It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Healthcare Reform Law Requires New IRS Army Of 1,054

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Healthcare Reform Law Requires New IRS Army Of 1,054


www.usnews.com

The Internal Revenue Service says it will need an battalion of 1,054 new auditors and staffers and new facilities at a cost to taxpayers of more than $359 million in fiscal 2012 just to watch over the initial implementation of President Obama's healthcare reforms. Among the new corps will be 81 workers assigned to make sure tanning salons pay a new 10 percent excise tax. Their cost: $11.5 million.

the IRS plans to get a big return on investment worth about $279 million by fiscal 2014.


(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Here is change we can believe in. The IRS is not a tax collection agency. The IRS is a law enforcement agency, plain and simple.

Now we're going to spend $11.5 million/year to check on tanning salons. Now what is the fully loaded cost of these folks?

The new IT systems (contracts tossed to a political supporter, no doubt) will run into the $millions and when you factor in planned and unplanned maintenance on these systems, this will be a nice gift that will keep on giving to some shop like IBM or Booz Allen, already thick into the government kick backs.

Now you have judges that are split on the constitutionality of ObamaCare. This business will go the Supreme Court. Those who oppose the law want it fast tracked to the court. The administration wants to take as long as possible to have it before the court. There are no arguments, no witnesses, this is a case that could easily be decided within a few months.

Given the above, is it not reasonable for the administration to simply say "we believe that the law is constitutional and that we will prevail in the Supreme Court, however until we have the matter decided, we will not move forward on any spending associated with the law until the court makes its decision and I would hope that the court would make it a top priority"

Isn't that what a leader would do? Isn't that what someone who is responsible would do? Whether or not you are for or against the law, the fact that there have been decisions on both sides of the constitutionality of it makes it irresponsible to move forward with any of this spending, especially the IRS enforcement component, since that is associated with the individual mandate, the portion of the law that is most likely to be struck down.

This is irresponsible and what it is is an attempt to place the infrastructure in place so that when the law is struck down, components of will be put in place via regulation and the enforcement and infrastructure will be in place.

www.usnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



new topics
 
3

log in

join