Guess A Billion Dollars Is Now Real Money Again

Okay folks I need you to temporarily suspend your disbelief to understand the argument surrounding the funding for the FAA, which for some reason is starting to move to the top of the Next Thing to Cause Armageddon list.

All through the debt, budget, interns slush fund debate we have heard arguments how cuts of less then eleventy thirty trillon is just chump change and hardly worthy of recognition. Well now comes news that an agency that has been run on month to month budget for over 4 years is now costing the government $1 billion dollars because of the loss of tax revenue.

The FAA's long-term operating authority expired in 2007. Since then, Congress has been unable to agree on a long-term funding plan. The agency has continued to operate under a series of 20 short-term extensions.

The airlines certainly didn't do themselves any good when after the tax authority had expired decided to continue charging the tax and putting it into their coffers and thereby handed the liberals one of the best arguments they have to deny any sort of serious tax reform in the country. Any argument which revolves around fewer taxes meaning companies can reduce their prices sort of got rendered mute due to the bad actions of these players. Thanks Delta. Again.

So let me get this straight. Cutting $350 billion from defense is called a modest cut with much deeper cuts required but the unrealized loss of $1 billion from tax revenue from the FAA is going to somehow cripple life as we know it.

The big sticking point in approving their budget by the way is how Democrats want to change the rules for how airlines and railroads can form unions. The current method involves having employees votes and those that don't vote count as "No" votes. The Democrats want to change this so that only actual votes cast count. It is cute they way they want to keep railroad employees in this like they are some sort of viable industry. Oh wait that's right liberals are having some sort of love affair with trains lately.

Of course the world champion poker player in charge has vowed to veto anything which has a union busting language in it.

The White House warned in March that President Barack Obama would veto an FAA bill containing the labor provision.

Barack Obama (Disgrace-USA) Compares GOP to 'Hostage Takers'

He had no choice, really. Those GOP bastards were threatening to "harm the hostage" with evil tax cuts, a.k.a. a continuation of current tax rates.

What was he supposed to do, just stand there and watch that happen?!



Not sure if this is really the best analogy for a United States President to use, especially when the message to the real hostage-takers/al-Qaeda head-choppers out there is that you'll cave as long as they threaten to harm the hostage.

Well, 'caving' doesn't really fit this analogy either, but you get the point.

Via Breitbart. Cross-posted.

McConnell Says Deal With Obama on Tax Rates is Close, and All GOP Has to Agree to Is Never-Ending* Unemployment Benefits

*Seriously. When does it end?

One would assume that Mitch McConnell is well aware that Republicans won in a landslide last month.

But stuff like this makes me wonder.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell sounded optimistic on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday that Republicans will come to an agreement with President Barack Obama that would allow current income tax rates to continue for a few years while also extending unemployment payments for people whose benefits are set to run out.

So, the Republicans are making compromises with Barack Obama just to maintain the status freakin' quo on tax rates?

May I ask why?

Unemployment benefits have already been extended to an unprecedented 99 weeks. By my math, that's nearly two years. If we're going to keep extending it, let's just be honest and start calling it what it is - welfare.

It's certainly not economic stimulus or a jobs program - otherwise, why isn't the economy roaring by now?

Cross-posted.

Rich Patriots: Please, Obama - Tax Us Up the Wazoo!

Joe Biden has trained these guys well.

Anti-tax activists everywhere have been loudly arguing for an extension of George W. Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in the United States. Now a group of millionaires is arguing the opposite.

More than 40 of the nation's millionaires have joined Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength to ask President Obama to discontinue the tax breaks established for them during the Bush administration, as Salon reports.

"For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled," their website states. "We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more."

The group includes many big-time Democratic donors such as Gail Furman, trial lawyer Guy Saperstein and Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's ice cream (pictured). The list remains open to millionaires who want to sign on.

Somebody might want to inform these uber-patriots that they are free to write checks to the IRS right now - nobody's stopping them. If they wish to shovel even more money into our bloated government's gaping maw, that's certainly their perogative.

But they should leave the rest of us out of it.

Cross-posted here.

'I'm convinced. Let's tax the hell out of 'em'

It's thinking like this that may soon leave the Democrats in a permanent minority. These "rich" people have only so much to give before they will abandon your state, you nitwit.

Oregon officials know all about anti-tax fervor.

