.10 @ 1:37PM

Wow, lets not forget, we are talking about tax subsidies...these are socialist things..everyone know that the right hates anything that comes remotely close to socialism. I have a aquaintance that believes Health Care Reform is evil, and that people should pay their own way. Forget that he is on disability and has medicare. Socialism for Corporations is good, Socialism for average citizens is bad. Wow that is just INSANE!

Joel| 3.26.10 @ 10:18PM

You mean like the FACT that government's Medicare administative costs of 6-8% as opposed to private industry's 14-22%? Oh, yeah efficiency must have a different meaning where you are from.

tailgunner13| 4.1.10 @ 10:11AM

Obama's not 'reducing' anything. He's merely transferring the money to one of his own socialist redistribution healthcare scams.

JP| 3.26.10 @ 11:28AM

That's exactly the point I was trying to make above. Of course, it will be a one time increase. These firms will no longer offer the subsidy to thier retirees. In the long run, the "sweet heart deal" was much cheaper for the taxpayers.

RJ| 3.26.10 @ 9:59AM

Perhaps Mr. Kaminsky or one of his readers can explain to me how dumping 32 million new customers to a for profit industry with an antitrust exemption qualifies as Socialism.

Dagny Taggert| 3.26.10 @ 10:47AM

Because with all the mandates the govt requires, and then limiting competition so they can make a profit is so far from the most efficient way a free market works, the govt is now the "referee" in this market. Thus they are calling the game, and conservatives don't think they'll get it right. Hence govt is responsible for the outcome and thus Socialism.

Ross Kaminsky| 3.26.10 @ 11:23AM

RJ,

You're absolutely right.

It should be called fascism, not socialism.

Regards,
Ross Kaminsky

p.s. How many of those 32 million "new customers" actually WANT the product they're going to be forced to buy?

RJ| 3.26.10 @ 11:49AM

WLP 63.81 3/26/10
How many of those customers will Wellpoint CEO decline on ethical grounds?

Econ101| 3.26.10 @ 9:16PM

Apparently less than medicare.

From the American Medical Associations (AMA)2008 Health Insurer Report Card:

Payer - % claims denied

Aetna - 6.80%
Anthem - 4.62%
CIGNA - 3.44%
Coventry - 2.88%
Health Net - 3.88%
Humana - 2.90%
Medicare - 6.85%
UHC - 2.68%

Overall, the average combined claim denial rate of the private insurance companies was 4.05%. Medicare is at 6.85%. If the heartless private insurance firms are running "death panels" what is the gov't operating with Medicare? Not only is it going broke, it performs worse than the hated private companies.

www.ama-assn.org...

FACTS SPEAK LOUDER THAN TALKING POINTS

econ101| 3.26.10 @ 9:18PM

Because the cost is being paid by a massive tax increase on the "rich" and businesses, which makes it an entitlement program.

Why don't you read the CBO reoport and tell us how much your preimiums will go down because of this "reform"

Steve in Greensboro| 3.26.10 @ 10:00AM

When Cat, Medtronics, et al have to lay people off because of Abomicare, shouldn't they lay people off first who vote for Obama and the Dems?

EJM| 3.26.10 @ 10:11AM

By now the Obama democrat response to news like this from Caterpillar and John Deere is very predictable.

First they will ignore it, as they tout the wonderful 'benefits" of their plan.

Next, if things get worse they will demonize those companies who fail to hire as making "excessive profits."

Finally, if things continue to go south they will say that "reluctantly" they will have to "help" these now sick companies by government bailouts, the price of which is dictation from Washington about all matters great and small, like CEO salaries, whether tractors are polluting and need to be solar powered, etc.

This health care "reform" is just the beginning.
If not repealed, it is the beginning of the end of America.

Thomas Griffin| 3.26.10 @ 10:49AM

Government controlled health care is price control by lobbyists.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.26.10 @ 10:51AM

EJM,
Thank you for connecting the dots so succinctly.

(uh, trolls, "succinctly" means in one syl-la-ble words like "smart, quick, right")

BOYCOTT LIBERAL BUSINESSES| 3.26.10 @ 10:53AM

I think it's time to start a movement or list of businesses that are Conservative/Libertarian owned and operated.

My neighbor, an unabashed Obama supporter ($500 donation, yard sign, etc.) denigrates anyone Conservative including several neighbors.
I will NEVER use him for anything.

I will instead find a Conservative who offers the same services---home repair.

We know Apple, Microsoft, Progressive Insurance are huge supporters of Obama. Hard to get away from those companies.

Instead of buying a new Chevy Suburban, buy a used one.
Instead of buying a new MacBook--buy a used one.

Further----don't patronize the small businesses who support Obama.

There is a deli owner who in front of me trashed Bush a few years ago----I haven't been back since.

Think about it. If we band together and boycott Obama supporters, they go out of business.

Obama is going to put several businesses out of business with this horrendous bill----let's speed up the demise of Liberal owned businesses.

If you love Obama so much------here's a taste of what's to come.

Let's start small. Then work our way up.

Of course it's always a good thing to boycott the media and let people know who advertise on those networks as well.

But Alinsky went after the "people"------not companies. It was easier to ridicule a person---target, freeze, whatever.

LET's DO IT OURSELVES!

Let's Alinsky Liberal small business owners.

mpohl| 3.26.10 @ 11:40AM

We can't wait until November to take action, we need to Stop the Looters now. Join the Producers Strike at www.StopTheLooters.com.

It time to put our wealth on strike.

