New government thuggery as Congress attacks corporations disclosing increased O’healthcare costs

Were it not enough that a representative body slid a major entitlement program thru budget reconciliation rules, and on a partisan vote, Congressional thuggery tactics have soared to a new high. Powerline has copies of a letter from Henry Waxman, chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, demanding that AT&T, and other companies who have publicly disclosed the fiscal repercussions of O’health care, appear before the committee and bring their analyses of the fiscal impact, and any documents including emails and messages reviewed by their senior officials that support their claim of increased operating costs.

Translation? CEOs, as a result of their “disclosure”, are now ordered to appear before Congress starting April 21st to prove their claims.

This accusation, tantamount to subtly calling the corporations liars, could almost be humorous… were one in possession of such sardonic temperament. It’s been obvious that increased costs would result from what the Obama’s WH mouthpiece, Robert Gibbs, described as merely closing a loophole just days ago in response. And, in fact, as an IBD op-ed a couple of days pointed out, Congress and the administration were warned of the effects of this legislation, as written, on their overhead early December.

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., last Dec. 11, Deere and other signatories said the health care reform then under consideration “would negatively impact both retirees and companies.”

Nobody was listening.

“For months, the American Benefits Council, along with several employers and labor unions, warned that the retiree drug subsidy tax in the health care legislation would impose an enormous hit on company financial statements as soon as the bill was signed into law,” said James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, in a statement on Friday.

Besides Deere, the letter was signed by Boeing, Con-Way Freight, Exelon, Navistar, Verizon, Caterpillar, MetLife, Public Service Enterprise Group and Xerox.

Waxman’s letter is the quintessential political intimidation ploy, stating such news causes them “concern”. huh? If they were repeatedly warned prior to passage, how can this be a surprise “concern”?

Instead the Chair’s actions, demanding some sort of proof that their unsurprising claims are correct, just seems to continue a seriously dangerous precedent of government intimidation waged on those who are not willing to sip the prozac-laden water, and who continue to criticize or resist propaganda launched.

But there is a price to be paid when anyone chooses to not play ball with Obama and his Congress. This particular news tidbit happens to muddy the waters of a planned public relations campaign, designed to convince an unwilling public that we will learn to love the “reform” forced upon us. A “fair” social welfare net that was achieved using a legislative process that makes most of us wonder if this what the Founders had in mind for such sweeping legislation.

Obviously, and especially in an important mid term election year, this cannot stand as is by those conscious of their political futures.

Proponents who casually explain away a “loop hole” perk, preying on an anti-capitalistic sentiment, brings an ugly reality to the rest of us. The full weight of the removal of existing “subsidies” and tax credits for the corporations fall on the common worker. And when it’s removed, it’s not the corporations who pay, but the workers.

What possible difference does it make if it’s a “loop hole”, credit or subsidy if those receiving the perks are those getting the prescription drugs? The reality is, it increases the overhead of an employer, and affects the benefits they can offer their workers. Period. It’s a pass through expense that the little guy absorbs. Dems can attempt to put lipstick on that pig, but the fact remains…. the “victim” for this tax change, meant to increase revenue to pass CBO muster, is the employees. These tax credits, and/or subsidies, threaten the size of the employers’ payroll, the benefits they can offer their employees, or both.

Is this what the Dems had in mind? To eliminate prescription drug benefits or jobs? Brilliant…. Talk about a half step forward, and five steps back.

This deliberate Congressional public humiliation/threats also marks a new dichotomy. As Andy McCarthy points out over at NRO’s blog, “The Corner”, this might possibly be the first time that corporation haunchos are hauled onto the carpet for disclosure, instead of non-disclosure.

But here is the most frightful news yet about our new reality: People’s Commissar Henry Waxman is now planning to haul the companies before his committee because their disclosures fail to play along with the our Leftist rulers’ script that Obamacare “will expand coverage and bring down costs.”

~~~

If we are now under a system where disclosure gets you a public whipping and other threats by the Powers That Be while nondisclosure promises the ruinous expenses of defending against criminal investigations and civil enforcement, this is no longer anything but a thugocracy.

McCarthy reinforces this criticism, citing the WSJ op-ed yesterday, calling it deliberate Congressional intimidation:

In other words, shoot the messenger. Black-letter financial accounting rules require that corporations immediately restate their earnings to reflect the present value of their long-term health liabilities, including a higher tax burden. Should these companies have played chicken with the Securities and Exchange Commission to avoid this politically inconvenient reality? Democrats don’t like what their bill is doing in the real world, so they now want to intimidate CEOs into keeping quiet.

Then, of course, there was the arm twisting, bribery and back room payola deals with Congressional members to buy the simple majority vote that we all witnessed in nightmare’esque horror. How much do we witness in corruption and desperation before we, the people who *are* the government, start screaming NO in a way these powerhouses will acknowledge with due respect? Just how much are we supposed to parse the founding principles of representation, while bending to “rules” that are to usurp that same intent?

Such thuggery and intimidation isn’t confined to Congress when it comes to dissenters on government action. It was only November last year that Democratic consultants were warned after appearing on Fox News.

WASHINGTON — At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning from the White House to never appear on Fox News Channel, an outlet that presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation as a political opponent bent on damaging the Obama administration.

The Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox, he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again. The call had an intimidating tone, he said.

The message was, “We better not see you on again,” said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to run afoul of the White House. An implicit suggestion, he said, was that “clients might stop using you if you continue.”

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said that she had checked with colleagues who “deal with TV issues” and that they had not told people to avoid Fox. On the contrary, they had urged people to appear on the network, Dunn wrote in an e-mail.

But Patrick Caddell, a Fox News contributor and former pollster for President Carter, said he had spoken to Democratic consultants who said they were told by the White House to avoid appearances on Fox. He declined to give their names.

Caddell said he had not gotten that message himself from the White House.

He added: “I have heard that they’ve done that to others in not too subtle ways. I find it appalling. When the White House gets in the business of suppressing dissent and comment, particularly from its own party, it hurts itself.”

In a more “kinder, gentler” fashion, I posted just last week that Obama and the Dems were planning a multi-stage PR blitz to sell healthcare to the public for not only the mid term election lead up, but for years after that as well. Presumably we’ll be innundated about the glowing reports of O’healthcare thru the entire 2012 Presidential elections in an effort to convince an unwilling nation that Congress and this POTUS know what is best for us.

In the meantime, the lawsuits remain in play… questioning not only the legitimacy of mandates and levying penalties on products that citizens may choose *not* to purchase, but citing the costs of this plan to the individual states in what they call “an unfunded mandate”. While California remains the most publicized state in fiscal dire straits, the bulk of the states also suffer from being in a world of hurt from uncontrolled spending that far outpaces revenue. So much in fact that states are desperately searching for anything and everything in which to legitimately levy new taxes… from dating services and clowns to services like legal advise and funerals.

A very nasty spending precedent has been set with Congressional overreach in order to fulfill a political agenda. And the states are not blind to their, hopefully short lived, success.

Should government intimidation of corporations and business heads be equally effective… ala this public lynching of corporations for properly disclosing their fiscal penalties under newly enacted law… there will be few places to turn to avoid oppressive government at all levels in America.