Over the years, voters here have capped property taxes (saddling the state with two-thirds the cost of running the schools) and passed a constitutional amendment requiring rebates whenever tax receipts come in 2% over budget. Nine times they have been asked to OK a sales tax -- and said no. Proposals to increase the state income tax? Down in flames twice.

But now the Legislature is taking a tack that analysts think could finally pull the rug out from under the tax revolt: soaking the rich.

In mail-in voting that ends today, Oregon is considering measures to raise taxes on households earning $250,000 or more and on individuals earning at least $125,000, as well as hike corporate taxes. About 39,000 of the state's 1.5 million taxpayers would be subject to the higher tax, and some big companies could see their annual bills go from $10 to $100,000.

The success or failure of Measures 66 and 67 will be a concrete test -- one of the few in the country this year -- of how willing voters are to accept tax increases targeted at those theoretically best equipped to pay them.

"These measures are the first test of a progressive solution to the recession," said Cynthia Kain, a spokeswoman for the National Education Assn. who has been working to help pass the ballot measures.

Opponents of the tax hikes warn that they could cripple small businesses and jeopardize employment in a state that has lost 131,000 private-sector jobs during the recession.

But many voters appear willing to risk that. Polls have shown both measures ahead, although one late last week showed the gap tightening.

"I'm convinced. Let's tax the hell out of 'em," said Rebecca Maxwell, a young software developer from Portland.

Maybe some day when young Rebecca grows up she'll be one of those evil rich earning at least $125,000. How much you want to bet she's singing a different tune by then?

Naturally, it's the unions that are footing the tab to try and further rape the earners.

The campaign in support of the tax increases has been financed mostly with contributions from small businesses and public employee unions -- including $1.65 million from the Oregon Education Assn. and more than $1 million from other local and national public employee labor unions.

Their unquenchable thirst for more of your money will blow up in the faces. If these measures actually do pass, good luck finding jobs when the state's largest employers begin fleeing for more hospitable climates.

House Democrats Screw Your Kids Some More

Yesterday the House passed legislation that will undo the estate tax break that President Bush had enacted. The basic plan from the Bush years was that it the estate tax would gradually decrease until next year when it would be eliminated all together. The caveat is that it had a sunset provision of 2011, after which time it would revert back to previous rate of 55%.

Yes that is right when you die the government can come in and seize over half of your assets. There are plenty of formulas to figure out just exactly how much the rate is and what percentage a person would pay, but the 55% rate was the top rate and 37% was the low end.

Well the Dems led by Nancy Pelosi are trying to undo all of that and punishing your kids even more then they are already being punished with all of the spending that this administration is doing.

House Democrats passed a freeze of the estate tax Thursday, making permanent the 45 percent rate on inheritances of more than $3.5 million and undoing part of President George W. Bush's cuts that would have temporarily eliminated the tax next year.

The measure would prevent the estate tax from expiring Dec. 31 and returning in 2011 at a 55 percent rate, a mechanism of the Bush tax cuts that gradually reduced the rate since 2001. Estates under $3.5 million are exempt for individuals and up to $7 million for married couples, leaving about 1 percent of all estates vulnerable to the tax.

Now I know I lot of you are saying you have nothing to worry about since you don't have that much of an estate. Let me tell you, yes you do. I discovered this the hard way with the passing of parents. The bean counters swooped in and counted everything they had as an asset. Their house, their car, all the furnishings, any bank accounts and any other holdings. So while my parents always liked to refer to themselves as the "working poor", when they passed away you would have thought they were Bill Gates illegitimate siblings.

Here is an explanation of this so-called death tax that I found to be helpful to explain what this estate tax is about.

Included in President Bush's tax cuts, however, was a provision to phase out the estate tax rate over the next few years. For families with large real estate holdings such as farms that have been held for generations or small businesses, this stroke of good luck will ensure that assets are passed onto posterity without Uncle Sam taking a majority of the bounty. This would be accomplished in two ways: 1.) by raising the amount exempt from the estate tax rate, and 2.) lowering the estate tax rate itself.

According to the IRS literature, an estate tax filing need only be made if the value of an estate exceeds the following amounts:

2005: First $1,500,000 in assets
2006-2008: First $2,000,000 in assets
2009: First $3,500,000 in assets

In addition, the maximum estate tax rate applied to the amounts in excess of these figures are as follows:

2005: 47 percent
2006: 46 percent
2007- 2009: 45 percent

In 2010, the estate tax rate drops to zero percent; if you die in that year, your heirs would not pay taxes, even if you passed on $20 billion!