2112| 3.26.10 @ 1:29PM

This is SOP for my business now. Donations to politicians are often posted on the internet by various organizations. Look them up. I backed out on a new commercial lease just this week with a building owner because his management firm donates heavily to local pro-union politicians.

seth| 3.26.10 @ 11:09AM

this is a dumb article. what about the savings to the company from NOT offering the prescription drug plan? are we to assume that they were receiving more in subsidies than their cost to administer the plan?

Ross Kaminsky| 3.26.10 @ 11:25AM

Seth,

If the company drops the prescription drug plan, sure they'll save money. But the rest of the nation will then be burdened with those costs because you know that Obama won't let people go without their free (or cheap) drugs.

It's just the first step toward a complete government takeover of health insurance, with all the attendant high costs and poor quality that we expect from any large gov't operation (with the possible exception of the military, where the quality is good most of the time because those guys have very different incentives than a bureaucrat at a desk in DC.)

TZM| 3.26.10 @ 11:37AM

You're saying the military is not a bureacracy?

Ross Kaminsky| 3.26.10 @ 11:52AM

TZM,

I'm going to have to stop responding to you if all of your questions are so obviously ridiculous.

TZM| 3.26.10 @ 12:02PM

If you've served, you must know that your assertion is ridiculous.

Ross Kaminsky| 3.26.10 @ 12:05PM

no, what's ridiculous is your claim that I said the military isn't a bureaucracy.

i said the military has different incentives than the average bureaucrat. they're not all different, but there are enough differences to be important. for example, the military cares about the effectiveness of what it does.

TZM| 3.26.10 @ 12:09PM

I've met plenty of government employees who care about the effectiveness of what they do. Every prosecutor I know is extremely motivated to win cases, for example.

Old Soldier | 3.26.10 @ 1:16PM

That's why nobody trusts them - they aren't motivated by justice.

Joel| 3.26.10 @ 10:24PM

That must be why the Pentagon couldn't account for 2.3 trillion dollars.....because they care so much about their effectiveness.

llBen | 3.26.10 @ 11:16AM

The U.S. Economy and our future

Since 1990, we have seen an increase in the U.S. trade deficit in goods and services go from occasionally positive to consistently negative - as much as (close to) 70 billion dollars a month. It is currently about 40 billion dollars a month. What does that mean? If imports are not balanced by the export of goods and services, the dollars shipped out can only come back to buy resources -- us.

(Now imagine a tank filled with the nation's assets, domestic spending being recycled and then drained out to the bottom is the trade deficit)

Think about it. If we placed a value on a town of a billion dollars, every day, we are selling off assets equivalent to that town. Can we stop this flow? Of course we can but it won’t be done if we continue to massacre our industrial base. You might say that we can’t compete with countries like China where people work for a dollar a day. Actually, we do compete as there are many companies that produce products that are far more costly than the Chinese product but of such better quality that the U.S. product is easily worth the sacrifice in price. Ok, so you buy less but you buy better. There are things that we export just not near enough of them.
There is a major problem. We are rapidly becoming a nation with so much non-productive overhead (mandated) that staying in business is becoming harder and face it, more annoying. Consider that a good doctor must have over $30,000.00 in malpractice insurance. That has to hurt. Conscientious manufacturers must have product liability insurance for self preservation. The licenses, fees, taxes, government watchdogs who have a sole purpose of fining at the slightest excuse all these make U.S. production less attractive for the brave soul who dares try. And then of course, they shouldn’t be allowed to make a good profit.
Look at what we have done to Connecticut over the last decades Worse yet, “they” want to do more and so the industrial base leaves and leaves us with what? If you take that drawing and substitute “Government” for trade deficit, you can see that ultimately, there will be nothing left in the container unless we get a new income flow to keep the state’s “wealth” at a sustainable level. We need healthy, job creating, low burden, taxable businesses. We don’t get that by increasing the cost of being here - both in Connecticut and the U.S. Can’t any of those great leaders we have in office see what is happening and do the right things to help make us productive again? Sorry, the parties will rule and both of them, watch as we drain the once overflowing ocean of our wealth. Neither of them would be willing to simply get out of the way and let us grow and only intrude for a real reason. Oh, and the oft waved “tax credits” thing really annoys me. How about no (or less) tax to begin with. It is time to shrink the monster or that container of wealth will go dry.

Petronius| 3.26.10 @ 11:41AM

We will never win any arguments vis a vis the parasitic practices of government with those who have doctorates in sandbox economics. The viability of any business in this country notwithstanding, the thugs in Washington again possess that power they lost when President Reagan took the chains off of corporate America. The beltway despots have total control over who will be permitted to make money and how. Rino republicans tacitly approve so long as no teaparty member is allowed to climb the social foodchain. Call me when the black market opens.

pottfullofpith| 3.26.10 @ 11:43AM

@Ross Kaminsky

Ross!
Am I understanding correctly? The Gov was paying about 665x40,000=26.6M as a subsidy so that CAT would keep a plan in place that would keep 40,000 individuals OFF Medicare D? And if CAT may end and does end such a plan becuase the subsidy is now less than the tax, then these individuals would end up on Med Part D (assuming it still exisits)? How much will it cost Gov to add 40,000 to Part D?