Of course you know how the Democrats are going to portray this as some sort of win for the average American. All this is designed to do is make sure that San Fran Nan has plenty of money for her flower budget.

"This bill is good for small businesses, good for farmers and good for our nation's families, providing them with some certainty and stability during uncertain times," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat.

She said the bill restored "fundamental fairness" to the tax code and did so adhering to Democrats' pledge that Congress would "pay as you go" for new spending measures.

There we see the Dems favorite word, "fairness" again and if by good for small business and farmers you mean it will drive them right into the poor house and stifle anybody from wanting to start a new business, then yeah it is good.

Pelosi World: Tax Increases Now 'Expiring Tax Decreases'

Only in the bizarre world of Nancy Pelosi and far-left Democrats can they become so creative with the English language. Since Pelosi and her merry band of spenders so love taxes but realize tax hikes are anathema to the American public, the Queen yesterday entered the land of make believe.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is having lunch with President Barack Obama at the White House today. Passing a health-care bill isn't the only thing on their plate. So is the economy.

And tax increases -- or, as the speaker calls the repeal of the Bush-era tax cuts -- expiring tax decreases. "We can't afford those'' cuts, Pelosi says. "We never could.''

We afforded them quite nicely, thanks to President Bush. Soon we'll be paying more in taxes, but we just have to suck it up and pretend it's a decrease. I guess since the amount of money we get to keep for our work will decrease, you can say her statement has some truthiness to it.

Pelosi is also suffering from some awful delusions.

"The recovery package that we passed later in January, under President Obama, has had positive results,'' the speaker said. "It has created or saved one million jobs..

Huh? By most estimates we've seen three million jobs disappear since Obama's coronation. How can anyone with a straight face claim something like this?

"But more must be done. It's not enough to say we saved jobs,'' Pelosi said. " And-- we haven't created enough. And that's why we have to look at the tax code. And-- other remedies that are there for us in the short term.''

Transcript here.

Spin This, Obama: Taxpayers Face Heavy Losses on Auto Bailout

Maybe The Great Orator can preface his 113th speech on health care tonight by explaining how we're all going to see the economic benefits, especially when confronted by this wonderful news.

Taxpayers face losses on a significant portion of the $81 billion in government aid provided to the auto industry, an oversight panel said in a report to be released Wednesday.

The Congressional Oversight Panel did not provide an estimate of the projected loss in its latest monthly report on the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. But it said most of the $23 billion initially provided to General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC late last year is unlikely to be repaid.

"I think they drove a very hard bargain," said Elizabeth Warren, the panel's chairwoman and a law professor at Harvard University, referring to the Obama administration's Treasury Department. "But it may not be enough."

The prospect of recovering the government's assistance to GM and Chrysler is heavily dependent on shares of the two companies rising to unprecedented levels, the report said. The government owns 10 percent of Chrysler and 61 percent of GM. The two companies are currently private but are expected to issue stock, in GM's case by next year.

The shares "will have to appreciate sharply" for taxpayers to get their money back, the report said.

Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, support for ObamaCare continues to tank.

Public disapproval of President Barack Obama's handling of health care has jumped to 52 percent, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll released hours before he makes his case for overhaul in a prime-time address to Congress.

With his health revamp moving slowly and unemployment edging ever higher, Obama's overall approval rating has also suffered a blow. The survey showed that 49 percent now disapprove of how he is handling his job as president, up from 42 percent who disapproved in July.

The grade people give Obama on health care also has worsened since July, when just 43 percent disapproved of his work on the issue.

Unemployment is edging higher? If Bush were still around, that would read skyrocketing.

Genius President Plans to Take Failed Local Proposal National

You almost have the admire the gumption and determination of the left. They never let failure get in the way of pursuing even more failure. Be it the failed war on poverty, the failing public school system, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, you name it, they never admit the actual failure and just look to grab more of your money to spread the misery and failure around.

Latest case in point is Barack Obama sneakily floating the idea of a 'sin tax' on soda, a proposal met with such resounding resistance in New York it nearly torpedoed David Paterson's political future all by itself. Naturally, it's for the children but let's face it, if parents are in any way responsible for their children, and it's safe to say most still are, then we can do just fine regulating what the kids are drinking.

Just another Democrat scheme to wring money out of taxpayers for Obama's pie-in-the-sky socialized medicine scheme is all this amounts to.