Ross Kaminsky| 3.26.10 @ 12:04PM

At the end of 2008, it was reported by CMS (gov't bureaucracy that runs Medicare and Medicaid) that the benefit per Part D enrollee was just over $1500. See page 5 (page 11 of PDF), third column of chart, in this:
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/Reports.....tr2009.pdf

By the way, last I saw, part D had an unfunded liability of over $15 TRILLION.

pottfullofpith| 3.26.10 @ 1:35PM

Thank you. I am still not sure I know all the ins and outs, but it sounds like the 40,000 who used to cost 26.6M to not be on Part D will now cost 60.0M for as long as they are allowed to stay on Part D. Well done, Obamacare! Now that's change you can believe in.
Now I am really guessing, but what seems very likely is that the CAT benefit is obliged by its unions, and the subsidy was a defacto endaround to deliver a richer benefit than Part D to union retirees. Assuming there is no obligation on the part of CAT to provide the richer benefit, however, and assuming further that CAT will end it without the subsidy, this change may be boomeranging on the unions sooner than expected. Add it to the long and growing list of unanticipated consequences of government's inept and unwelcome involvement in a huge chunk of the nation's business.

NJK| 3.26.10 @ 11:51AM

This is all by design. Obama is destroying the economy of America on purpose. He hates America. He is the enemy within, and the authorities, just let him continue. How soon does he order that people be shot in the streets of America? He's nothing but a third world, Kenyan/Indonesian despot.

WTF| 3.26.10 @ 1:58PM

NJK - Great post. Full of facts, figures, and devoid of any emotional noise.

Why is it that the conservatives have gravitated towards uneducated goons as their mouthpieces - Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh? And why do you continue to regurgitate these ridiculous comments without ever stopping to wonder how factual they are?

How is applying a tax to A FREE GOVERNMENT HANDOUT going to destroy this country? I would think that all of you so called Milton Friedman free market guys would be screaming that we should not even be giving TAXPAYER MONEY TO A $50 BILLION CORPORATION in the first place.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.26.10 @ 11:56AM

Mr. Kaminsky,
Do you have kids?
Have you ever had the following discussion when they were small?
"Daddy, why is the sky blue?
Why..... why.....why.....why?

Well Ross, the only way I ever learned to gracefully end it was to say: "Buddy, you will understand when you are just a little older, OK?

Some folks get stuck at 5 years somehow. Very nice article.

Ross Kaminsky| 3.26.10 @ 2:19PM

Ken,
My kids are 2 and 4, so I'm just getting there...
Your point is well taken, of course.
And thanks for the compliment.
Ross

Oldefarte| 3.26.10 @ 12:03PM

This is the economic/financial destruction that these liberal Democrats want. It's also known as SOCIALISM, MARXISM,etc.; and is basically SHARE-THE WEALTH-REDISTRIBUTION. Insurance [health, auto,etc] is only a monor problem, as it basically extracts policyholders premiums/payments, pays for their medical bills from same, and keeps the residual amount as profit for their efforts. The problem is the LAWYERS and the DOCTORS. The latter's charges for their medical services are too expensive; and the former sues the the latter's insurance companies, and substantially increases the latter's charges in the process. Tort reform would save $billions in medical costs to consumers [by reducing doctors' inflated charges from lawsuits] and thus benefit all medical care consumers. Since LAWYERS control local, state and federal governments, the odds of passing tort reform are remote, unless taxpayer-voters begin electing non-lawyers as their representatives!!!!!

Steve A| 3.26.10 @ 12:03PM

Boil this all down & here is what you get: You either believe that the company producing the product or service is better at reinvesting/ allocating the profits that they fairly earned & therefore keeping the $$ in the private sector...or: You believe that Washington Politicians know better & are entitled to the funds to redistribute at their will. Period, end of story. We are at a crossroads where we must decide if we want to stay with the system that created the greatest standard of living & innovation in the history of civilization (Capitalism) or trend towards Socialism which has been a failure every time it has been tried. Look it up.

Anonymous| 3.26.10 @ 12:05PM

Here we go again with the crazy comments. You guys are so entertaining.

LibertarianLark| 3.26.10 @ 12:05PM

Gee... What's the problem....? Congress will just increase the subsidies it's already paying to the farmers to buy more expensive tractors to harvest the crops they're not growing now. Plus with water rationing (soon to come, I'm sure, what with the globe warming up and all our water supplies dehydrating as a result), no one will need Caterpillar and John Deere mowers, since it will be politically incorrect to have lawns. No one is building anything anyway since we already have a government-induced glutof homes and commercial buildings that aren't selling...

What do we need heavy equipment for?

steve| 3.26.10 @ 12:07PM

CAT's top 5 (five) officers and director pull in over $39M in annual salary. does anyone seriously believe $150M is going to impact CAT, whose sales according to CBS are "soaring":
http://www.cbs.com/thunder/pla.....xcKE97l78b

Econ101| 3.26.10 @ 9:24PM

You are more full of sh*% than a week old port o potty and have absolutely NO clue about finance.

Most of that figure is in options, which may or may be worth anything when vested. Read the PROXY filing with the SEC and come back when you figure out how much is actual salary.

Maybe if you weren't so ignorant you would be wealthy.

Steve A| 3.26.10 @ 12:18PM

CAT's top 5 earned $39M.....So what, it's their $$, not your's, not Obama's. Get over your jealousy, rage & resentment & get off your ass & start your own multi-national billion $$ company & pay yourself 8M instead of voting to rape a corporation that created well paying jobs with killer benefits without stealing $$ from someone else.

jon | 3.26.10 @ 1:09PM

Ross, it's comments like this one that make me believe you swallowed the blue pill:

"Progressives oppose true competition and thus want to eliminate any evidence that free markets work, especially in health care. "

Are you seriously naive enough to believe this? Or are you just trying to whip up the masses. This statement has the same credibility as me claiming that all conservatives support the recreation of debtors prisons.

I am a progressive, and a small business owner, and a staunch believer in competition and the free market. And, by the way, as an small business owner I am far more concerned with the rampant expansion of corporatism over the past 25 years than I am in the expansion of government -- and you should be too.