Gov. Paterson's proposal to tax soda in New York fizzled, but President Obama believes it may be time to pop a similar sin tax on the nation.

The President, in an interview with Men's Health magazine released yesterday, said he thought taxing soda and other sugary drinks is worth putting on the table as Congress debates health care reform.

"It's an idea that we should be exploring," the president said. "There's no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda. And every study that's been done about obesity shows that there is as high a correlation between increased soda consumption and obesity as just about anything else."

Obama is floating the idea seven months after a storm of protest forced poll-challenged Gov. Paterson to drop his plans for an 18% tax on soda and other sugary drinks.

Despite that debacle, congressional lawmakers have considered soda taxes as one way to cover the cost of revamping the nation's health care system, estimated to eat up much as $1 trillion over the next decade.

But Obama - who works out six days a week and keeps a bowl of apples in the Oval Office - has been largely mum on the controversial topic, at least until now.

As in Paterson's case, Obama's comments drew the immediate wrath of industry and consumer-choice groups yesterday.

"The tax code should not be used as a method for social engineering, and that's what this is," said J. Justin Wilson, the senior research analyst for the Center for Consumer Freedom, a group funded in part by the food and beverage industry. "It smacks of the regulation that government imposed on tobacco, but soda is not tobacco."

Another Failed Obama, er British Plan

Are any of the liberal Democrats listening or paying attention to the news coming out of Europe, and more specifically England in regards to what happens when you keep raising taxes?

We have all heard all the stories coming from the country once known as Great Britain regarding the debate over government control of the healthcare system but I don't think much attention is being paid to all of the other news from across the Big Pond regarding financial matters.

Today's entry in that list of warning signs that we really ought to pay attention to but aren't, is about American expats who are now fleeing England and returning home due to the rising tax rates. Where will they go when they find out the tax rate here, if the Democrats have their way, will soon make those tax rates seem like small potatos?

Americans are heading home as Britain plans a 50 percent tax rate for those who earn more than 150,000 pounds ($248,000) a year and employers cut benefits for workers living abroad, reducing the allure of London. That comes a year after the U.K. said foreigners who have lived in the country for more than seven years must pay 30,000 pounds annually or give up the special status that shields overseas income from British taxes.

Anybody else get a sort of deja vu feeling when they see the amounts quoted? Do you sometimes think that the only thing Barry O is doing is looking at policies imposed in England, which have mostly failed, and proposing them here and trying to claim them as original or his own?

That $250,000 amount sure seems to be some sort of magic number.

The Incredible Shrinking Democrats

Is it any wonder Barack Obama is reduced to conference calls with extremist bloggers? The public is tired of him already. Just wait until we get to the 2010 midterms and we have a national referendum on him, Reid and Pelosi. It could get ugly.

Trust in President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies to identify the right solutions to problems facing the country has dropped off significantly since March, according to a new Public Strategies Inc./POLITICO poll.

Just as Obama intensifies his efforts to fulfill a campaign promise and reach an agreement with Congress on health care reform, the number of Americans who say they trust the president has fallen from 66 percent to 54 percent. At the same time, the percentage of those who say they do not trust the president has jumped from 31 to 42.

The president’s party has taken a similar hit since the last Public Trust Monitor poll, with only 42 percent of respondents saying that they trust the Democratic Party, compared with 52 percent who do not. The party’s numbers are nearly the inverse of March’s survey, in which 52 percent said they trusted Democrats and 42 percent did not.

Meanwhile, in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania, Governor Ed Rendell has dropped to his lowest approval ever, according to a Quinnipiac poll.

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell's job approval rating has shrunk to its lowest level ever, 39 - 53 percent negative, and voters see him as most responsible for the state's budget mess. Voters also reject 63 - 33 percent the Governor's call to raise the state income tax temporarily to balance the budget, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

A total of 90 percent of Pennsylvania voters think the inability of the Governor and State Legislature to come up with a budget by the June 30 deadline is a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem, the independent Quinnipiac University poll finds.

Two things can be learned from these numbers: Democrats cannot resist calling for more taxes and the public is sick of being taxed to death.

May the Democrats proceed with more taxes at their own peril. They can't say they haven't been warned.

Some call this behavior suicidal.

Cap and Trade: Largest Tax Increase in World History

While you're all being bamboozled by Barack Obama's lastest follies, keep in mind you're about to be whacked with the biggest tax hike ever. Be sure to send thanks to the ugliest man ever, Henry Waxman. That's if you can afford to send a thank you once this boondoggle hits home.