Think about what's really happening here. A large corporation RECIEVING A FEDERAL HANDOUT is whining about being taxed on the handout they're so gladly taking. If it's cutting into their profits, they can stop taking the subsidy. Problem solved.

Steve A| 3.26.10 @ 1:18PM

Ross,
As a small business owner, do you feel that if you have a larger portion of your net income confiscated from taxation, your employees see a net benefit??

Thx

Ross Kaminsky| 3.26.10 @ 2:24PM

Steve,
I'm not sure I understand your question.
Are you asking if it's a benefit to my employees if I pay more in taxes? If so, the answer is obviously a resounding "NO!"
Ross

Drew| 3.26.10 @ 1:29PM

Amen to that.

For pure chutzpah you've gotta hand it to the News Corp.-owned WSJ. Quote:

have received tax-free subsidies as an incentive

At some point, one has to ask why it is necessary for a huge corporation to be receiving "tax free subsidies." And to put this plaintive bleat on the same Op-Ed page that thunders about the looming armageddon of Budget Deficits - makes you wonder whose side they are on. (It certainly ain't the American taxpayer)

Secondly, the accounting and tax math is pretty atrocious. Consider: 40,000 Caterpillar retirees are getting this drug benefit. And the subsidy amounts to about $665 per person. So the total annual subsidy only comes to $26 million - the Federal Corporate tax on which is 35% - or $9.1 million. For them to whine to the WSJ that this change is "costing" them $100 million is nothing short of lying.

Lying - from a rupert Murdoch owned news organization: Imagine that.

Ross Kaminsky| 3.26.10 @ 2:32PM

Drew,

I bet you think that all Republicans are liars and all Tea Party participants are racists, too.

What world do you live in when a newspaper which reports what a company says is lying?

If that's the case, you'd better accuse your friends at those conservative pawns AP and Reuters of lying as well.

Also, to accuse a publicly listed company of effectively lying to the federal government is a pretty serious charge that you should be able to back up before you make it.

Do you realize that although this is a "one-time charge", it is not a charge intended only to cover one year's damage from ObamaCare?

Lying, from a liberal who doesn't understand accounting or economics...Imagine that.

drucker| 3.26.10 @ 2:52PM

Ross - Since you have such a grasp on economics, and seem to support Republicans and Tea Party members, maybe you could explain to me why you are against this? Shouldn't you be taking to the streets in protest that we're giving handouts to these gigantic corporations in the first place? But the minute that CAT screams foul because they are being taxed on a government handout - you jump to their defense?

Ross Kaminsky| 3.26.10 @ 2:57PM

drucker,

I've answered this already in these comments.

I do not support subsidies, but the alternative in this situation is almost certainly putting those retirees on Medicare Part D which will cost taxpayers 250% as much as the subsidy.

If you're willing to eliminate Part D, I'd be more than happy to eliminate the subsidy!

Drew| 3.26.10 @ 3:15PM

I think Caterpillar is being disengenuous about the actual cost of the Healthcare Reform legislation. And for the Wall Street Journal to pass on a company press release without doing their journalistic duty by providing context - is shameful. The lead paragraph in the WSJ:

Caterpillar Inc. said Wednesday it will take a $100 million charge to earnings this quarter to reflect additional taxes stemming from newly enacted U.S. health-care legislation.

As the math I provided earlier points out:

1) the annual "out of pocket" cost to Caterpillar of the change in the tax law is at most about $10 million.

2) Again - they are complaining about having to pay tax on a Government handout.

3) The fact that they are going to take this $100 million charge (which I suspect reflects the net present value of all future taxes) this quarter should - at the very least, raise questions about the effectiveness, to say nothing of basic fairness, of US Corporate tax law.

Lastly, this additional tax will have no effect whatsoever on Caterpillar's hiring plans.

There exists a fundamental misunderstanding among Conservatives about the relationship between businesses, money, and employment.

Conservatives promote the idea that if a business has extra money lying around - they magically use it hire extra workers. Increase taxes - by even the smallest amount - argue the Conservatives, and business won't hire.

This is an absolute falsehood. Businesses hire when they need too: Taxes are, if not an irrelevancy, at best a secondary consideration. Yes - business needs a certain amount of excess profit in order to fund capital investment.

If a business can make an extra $10,000 in profit by hiring an additional worker - they will do so. To argue that because the "after tax" net on that $10,000 might decrease from $6500 - to $6250, as a result of the change in the tax law, they won't- is absurd.

Econ101| 3.26.10 @ 9:30PM

Public companies CANNOT KNOWINGLY ISSUE A FALSE PRESS RELEASE OR MAKE FALSE CLAIM. Doing so opens them up to potential criminal prosecution and lawsuits so I hardly believe they are willing to risk jail or lawsuits simply to bash obama and MUST disclose any material impact to the earnings, again uder the threat of criminal prosecution.

Thanks for trying, come back when you have a better argument.

confused| 3.26.10 @ 1:34PM

Jon,
Thanks for the most insightful post I've read here today. As a FORMER small business owner, I couldn't agree more. Thankfully, I was able to exit the industry with a little money in my pocket. The rampant consolidation and acquisition by large corporations over the last couple of decades is what ultimately drove me to sell. I feel terrible for all of my old employees as the business is currently on its deathbed. I can assure you, I didn't recieve federal handouts and if I would have I would have gladly paid taxes on them.

Ross Kaminsky| 3.26.10 @ 2:23PM

Jon,

Yes, I do believe that progressives oppose free markets because they believe that markets don't work. They believe, and have since the founding of the Progressive movement, that highly educated technocrats should be allocating resources.

If you are a staunch believer in competition and the free market, then you are not a Progressive, no matter how much your self-esteem seems to be boosted by calling yourself one.

Please explain just what "corporatism" has done to the liberty of Americans in comparison to what government has done. Actually, don't explain. I've heard it all before and it's all left-wing silliness.

I do not support a federal handout. But the alternative in this case will be direct federal spending at twice the cost. For now, I'd rather stick with the subsidy until we can get rid of both the subsidy and the federal spending alternative.

confused| 3.26.10 @ 2:39PM

Ross,

Glad to see you're so open-minded.

"Please explain x, y, and z to me. On second thought, I already know the answers and won't change my mind no matter how many facts and figures you throw my way so nevermind."

Does that sum it up?

Ross Kaminsky| 3.26.10 @ 2:59PM

Yes, that sums it up. If you've heard the arguments and read the studies dozens of times, it's an entirely rational way to defend the use of my time.

confused| 3.26.10 @ 4:30PM

...and that, my friend, is what is wrong with alot of Republicans today. Too busy to waste their time on facts. That is why most of you support a woman who thought Africa was a country.

boognose| 3.26.10 @ 2:01PM

Obama will make up the losses by turning everyone over 75 into soylent green (its good for the environment)

lipper| 3.26.10 @ 2:04PM

Nothings *green* like soylent green.

Charelton| 3.26.10 @ 2:05PM

SOYLENT GREEN!

SOYLENT GREEN!

ChrisA| 3.26.10 @ 3:09PM

After reading about this in the Wall Street Business section, these points stand out:

"Beginning in 2006, companies have received a 28% federal subsidy, up to $1,330 per retiree, tax-free, to help pay for prescription-drug coverage. Until now, companies could deduct the subsidy from their taxes, essentially getting a second benefit from the money. Under the new law, companies will no longer be able to deduct the subsidy, but it remains tax-free. "

"The subsidy has been controversial from the beginning. Companies have been able to receive subsidies even when retirees pay some or all of the cost of the prescription drugs, and have been allowed to deduct the cost of the benefits that retirees pay for. Now, they'll continue to receive the tax-free subsidy based on their retirees' contributions, but won't be able to deduct the amounts.

"Companies not only get the get the subsidy tax-free, but they then deduct the amount. Our bill simply closes the loophole," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Thursday."

"To offset the impact, some companies are taking a special one time charge. In some cases, those charges are larger than the benefits the companies would receive by having the subsidy."

It also mentioned that the companies wouldn't explain how they arrived at those figures.

IMHO, they don't like Obamacare because they will not get enough of a handout of our government because they will have to pay more in taxes. Taxes which would be revenue. More revenue is needed to help bring down the deficit that everyone is hollering about.

Eric Cartman| 3.26.10 @ 3:42PM

Ya know what, Chris? I take it all back. The Lefty ahole plane is working just swell:

http://www.marketwatch.com/sto.....26-1411190

DatsunMark| 3.26.10 @ 3:16PM

Lots of great ideas out there to contain Healthcare costs. However that was not the purpose of this bill...it was designed to contain *you*.

Eric Cartman| 3.26.10 @ 3:27PM

And you believe Robert Gibbs? The subsidies were a payment for the stupid Bush program. It reflects the cost - the value, as it were - of the program, not some Federal goody like a farmer receives for NOT planting corn. Gibbs is a lying little ahole, like all Lefties.

Sele| 3.26.10 @ 3:37PM

I am no longer afraid of being without. What does it matter now that they have figured out how to equalize all us. It's obvious we will not have to work, save or own up to our responsibilities because the government will be there to make everybody equal.........LMAO What an idiot I have been working a job I hated because of the HC benefits. What an idiot I have been for not getting that 2nd mortgaging on my house to afford that luxury flat screen TV and in ground pool I wanted. What a fool I've been for trying to make a better life living within the rules of a country that is now going to "equalize" us. I'm a CHUMP. My parents and grandparents were wrong about that work ethic thing! Don't worry, that's not an issue anymore!! Now will have the two social classes.....government employees and those that pay their salaries.

George F| 3.26.10 @ 3:43PM

Obama simply does not care who he hurts with his healthcare program. All he really cares about is turning this country into a socialist-communist one starting with his universal, spread the wealth healthcare bill.

Lazy Jack| 3.26.10 @ 4:35PM

Following this argument this afternoon has been a hoot. I think we will have to give the argument to the progressive voices here because in our society today everyone gets a medal, right? The Caterpillar story is telling, and one item I think all the progressives here are ignoring is this: the bloody subsidy was necessary to offset the worst distortions of the Medicare entitlement in the first place. In other words, the government must have created the subsidy to offset the expected distorting effects of the entitlement. They needed to offer the subsidy to help Caterpillar keep jobs here in the U.S. Guess what? Now even that small incentive is gone.

Very frankly, discussion of Caterpillar’s plans to bring production back from Japan should now be considered academic. Caterpillar was likely getting ready to bring it back because costs were roughly at parity. After this legislation, which will increase everyone’s costs over ten years while reducing care, the advantage might slip back one again to Japan. If the economy is further distorted by carbon taxation, trade retaliation from those countries lost as friends during this administration, inflation and interest rate acceleration based on our massive debt, and a Wagner Act redux, Caterpillar would be crazy to bring production back. And, not just because of their costs. Capital investment by manufacturers and businesses will go elsewhere, slowly strangling the U.S. market size for Caterpillar’s products. The only remaining reason to bring production back is because of the current level of excess capacity in U.S. factories. That will not last for long as many are decommissioned.