THE House votes this week on the American Clean Energy and Security Act -- which claims to be about slowing global warming, but in fact is a massive tax hike that would vastly expand the federal government's power over the economy.

Indeed, the Waxman-Markey bill (as it's commonly called, after its two chief sponsors) would be the largest tax increase in world history, as well as transfer vast wealth from consumers to big-business special interests.

And it would put Washington in charge of people's lives in a way not seen since the Second World War -- which was the last time Americans needed ration coupons to buy gasoline, food and other commodities.

The core of the complex 1,201-page bill is what's called a "cap and trade" system. This would put a cap or limit on greenhouse-gas emissions -- mainly on carbon dioxide produced by burning coal, oil and natural gas, three fuels that provide more than 80 percent of America's energy. And the law lowers the cap every few years -- ordering emissions to drop 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent below by 2050.

The "trade" part of the scheme would let companies buy and sell the government-issued ration coupons. Thus, a business closing down a factory and moving overseas could sell its no-longer-needed coupons to a firm that's still trying to stay in business.

Cap-and-trade backers tell us that it's a reasonable, effective way of replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources and higher energy efficiency. But it's proving anything but reasonable or effective in the European Union, which started a similar scheme several years ago. The prices of ration coupons have fluctuated wildly, electric rates have risen steeply and emissions haven't gone down (at least not until businesses began curtailing production in this recession).

But even if it produced the promised results, cap-and-trade wouldn't be worth it.

For starters, the bill's sneaky, indirect tax is still a tax -- and a huge one. This would vastly increase fossil-fuel prices -- which would make greens happy by making higher-priced alternatives such as wind power competitive, but would make Americans as a whole miserable, by forcing us to use less energy and pay much more for it.

Realize, too, that almost every recession of the last 60 years, including today's mess, has followed a sharp rise in energy prices. Why would we want lawmakers to mandate a recession?

Understandably, Waxman-Markey's supporters pretend the bill's impact won't be too severe. But independent economic studies have estimated the costs from $1,500 to more than $3,000 per year for the average family.

Keep in mind that's on the low end, to be kind. Expect your tab to be at least double that number.

Obama Appoints Another Tax Cheat

Ah, to be one of the beautiful people. Avoid paying taxes for two years, offer up some mealy-mouthed excuses and presto, you get a cushy State Department job from Barack Obama.

John Edwards was right. There are two Americas. One for the regular schlubs out there who obey the law and another for Obama and his crew of tax cheats.

President Obama’s choice as chief of protocol for the State Department, a position that carries the status of an ambassadorship, did not file tax returns for 2005 and 2006, errors she corrected last November.

The nominee, Capricia Penavic Marshall, has placed blame for the problem on the Postal Service and on miscommunication between her husband and their accountant.

Lame. Why not just say the dog ate them?

Ms. Marshall, who was the social secretary in the Clinton White House, notified the Obama administration about the late filings before she was nominated on May 14. She has since provided written answers to questions about the matter from Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, which will hold a hearing on the appointment next Wednesday. The post requires Senate confirmation.

Tax issues have bedeviled several high-level Obama appointees and cost the administration at least two of its picks.

Ms. Marshall may fare better because, after ultimately filing the 2005 and 2006 federal and local paperwork, she was entitled to $37,259 in refunds, according to data she provided to Mr. Lugar.

Just imagine a Republican appointee trying to get away with this.

Instapundit links. Thanks!

Ed Morrissey also weighs in.

Famous Obama Fan Plans to Move Jobs Overseas

He was all for the porkulus plan back in December. However, now his company is looking to move jobs overseas is they're going to get whacked by more taxes.

Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said the world’s largest software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Barack Obama’s plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies’ foreign profits.

“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,” Ballmer said in an interview. “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S.”

Obama on May 4 proposed outlawing or restricting about $190 billion in tax breaks for offshore companies over the next decade. Such business groups as the National Foreign Trade Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable have denounced the proposed overhaul.

U.S. tax rules let companies defer paying corporate rates as high as 35 percent on most types of foreign profits as long as that money remains invested overseas. Obama says he wants to end such incentives to keep foreign profits tax-deferred so that companies would invest them in the U.S.

Microsoft reported an overall effective tax rate of 26 percent for 2008 in its last annual report. “Our effective tax rates are less than the statutory tax rate due to foreign earnings taxed at lower rates,” the report said.