Also, for those of you throwing figures around here: in 2008 Cat had pretax profit of about 8.7% and 1.7% in 2009. That means net profit last year was $567 million to be shared between the prevailing taxing bodies and all you shareholders. Taking $100 million out of that income either takes away 1500-2000 jobs, or will force the company to slash the dividend and reduce the stock value to all the little old ladies relying on Caterpillar’s performance to fund their retirement. Pretending that all these businesses are evil, though convenient, is patently false, especially if your state or business funded pension or retirement account has shares. Pretending that government intervention has had or will have only positive affects is not only provably false, but also dangerous. But do not rely on my opinion; just watch the Treasury auctions the next few months.

Oh, by the way. The CBO says the healthcare legislation will shave $100 billion of deficits over the next 10 years and everybody celebrated. That is less than 1% of the nearly $12 trillion expected. And before the rest of you start yelling about our military spending being the cause, please tell us the exact amount of the $3.7 trillion this year will be spent on the military. I think it is about 20% of the total, if that. The other $3 trillion is going, where? But, of course, the government has nothing but good to do.

Lazy Jack

Apologies for any grammatical errors.

www.thanksforthelaughs.wordpress.com

MTB| 3.26.10 @ 4:36PM

Well, hell, we don't need heavy equipment manufacturers, anyway. That can be the next thing on Obama and the demo-rats' list: create a gov't run heavy equipment manufacturing plant. I hear the state-owned GM and Chrysler is desperately looking for a market niche--there you go! It's perfect. Man, this plan is really coming together. All health care professionals will be employees of the State. When the private insurance companies go bust, the State will have a pool of highly trained and experienced insurance workers to employ at both the IRS and the State run health care program. Let's see, farms should be next. Why should private landowners profit from the people's right to have food? No, the land will be deeded to the State (voluntarily or involuntarily--but if involuntarily the previous landowner will not get to have any of the food grown on the land) even though the State will turn right around and direct the farmer who owned the land to continue to run the farm. He just won't get to profit from it. After that, the banks. How dare those greedy bankers foreclose on homes that should never had been sold to people who couldn't afford them in the first place. There's plenty of money, they don't need anymore. No! The State will take over the banks and make sure anyone who wants money gets it, and all housing is free. Construction companies will build lavish, wonderful, beautiful homes and the will aceept the amount the State deems is enough for them to make to build that home. I hope I'm preaching to the choir, but is there anyone else who doesn't see what's happening here? Obama and the dems must be stopped. First in 2010 and then in 2012, or one day we will tell our children and grandchildren what freedom was like.

Drew| 3.26.10 @ 4:44PM

Quote: Taking $100 million out of that income either takes away

Once again, Jack, I need to point out the fact that the "$100 million" number is a fiction.

It is absolutely NOT an extra $100 million check that Caterpillar needs to write to Uncle Sam to stay in business.

The "$100 million" figure is what their tax accountants figured is the total NET PRESENT VALUE of all total future tax costs - from now until pretty much the end of time.

Caterpillar's actual "out of pocket" cost is about $9.1 million per year.

$9.1 million = $100 million?

Only in the minds of people who actively want to keep lying to themselves.

Lazy Jack| 3.26.10 @ 5:01PM

If it is a fiction, it is required by GAAP accounting standards, is it not? It is an estimate based on a formula to calculate the potential income statement effect. Those numbers will likely be real, depending on the assumptions in their formula. And, these are after tax calculations, so the reserve saves zero in future tax liabilities. If your logic were correct, why not have a smaller numer and save the stock price the pain. Also, the Administration claims $100 billion in deficit reduction over 10 years and sold it to the genreal populace based on a CBO calculation that took about 14 minutes of blood toil tears and sweat. Where was your outcry over that fiction?

Best,

Lazy Jack

Drew| 3.26.10 @ 5:27PM

Because nobody - not the Obama administration, not the CBO, not MSNBC - claimed that passing HCR would reduce the deficit this year by $1.2 trillion.

IF the WSJ actually held Healthcare Reform to the same accounting standards as they held Caterpillar's Press Release, then simply by passing it the Democrats in Congress have balanced the Federal budget.

See how that works?

Nick| 3.26.10 @ 5:38PM

Hey, it's Drew, everybody!

The Molech worshiping progressive troll.

Lazy Jack| 3.26.10 @ 5:45PM

Drew,
Accounting rules force the use of the reserve in the period in which the event occurs. If the government, by the way, had to use the same accounting as Caterpillar, we would already be in receivership. Why? Because we would have to account for the $40 trillion in unfundeed liabilities already accrued to Social Security and Medicare. Acutally, sorry. That is not true. The few trillion or so already in unfunded pensions (mostly in government plans) does not have to be acounted for currently. But, if I am not correct, those programs are paying for themselves. Right?

Cat is making the proper entries, as will Deer, AT&T, etc. When will our sovereign? A significantly smaller (by one or two orders of magnitude) unfunded liability caused the recent dirty business. But no matter, our sovereign will solve it.

Best,

Lazy Jack

AC| 3.26.10 @ 5:20PM

If we had adopted a single-payer universal health care system, instead of mandatory private 'insurance,' all businesses that provide health insurance to their employees would have seen a huge increase in profits.

The annual government spending on health care is more than enough, all by itself, to fully fund a universal health care system.

c-sense| 3.26.10 @ 8:36PM

If we all had jobs and income then healthcare would be a no-brainer

Burzwaazee| 3.26.10 @ 9:59PM

What do John Deere and Caterpillar have in common? They both got sold out by their local congressman, Phil Hare, and his health care vote. And the unemployment continues to rise...