Speaking of disappearing jobs, the unemployment rate is now up to 9.4%. I guess those lofty claims from Barack Obama about saving jobs was BS.

Great News! Obama Now Wants to Tax Your Health Benefits

Hmm, I distinctly recall him excoriating John McCain during the campaign over such a suggestion.

"For the first time in American history, he wants to tax your health benefits," Obama said in September. "Apparently, Senator McCain doesn't think it's enough that your health premiums have doubled. He thinks you should have to pay taxes on them, too."

Well, now that he basically raped our economy and nationalized a good chunk of the auto industry while we've lost well over a million jobs, he wants to tax your health benefits.

Change!

President Barack Obama is leaving the door open to taxing health care benefits, something he campaigned hard against while running for president, according to senators who met with him Tuesday.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., raised the issue with Obama during a private meeting with the president and other Democratic senators and later reported the president's position: "It's on the table. It's an option."

They quickly backtracked, but honesty, can you believe a work these people say?

I didn't think so.

Baucus wants to look at limiting — but not entirely eliminating — the tax-free status of employer-provided health benefits.

"It was not in our plan, it was not in our budget," White House budget director Peter Orszag said earlier Tuesday. "We are saying we want the legislative process to play out, and that's all we have to say on that right now."

Obama is leaving the details of crafting a health care bill to Congress and used Tuesday's meeting to urge senators to swift action.

Swift action. In other words, before anyone realizes a freight train has just run them over.

We are in deep, folks. If this doesn't wake up the suckers who voted for Obama, nothing will.

It's About Time: A Comprehensive Plan to Tax the Poor

Dude, where's my tax cut?

If you're one of the gullible Obama supporters who's been asking that question, well, you're not only not getting one, but plans are in the works to tax everything you buy.

Suckers.

With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.

Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax -- called a value-added tax, or VAT -- has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.

How about not spending us into a fiscal calamity? Has that thought occurred to any of the geniuses in Washington? We're facing trillion dollar deficits and we're going to pile on a trillion-dollar-plus health care scam.

Good luck with that.

"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."

Yeah, I guess just piling more taxes on us is considered fairness.

Of course we could just have a flat tax, but that would just be too simple for the solons in DC. Funny, but it sure seems to me the so-called progressives are awfully regressive.

A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.

Liberals dispute that notion. "You could pay for it regressively and have people at the bottom come out better off -- maybe. Or you could pay for it progressively and they'd come out a lot better off," said Bob McIntyre, director of the nonprofit Citizens for Tax Justice, which has a health financing plan that targets corporations and the rich.

Whenever you see something called tax justice, run and hide.

The left will argue this is the magic elixir to fund all their socialist programs but it will never be offset by tax reductions elsewhere, no matter what they tell you. The greed in Washington is just too great.

And in a paper published last month in the Virginia Tax Review, Burman suggests that a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor.

The problem there is the "rich" will still be demonized that they're not paying their "fair share" and the money will be frittered away, leaving us in the same bind we're currently in. So we'd just come full circle: paying even more federal, state, local and property tax while forking over another 10% minimum on every purchase. It's not the road to fiscal ruin, it's the expressway.

Lined with tolls, of course.

Virgin Tax?

And you thought being taxed on cigarettes and soda was bad. I have joked before about how if we ever got around to taxing prostitution we could probably wipe out the debt in no time, but in Germany they do. They tax it at 50%. That nice girl who sold her virginity on line may be on the hook to pay German taxes even though she is from Romania but living in Germany on a student visa.

The teenage student who sold her virginity for $13,827 could have to hand over half of her earnings to the taxman.

German inland revenue investigators are studying reports that Alina Percea, 18, was paid in cash for a weekend of sex with a middle-aged Italian businessman after auctioning her virginity online.

Prostitution is legal in Germany — where Alina studies — but hookers are taxed at 50 percent of their earnings.

Can't wait until CA and NY implement this plan. CA may have a problem when it comes to figuring out how to tax the Hollywood crowd though.

Great News: Beer Tax Floated To Pay For Obama's Healthcare Scam

First they came for the beer drinkers...

Joe Six-Pack may have to hand over nearly $2 more for a case of beer to help provide health insurance for all.

Details of the proposed beer tax are described in a Senate Finance Committee document distributed to lawmakers before a closed-door meeting Wednesday. Senators are focusing on how to pay for expanding health insurance for an estimated 50 million uninsured Americans, a cost that could range to some $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

You can't raise that from beer money alone.