Information Police| 3.26.10 @ 11:36PM

Classic Conservative hypocrisy. They object to government subsidies to pay for health care and here complain that a government subsidy for health care has been decreased.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.27.10 @ 9:27AM

Disinformation Police

Dumbbunny, once upon a time, our federal government understood that a private entity could provide benefits to it's "working people" and those retired...much more efficiently than the govt. could.

Is that too complicated for you?

It will affect you| 3.27.10 @ 12:24AM

I occasionally get to use one of my upgrades and sit in first class. Two years ago I had the privilege of sharing a trans-con flight w/ an exec from one of the companies in this thread and he shared that they had a plant-by-plant scenario to get out of the US within 90 days if they needed to for political or tax reasons. Additional capacity exists in other manufacturing facilities in the world. Corporate taxes are either passed on to customers or avoided. You avoid Obamacare by not hiring American workers to work in American factories.

canadianX| 3.27.10 @ 12:52AM

US medical R&D is the most advanced in the world, this means that new procedures, inventions, cancer drugs are typically available in the US first. Even HIV drugs such as protease inhibitors are invented in the US.

Unfortunately, it's very expensive to do basic R&D to get these things done, and sadly, many R&D labs don't always succeed, meaning that when they do, the companies need to recoup their costs which runs to the billions.

What this means then is that if you are rich or have good insurance, and you get cancer or complex heart problems, your best chance for survival is in the US.

On the other hand, if you have no health insurance, and you're not rich but not poor enough to qualify for medicare, then you can't afford treatment.

The thing about this HC reform and having the government have more control over any major industries is that people should be careful that you don't lose the advanced R&D --- it is still responsible for churning out most of the major advances in medical research in the world.

Don't ever let bureaucrats determine how scientific research is done, or your labs will be like France or Spain or Germany.

We look to US for innovation and entrepreneurship, and although your american dream has a rather dog eat dog system of letting many fall through the cracks, your people still gave the world the internet, microchips, just about every major drug and medical invention the last 50 years, microsoft, intel, google, cisco, apple.

Things may look greener in 'kinder and gentler' socialist/liberal countries of europe, but that american ability to pull yourself up by your bootstraps does have its advantages that we admire (even if most of us don't want to admit it).

The point really is that, in your rush to have a bigger government that does more for you, don't forget that technology giants like intel, microsoft, apple did not flourish under centrally planned economies of FDR's New Deal, they only arose because america still had a free market system that allowed people to dream of things that never were --- and to make them real.

The Free Market has nothing to apologize for.

Larry| 3.28.10 @ 4:42AM

TZM - "I've met plenty of government employees who care about the effectiveness of what they do. Every prosecutor I know is extremely motivated to win cases, for example."

So have I, TZM, I was a local government employee myself at one time. But I also know a LOT of them (unfortunately, I now think that is most of them) who aren't. And they are in key positions, too - far more critical than your average prosecutor. In fact, I got out finally when I had the chance to retire because fellow employees who had left were being replaced by the lowest common denominator type of person and being put into positions of great responsibility with little training and even less experience. That is ultimately a prescription for disaster - multiply that by a thousand times, nay, a million times when it comes to the Federal government.

I should imitate your smart-ass propensity to constantly demand sources and ask you to NAME all of these employees you cite.

Tenn Slim| 3.28.10 @ 10:21AM

Opine
Point is, CAT and Deere, will have and are having, Large Sums diverted from their employees to the IRS via taxation of OBNA Subsidies. What the Guvmnt giveth, the Guvmnt taketh away.
bt
We ALL stand at the presipice of the Socialist USA.
Recc your reading this spring, while the OBNA continues to roll over the folks.
"Masters of Deceit" circa 1954, J. Edgar Hoover
"Come Nineveh, Come Tyre" Allen Drewy, author of Advise and Consent series circa 1973.
A truly Prophetic Treatise, applicable today.
bt
Now, the recc reading may seem off point, HC and all, but the elements that got us to this point are in the Dusty Texts. We get caught up in parseing each stat, each data point, and as the texts fully illustrate, miss the Mission of the OBNA.
It is now open, blatant and being bragged on, the OBNA is working hard to effect the Socialistic State of the USA. Read the Lefts' Bogs, no longer dreaming, now advising, now speaking directives, now listing goals, agendas, issues , openly w/o reservation, w/o Aesopian language.
Folks. We are in the 2nd quarter of the USA Super Bowl. HC scored a big number. The Czar Led Action Fronts are scoring minor hits, as we speak. Deere, CAT and others are opening thier books, we can see first hand the results.
We Will Prevail. How? By Faith, Hope, Charity and G... 's Grace.
Semper Fi
end

Frank| 3.28.10 @ 2:12PM

Free healthcare is never free. The money has to come from somewhere. The bill will trade quality for quantity and affect the economic climate solely to satisfy voters, win new voters, or otherwise service

Darragh| 3.28.10 @ 6:20PM

Obama is visiting Maine on April 1, appropriately enough, to tout his health reform. Maine's attempt at health reform Dirigo Health, has been a total disaster. It has cost us $23 million and insured 3,000 yearly uninsured, not the 60,000 yearly proposed. The "savings" have been made up, as a result of political influence, just as Obama's plan's will be. I cannot believe he's coming here!

zentaizentai| 3.28.10 @ 9:32PM

Please trust us. Choose us! spandex zentai

We will bring you more exciting zentai unitard and better service.

CONstantly wrong| 3.28.10 @ 10:39PM

Wow, the stupid in here is blinding. Some of you might actually know that EIGHT of the last nine years a republican president was in office. He drove up the deficit lied to the country and started a totally unneeded war that had zippo to do with catching the man he swore to get Osama Bin Laden. He spent like a drunken sailor to the point where even some of you people would not support him. How did he pay for the two wars that started? He pretended they did not exist. They WERE OFF BUDGET. And when Obama was elected he said quite rightly well THIS IS FRIGGING INSANE. So he put the billions of dollars a day these wars cost on budget. And guess what ? Like the four year old who is shocked to see a coin appear from his ear when the funny uncle comes to visit and does a magic trick you all are shocked to find out these wars increase our deficit!! Look how Obama has put us into dept you scream. Wow just wow. Further more you somehow missed that your republican representatives have set a record for using the filibuster over 200 times in ONE YEAR! You love to claim he has accomplished nothing while at the very same time claiming his extensive communist agenda is or has already ruined "your" country. Now this "socialist heath care bill" is going to kill us all. You act as if you had nothing to do with the disaster that was this last decade. I swear you must all have dementia in which case you should be glad Obama has just passed this bill. Your gonna need it.

Steve A| 3.29.10 @ 1:32PM

Hey All,
Great news for the economy! AT&T, Verizon, CAT, JD all estimate dramatic increased costs associated with Obamacare. This should really get the economy rolling again. Oh, also, I just love it when Obama projects TRILLIONS in new social justice spending & it's Bush's fault but it's all OK because you voted for Obama. This is a display of deep thinking & true mental prowess. Morons

Get a clue| 3.29.10 @ 9:31PM

If you call bombing innocent civilians in Iraq social justice spending then I agree with you . Because thats the majority of the increase in the deficit since Obama came into office. He put the wars on budget.
Bush did not have them on budget. Ask yourself mister smarty how Obama got all that radical social justice spending past 200 plus filibusters and record numbers of senate holds? IN ONE YEAR? Yes he finally got health care reform thru.
But according to the independent CBO that will eventually save money . Health care costs are gonna rise one way or another anyway initially no matter what reform was instigated because of the costs of getting it going.

Steve A| 3.30.10 @ 8:54AM

Dear Get A,

You need to "get a clue." First off, the CBO is required to "score" what the bill "says" it is going to do, not what the CBO thinks will actually happen. If the bill says that a UFO will land & fund the program, then that is what is scores. Secondly, ...so our guys are over in Iraq to intentionally drop bombs on civilians because we are the evil bad guys?? Is that how it is?? Just looking for clarity here. Newsflash.....Bush is no longer in office & Dems have had Congress since 06'. Get a grip man.

Get a clue| 3.30.10 @ 1:18PM

Bush is no longer in office but the wars he started and the repercussions of the disaster of a presidency he had are still with us. Just look at the deficit. Second no matter if we were intending hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens to die as a direct result of the war or not the war WE started still killed them. Not thats social justice spending heh? Especially since you cons claimed we over there to give Iraqi's freedom. What freedom from having to keep on living?

Steve A| 3.30.10 @ 2:03PM

If these conflicts are so unjust then why is your man still funding them & ramping up Afghanistan?? Bush's spending sucked big time. No question, agree. That does not give this joker license to finish the job & spend us into oblivion just because you pulled the lever for him. Get over yourself, realize the consequences of what is happening & make an adjustment.

get a clue| 3.30.10 @ 8:16PM

Well its really not a good idea to invade a country in an important tactical region of the world and then just leave it in chaos. Obama has a lot of cleanup to do thanks to Bush. I have an idea, lets have Obama take the wars off budget like Bush and pretend they cost us nothing. Then you can crawl back into your fantasy land.

Steve A| 4.1.10 @ 12:41PM

I stand corrected. We should have gone back to sleep after 9/11. Saddam & Taliban citizens were much better off back then than now. All Democrats who voted to invade were tricked by Bush (who is supposedly a dunce). These areas were no threat to our security whatsoever. The only net change in our long term debt is because Obama put the wars on budget. He has authorized no additional spending to blow our debt to the sky. The prosperity of this country is a result of government control & social programs, not individual effort & innovation. The military drops bombs on civilians as they are evil. Dick Cheney is the Anti-Christ. Bush did it for oil. The Earth is melting because I drive an F-150. Any opposition to Obama is racism. I do not pay enough in taxes. Congress knows whats best for me. I can't make it on my own without Barak's help. That should about sum it up. Thanks for getting me straight.

mkv to ipad| 11.15.10 @ 8:35AM

MKV to iPad is the best solution to sharing MKV files on iPad. As we know, the newly developed iPad can only surport MP4 format, so if you want to play MKV video on iPad, you have to convert MKV to iPad with an additional software.My personal recommendation is to use this MKV to iPad Converter. The biggest difference between this all-in-one MKV to iPad and other similar ones is that it can not onvert general video format to iPad, but can also convert HD video to iPad for sharing high-defination video everywhere mobile movie theater.

HF| 12.31.10 @ 6:19PM

It is easy for companies to make outlandish claims. But when the evidence for such claims is not disseminated, it should be obvious it is all BS. It seems many people just believe whatever supports their delusional reality. The true reality is that any layoffs are politically motivated due to greed. It basically amounts to this: How dare the government take money out of the rich people's pockets and give it back to the poor who were largely exploited by the rich in making the rich wealthy!!!

jessi| 1.27.11 @ 10:09AM

@HF I agree, since Obama has taken office, so many companies are re-doing their offices and computer systems- which is now a tax write off. Filing back taxes is good for small business, to level the playing field, but for larger corporations it is only empowering monopolies.

wholesale beads| 3.30.11 @ 4:46AM

good read