Then they came for the wine drinkers...

Taxes on wine and hard liquor would also go up.

Then they came for the soda drinkers...

And there might be a new tax on soda and other sugary drinks blamed for contributing to obesity. A tax of 3 cents per 12-ounce drink would raise about $50 billion over 10 years, according to congressional estimates. Diet drinks, however, wouldn't be taxed.

Will there be a special tax on waffles, arugula and wagyu beef?

Naturally, this will just cost more jobs during the Obama Recession.

The soft drink industry and beer and wine producers are already lobbying to stop the proposals before they gain traction. The tax increases would lead to job losses for workers and higher costs for recession weary consumers, say the industries. Wine makers are also pointing to studies that suggest a glass a day can be good for health.

"Singling out wine for higher taxes to reform health care is misguided because wine is part of a healthy diet and lifestyle for millions of Americans," said Robert P. Koch, president of the Wine Institute, which represents California's industry.

Under the proposal lawmakers are considering, beer taxes would be increased by 48 cents a six-pack, from the current 33 cents. Beer is still the favorite choice of Americans who drink alcohol.

Adios, New York

Why Tom Golisano fled New York. Instead of listening to him, the state will go out of their way to punish him and those unfortunate enough to be left behind.

Upstate New York has been particularly hard hit. Add unreasonable real-estate taxes to uncontrolled state spending, and you wind up with whole communities decimated. An unworkable assessment process compounds the problem further. The result: Fifteen of the 20 highest-taxed counties in America are right here in Upstate New York. While homeowners in other areas build equity, we just pay more taxes.

This problem didn't begin with the current recession. New York faced a $6 billion shortfall before the economic downturn. However, in the face of economic turmoil, Gov. Paterson, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith looked to the unions and special interests, who answered with one voice: raise taxes.

That was irresponsible -- and may just prove to be counterproductive, since the top 1 percent of earners account for about 50 percent of state revenue and are the ones who can and will leave.

Among other hikes in taxes and fees, they raised the marginal tax rate on the most successful (and most mobile) New Yorkers to 8.97 percent, the second-highest rate in the nation.

Bottom line? By domiciling in Florida, which has no personal-income tax, I will save $13,800 every day. That's a pretty strong incentive.

Like I said, I love New York. But I'm not going to pay any more for the waste, corruption and inefficiency that is New York state government.

Countless thousands will be following him.

California Rejects Massive Tax Increases: 'The Biggest Loser Would Be Arnold'

Terminated

It's a shame we can't put King Obama's massive tax increases on a ballot measure. Well, we always have the 2010 midterms. He can't say he hasn't been warned.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wanted to permanently fix California's "broken budget system." But three times now he has tried and failed to smooth out the state's roller coaster revenues.

Voters on Tuesday resoundingly rejected his latest effort, a package of budget-balancing measures that he promised would provide a short-term patch for the current financial crisis and prevent further catastrophe in the future.

Instead, he now faces a $21.3 billion budget deficit and a budget system that has not changed a bit since he took office nearly six years ago.

"I think he's discovered that this job is a lot harder than he anticipated in a state of economic downturn," Treasurer Bill Lockyer said Tuesday of the governor who came into office in 2003 promising to "end the crazy deficit spending."

The Republican governor faces another tough round of budget negotiations after months spent haggling with lawmakers to close the state's first budget shortfall, which was initially $42 billion through June 2010.

Schwarzenegger will be forced to spend much of his final year-and-a-half in office struggling with the same financial woes that led to the recall of his predecessor instead of enacting the sweeping policy changes he once envisioned.

"The biggest loser would be Arnold," said Dave McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University. "It's time to start looking for a cabinet post in the Obama administration or an ambassadorship someplace warm."

Ouch.

The measure lost in every county in the state and at last count was defeated by 65.8%-34.2%.

The message? Even a very blue state like California doesn't like taxes.

Perhaps the national GOP can fashion a message off of these results.

Is it any wonder Schwarzenegger was hanging out in DC with his new pal Obama instead of remaining in California?

Afterward, the lawmakers appeared split over the idea of a federal backstop for state borrowing, said Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Gold River). And some saw irony in Schwarzenegger's appearance in Washington while voters decided the fate of his ballot package back home.

"If the governor thought that the initiatives were going to win a smashing victory, he'd be in California right now," said Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks).