The release of the mid-year budget review from the White House has been delayed.  It really comes as no surprise anymore that the Obama team meant “transparency for thee but not for me.”

As a democrat, it’s ok to harp about Republicans, scream, and whine when you feel as though they aren’t being transparent enough.  Then campaign on empty slogans of hope and change, but once in office do nothing of the sort.  As they say to the victor goes the spoils and in this scenario, the spoils include hypocrisy and a lack of information disseminated to the American public. 

The White House said Monday it was delaying the release of the annual midsummer US budget update, but refuted suggestions it was trying to put distance between its own optimistic predictions and the sour state of today’s economy.

“Because of the unique circumstances of a transition year, we are — like President George W. Bush in 2001 — releasing the Mid-Session Review a few weeks later than as is usual in non-transition years,” said Kenneth Baer, communications director for the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

When all else fails, as this administration has demonstrated, play the victim and take no responsibility for your actions.  The greatest leadership characteristic is finger pointing…/sarc.

Funny, I thought that Obama was going to stop using old Bush policies and was going to create “change we could believe in?”  Seems like those old Bush policies are convenient when he needs to get away with something, such as bad budget numbers/forecasts from his office.

The White House has run so far over budget in only the first half of the year, that they would prefer this report was covered up and never released.

The report is traditionally published in mid-July. This year’s version is expected to include massive deficit projections as the administration of President Barack Obama stewards a costly overhaul of the US healthcare system.

The CBO is projecting a $1.9T budget deficit, but that’s not exactly accurate.  The accurate approximation is a $4T deficit – which is unprecedented in this nation’s history.

Share on Facebook

Cash for clunkers sounds like a great idea.  It seems so simplistic:  I get money for turning in my old car.  However, there is much more to this than meets the eye.

Cash for clunkers is another brilliant liberal idea, and by brilliant, I mean brain dead.

Liberals say that if you trade in your old used car, you will receive $4.5K for a new one.  It can’t be the basic if it comes out of D.C., so why isn’t the media challenging this piece of legislation?  We all know the answer to that one…ask ABC.

There are numerous downsides to this bill:

- If dealers anticipate a rebate for a trade in, they will only increase their base price for the car to make up for it.

-People drive old cars because they cannot afford new ones so how will $4.5K actually help?  The down payments that many banks are asking for are much higher due to risk and tighter lending practices.  The monthly payments are also tough to meet if you are of low income status.  I just bought a new Mini Cooper and have a great credit/beacon score… but because I couldn’t put down $15K on the spot, I couldn’t get a bank loan.  I had to settle for the higher rate at the BMW dealership.

-This will also increase the cost of used cars.  If more people are trying to purchase new cars, then used car dealerships will suffer and will be forced to raise their prices to make a profit, rather than make a profit from volume of sales.  In essence, this will hurt the lower middle class and the poor – the very people he professes to help.

-Charities will be negatively affected by this law.  There are over 350K charities that are used car donors.  These charities will see a direct decrease in donations if people believe they are getting a kick-back.  These charities will have to cut staff and operations, causing more unemployment and fewer used cars for those who really need them.

-The proposed cost of this law would be $4B.  This is another “government pays” bill.  Therefore, one would think that maybe this is another bill that is circular… The Government will tax you to help pay for your car… why not just pay for it yourself then?  All estimates that come out of the government are conservative at best; therefore, you can and should always take on another 50% to the original value.

-Other industries may suffer if there are consumer shifts.  Priorities of consumers will shift based on whether they think they are getting a better deal.  If cars go up something else will inevitably go down.

-The fact that the Democrats are global warming alarmists happens to be another excuse they will use.  They will exclaim that used cars cause more pollution… I don’t believe that in the slightest, so I won’t even touch on it.  There is still plenty we do not know about hybrids and whether or not they truly are as effective as people would like to believe.  I also do not believe in the hoax or the hype – ’nuff said.  Personally, my Mini Cooper’s gas mileage goes up as it gets older…just sayin’

-This is another pay-to-play scheme to pay off the $400M campaign donations given to Democrats and Obama by the UAW.  If old cars are scrapped, new cars will have to be manufactured and purchased and more money into the pockets of the UAW.

This type of legislation has been tried before, in another country no less:

Germany has used a similar program for a few months, and of course it has actually cost at least three times more than government “estimates.” More than this, studies of the German experience have shown it has largely led to a mere shift of spending priorities. Consumer electronics sales fell in ratio to automobile spending meaning there has been no net gain for Germany’s economy.

It is so interesting and disturbing how Obama and the Democrats have gone after charities and small business.  Charities have been attacked on both the stimulus front, the taxable deductions front, and now this idea for clunkers.  A study showed that conservatives give more to charity than any other ideological group, because they do so through their churches.  These churches are involved in many charities across the nation and it’s quite disheartening to see the Liberals be so antipathetic towards religious movements.

Obama and the Democrats are hell-bent on making people so dependent on the government, and only the government, that they will soon need to get their diapers changed by them too.  This is insanity!

Share on Facebook

Obama and the Democrats continue to spend taxpayer money and rack up our debt.  The House panel, last night, passed the supplemental war bill worth more than $106 billion.  The supplemental bill includes funds not just for the two wars we are currently fighting, but also for foreign aid, car rebates, and the Flu.  The bill passed by a very narrow margin 226 – 202, with an almost united opposition from Republicans.  If foreign aid caught your eye, then you were paying attention.  Obama and the Democrats were sneaky and stuck several billion dollars worth of IMF funds to bailout foreign banks; as if AIG wasn’t enough.  Republicans were strongly opposed to another bailout, especially in a war supplemental.

I guess we are supposed to feel sympathetic to Obama’s lack of sleep due to the deficit?  Pardon me for saying so, but I couldn’t care less.  He continues to sign these bills and propose legislation/policies which all require massive amounts of government funding.  My sympathies are also few and far between because I too have not been sleeping.  I’m actually up every night researching and writing to attempt to stay on top of the latest news items and stay abreast of all the crazy things this administration is doing.  If possible I’d like to record every time Obama tramples on the constitution… Needless to say, that’s a lot of sleepless nights.

One of Obama’s agenda items is his health-care plan which is a deceitful little gem…passed off as a competitive option to private industry, when intelligent individuals who have contracted with the government already know, anything that competes with the government loses.

His health-care plan is therefore a farce and it will require individuals who work for a living and pay taxes, to pay for those who do not.  It’s another entitlement program that will raise taxes and put a massive burden on all Americans.

Senate sources say the latest cost estimates for health care legislation are around $1.6 trillion over 10 years. Two Senate staffers, one Democratic and one Republican, said Congressional Budget Office estimates put the cost of the Finance Committee version of the bill at around $1.6 trillion.

Even with all the spending, Obama truly believes we will have economic growth:

President Barack Obama said he is “confident” that he won’t have to raise taxes on most Americans to close the budget deficit as long as the economy picks up steam.

“One of the biggest variables in this whole thing is economic growth,” the president said in an interview with Bloomberg News at the White House. “If we are growing at a robust rate, then we can pay for the government that we need without having to raise taxes.”

Obama has repeatedly said he would keep his campaign pledge to cut taxes for 95 percent of working Americans while rolling back tax breaks for households making more than $250,000 a year.

“I’m confident that we don’t have to raise taxes on ordinary working families,” he said.

But he already has.  He raised taxes on cigarettes, a product that most lower income households consume.  Food products, and other goods have also had taxes tacked onto them.  Obama’s plan may not be to outright raise taxes, but they are already hiding them in miscellaneous goods. Obama’s health-care plan also paints an entirely different story, requiring $600 billion in new taxes to fund
the program. I’m not sure if Obama is completely deluded, a great liar, or both.

The fact that Obama believes that we will have incredible amounts of economic growth, when Forbes and others have already compiled a list and conducted studies on future GDP growth for those countries with a moderate to larger sized economies – proving that the United States and the United Kingdom would be two of the most repressed/stagnant, is just ludicrous.  Obama recently told Bloomberg that he expected the unemployment rate to go to 10%, and although it is a lagging economic indicator, you cannot expect an unemployment rate to go back down to below 4% in 6 months when it took almost 18 to get there.  Roubini also doesn’t believe that the unemployment rate will stop at 10% but rather upwards to 11% by year end.  Roubini also predicts that we could see another recession in the future if the proper actions are taken by the government and the Federal Reserve.  I have absolutely no confidence in either entity and Roubini fears that if the correct actions are taken now, we could wind up in an inflationary crisis over the next couple of years – of which I believe to be inevitable.

How’s that Hope and Change working out for ya?

Share on Facebook

So let me get this straight, Pres. Obama wants to introduce a government-run health insurance program that would compete with private insurers? Is this because the government did such a great job competing with private mortgage lenders? Are we not in this economic debacle because of Fannie and Freddie?

Obama thinks we spend too much on health insurance and get little in return. How is throwing more government involvement in the private sector going to help? How exactly does he plan on paying for this? Ok he’d like to cut federal payments to hospitals ($200 billion) take another $313 billion from the government run health programs Medicare and Medicaid. Good idea, take from the elderly and spread it around (sarc).

According to Fox News:

“The president has said, ‘These are the kinds of goals I’m after: lowering costs, covering all Americans, higher-quality care.’ And around those goals, there are lots of ways to get there.”

Lowering costs, this is insane! To make up for lowering costs and the cost of the government-run insurance plan itself, he’s going to have to find a way to further tax the American people. How is this saving the people money? Guess what, it will not save us any money and it will cost us royally in the end.

According to Rasmussen today:

“Just 32% of Americans believe that the addition of a public sector insurance option would reduce the cost of health care. Forty percent (40%) say it would not. Sixty-three percent (63%) say it’s likely that a government insurance company would lose money and require taxpayer subsidies. Just 20% say that’s not likely. Forty-nine percent (49%) of Americans believe private insurance companies will provide better service and more choice than the government option. Thirty-four percent (34%) hold the opposite view.”

But let’s not forget, Vice President Biden says it all here, “it’s up to Congress to pin down the details on how to pay for them. They’re either going to have to agree with us, come up with an alternative, or we’re not going to have health care,” Biden said on NBC television. “And we’re going to get health care.” Game over according to Biden despite what “The People” have to say about it!

NOTE: For more information and to take action against the health care plan go to: http://www.saveourcountrynow.net/forums/viewforum.php?f=89

Share on Facebook

As Michele Bachmann points out the devil is in the details:

What the Administration would like for you to think is that by enacting this policy, Washington wouldn’t be able to spend a dollar unless they save a dollar and the national debt would cease to swell as it has these past several months.

However, this is really a charade – and the details tell the story. First of all, this PAYGO has no impact whatsoever on entitlement spending — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which make up a very sizable portion of the budget.  They’d continue to grow on autopilot.  In fact, even if this PAYGO were fully enforced, entitlement spending would continue to grow 6% a year without offsets.

Second, this PAYGO includes an enormous $3.5 trillion loophole.  The President’s proposal specifically exempts a wide array of expensive policies.  Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget remarked that, “This is like quitting drinking, but making an exception for beer and hard liquor.” And, Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee has criticized the plan, adding, “I’m not for waiving PAYGO for $3.5 trillion of items, much of which I think ought to be paid for.”

And more from the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Obama must think the press and public are dumb enough to buy it, because there he was Tuesday re-selling the same “paygo” promises that Democrats roll out every election. Paygo is “very simple,” the President claimed. “Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere.”

WSJ, Obama and the politburo have no respect for middle America, of course they think we are stupid!

That’s what Democrats also promised in 2006, with Nancy Pelosi vowing that “the first thing” House Democrats would do if they took Congress was reimpose paygo rules that “Republicans had let lapse.” By 2008, Speaker Pelosi had let those rules lapse no fewer than 12 times, to make way for $400 billion in deficit spending. Mr. Obama repeated the paygo pledge during his 2008 campaign, and instead we have witnessed the greatest peacetime spending binge in U.S. history. As a share of GDP, spending will hit an astonishing 28.5% in fiscal 2009, with the deficit hitting 13% and projected to stay at 4% to 5% for years to come.

Nancy Pelosi strikes me as the fiscally responsible type, the type that really cares what happens with taxpayer money.  Well, I guess she does care, but that’s only when it’s used to pay for her botox injections and her flights back and forth to San Fran. in military aircraft.

The truth is that paygo is the kind of budget gimmick that gives gimmickry a bad name. As Mr. Obama knows but won’t tell voters, paygo only applies to new or expanded entitlement programs, not to existing programs such as Medicare, this year growing at a 9.2% annual rate. Nor does paygo apply to discretionary spending, set to hit $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2010, or 40% of the budget.

Does this not provide incentive to the government to create more entitlements to try and prove that PayGo was put to good use?  New entitlements on top of too many old entitlements…

This loophole matters, because on the very day Mr. Obama was hailing paygo the House Appropriations Committee was gleefully approving a 12% increase in 2010 nondefense discretionary spending, the third year running that Democrats have proposed double-digit increases. Or consider that the 2010 budget resolution included a $2 billion increase for low-income heating assistance as an entitlement change that should be subject to paygo. But Congressional Democrats simply classified it as discretionary spending, thereby avoiding the need for $2 billion in cuts elsewhere. C’est-la-paygo.

Mr. Obama’s new proposal includes even more loopholes. There’s an exception for Congress’s annual alternative-minimum tax “patch,” which is worth at least $576 billion over 10 years; for any of the Bush tax cuts that Mr. Obama decides he wants to extend past 2010; and to protect against planned cuts in Medicare doctor payments. These carve-outs alone spare Democrats from having to come up with some $2.5 trillion in spending cuts or new taxes. To add insult to profligacy, the rules also allow the Administration to run huge early deficits for its looming health-care bonanza, and only pay for it later — say, after 2012.

The President also revived the myth that paygo was somehow responsible for eliminating budget deficits during the Clinton years. In fact, that brief era of balanced budgets was due to: mid-decade spending reductions by a GOP Congress elected on a balanced-budget pledge; an excessive cut in defense spending to 3% from 5% of GOP across the decade; and an unsustainable revenue boom due to the dot-com bubble. But harking back to the 1990s lets Mr. Obama avoid having to defend his own spending record.

The real game here is that the President is trying to give Democrats in Congress political cover for the health-care blowout and tax-increase votes that he knows are coming. The polls are showing that Mr. Obama’s spending plans are far less popular than the President himself, and Democrats in swing districts are getting nervous. The paygo ruse gives Blue Dog Democrats cover to say they voted for “fiscal discipline,” even as they vote to pass the greatest entitlement expansion in modern history. The Blue Dogs always play this double game.

Ahhh yes, more Kabuki theater, as Michelle Malkin so succinctly puts it.

The other goal of this new paygo campaign is to make it easier to raise taxes in 2011, and impossible to cut taxes for years after that. In the near term, paygo gives Mr. Obama another excuse to let the Bush tax cuts he dislikes expire after 2010, while exempting those (for lower-income voters) that he likes. In the longer term, if a GOP Congress or President ever want to cut taxes, paygo applies a straitjacket that pits those tax cuts against, say, spending cuts in Medicare. The Reagan tax reductions would never have happened under paygo.

We are so Scr—d!  It’s like a game of chess they are playing – no concern for the country, just for their own political interests.  If Obama is ousted in 2012 it makes it that much harder for the incoming administration to resolve the mess he created.

Share on Facebook

Uh Oh!  Could this be the moment of reckoning for the Democrats?  Jack Murtha and Steny Hoyer may both be in the lime light in the coming days.

The Democrat Culture of Corruption Continues:

First, it was discovered that Murtha moved an earmark over $8 million between his brothers’ clients.  Nepotism and corruption much?  That’s sure to stimulate the economy and doesn’t remind me at all of what dictators did when given money.  No dictator I read about would ever take money and give it to his family members or their businesses to line their pockets rather than provide for the betterment of his/her constituents/sarc.

In early 2005, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) apparently added language to a tsunami relief bill shifting $8.2 million from a former client of his brother’s lobbying firm to a new client of the same firm.

That earmark is now tangled up in a federal indictment alleging that some of the money was skimmed by contractors and a Defense Department employee for their personal use.

Murtha’s spokesman said that no one in his office has any recollection of the transaction, and the House Appropriations Committee was unable to provide any information about how the language appeared in the tsunami relief bill.

Of course they knew nothing about it – seems like this is the norm coming from Washington, D.C. these days – I don’t think they know much of anything, in fact scratch that, they don’t know anything.

But sources familiar with the appropriations process agreed it was impossible that a provision removing earmarks from one company in Murtha’s district and transferring the money to another company in his district could have been added to the bill without Murtha’s involvement, since he was at the time the ranking member on the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the language.

The provision appears in the House committee report of a March 2005 bill providing billions of dollars worth of military spending and aid to the Asian countries that were devastated by the December 2004 tsunami that killed more than 250,000 people.

The bill included a “technical corrections” section, which transferred $8.2 million to “other procurement, Air Force” for a project called the “mobile common data link gateway.” This project — later called the “ground mobile gateway” — was an effort to build a unified battlefield communications platform for the Air Force by a Pennsylvania company called Coherent Systems.

Read roll call for the fully story and timeline of this corruption…

Steny Hoyer (D-MD) is also being pressured into complying with the federal probe into PMA and their long ties with top/senior Democrat officials.  One of which was the aforementioned Murtha who probably has the most ties – I think this may be Murtha’s last stand!

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) plans to offer as early as Wednesday afternoon a privileged resolution to force the ethics committee to disclose whether it is investigating senior Democratic appropriators’ ties to the PMA Group, Democratic sources say.

Hoyer’s move follows eight attempts by Republican anti-earmark crusader Rep. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) to jump-start a probe — and aims to pre-empt Flake’s ninth stab at the issue, which was due for a vote on Thursday. It marks a sharp break from Democratic leaders’ previous approach to the burgeoning controversy involving the now-defunct lobbying firm, which amounted to them trying to keep their ranks in line opposing the Flake resolutions.

In late winter, when Flake began his assault, Hoyer argued in leadership meetings that Democrats should embrace the resolution to neutralize it.

But Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pushed back, contending that such a move would open lawmakers up to ethics witch-hunts down the line. Since then, Democrats have slowly peeled off to support Flake: While only 17 broke ranks on his first attempt, 29 supported his latest, offered just before the Memorial Day recess.

The move comes just after Rep. Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.) acknowledged his offices and some staff had been subpoenaed as part of a federal probe into PMA. Other Democratic appropriators, including Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), have long ties to PMA and its clients.

Hoyer squared off against Murtha in 2006 for the Majority Leader post, beating him by an overwhelming margin.

Jeff Flake has been proposing an ethics panel for a couple of years and has been blocked by the Democrat majority in the House and it’s understandable as to why – they are guilty!  Most of the ethics violations are within the Democrat Party, that’s not to say that some Republicans may be found guilty of some violations, but as of now the culture of corruption lies within the majority party.

Share on Facebook

Does anybody recall Laura and George darting off on date nights once a month during his Bush’s presidency, let alone the first few months?  I didn’t think so… If this was a Republican flying around on the taxpayer’s money they would surely be reprimanded by the media until the rest of the gullible masses began to agree (just like the media did with GW).

The Obama’s are the epitome of hypocritical elitists.  They obviously have no regard for those who are struggling just to make ends meet if they feel that flying to NYC, which cost the taxpayers somewhere between a total of (my guesstimate range) $24,000 – $68,000, for dinner and a show on Broadway, is acceptable.  (Just so you understand where the costs come from –   AF1 costs about $68K to operate for an hour, the Obama’s excuse was using Marine 1 for part of the time before switching to use AF1 to land at Kennedy, but all the secret service, body guard protection, and entourage is quite costly as well):

Times Square was even more frenetic than usual, as throngs of pedestrians — certainly including many tourists — lined several blocks waiting to catch a glimpse of Mr. and Mrs. Obama. The presidential date night began with a late-afternoon flight from Andrews Air Force Base, with Mr. Obama wearing a dark blue suit (no tie), and Mrs. Obama a black cocktail dress and a sleek updo, holding a turquoise clutch.
They landed at Kennedy International Airport at 4:45 p.m. and after taking a quick helicopter ride to Lower Manhattan, the presidential motorcade snaked its way up to Blue Hill, a restaurant off Washington Square Park that specializes in cuisine from the Hudson Valley. (It sounded like the choice of Mrs. Obama, who favors local food.)
Hours before the show began, the Secret Service cordoned off the entire block of 44th Street between Avenue of the Americas and Broadway, where the Belasco is located.

You could just as well have a nice date night at home renting a movie and having a couple glasses of wine.

It just irks me that here is a man and woman who campaigned about being more like the average American, understanding the strife of oppressed communities, but when elected become the jet-setting duo who have no respect for the current economic turmoil, unemployment rates, or the looming national bankruptcy our country may be facing.

Word has it that they went to see ‘Wicked’ in honor of Michelle MaBelle’s personality and of the couple taunting the lowly classes who have to work to survive.

Meanwhile, Prince Harry, who obviously is not American, makes more of an effort to visit the regular folks and pay his respects to those who lost their lives in 9/11.  Prince Harry visited Ground Zero this weekend and laid a wreath at the site in memoriam for the British men and women who lost their lives that day.  He also visited a school in Harlem, the Fire Station in NYC that has the most fatalities, etc.  But BO finds it more important to go to a Broadway show.  Prince Harry, who has served overseas surely knows the cost and sacrifice of one’s own life for the many who will be saved from terrorism…

Prince – can we please elect you?

Share on Facebook

Sounds like our very own EU VAT coming to the U. S. of A. How lucky we are that the usual common sense of Congress and the President is kicking in!  When the economy is recessed and there is the possibility it could get worse with an impending bond implosion or inflation in the coming months, why not raise taxes on everyone?

I know that liberals see this as a great idea.  They can raise taxes on all those evil fat-cats, actually wind up hurting the middle and lower class, all to pay for their own fiscally irresponsible habits.

As lawmakers toy with the idea of an across-the-board sales tax on just about everything, tax reform advocates are starting to drum up opposition with the same fervor they employed during last month’s anti-tax tea parties.

The idea of a national sales tax was once unlikely. But now that the federal government is doling out billions in stimulus spending and bailouts, and looking for billions more for health care reform, the prospect could be gaining some traction.

The frenzy over the idea kicked up after a Washington Post article Wednesday reported that Congress is starting to pay closer attention to this largely academic proposal and that the Obama administration, though shushing speculation, is soliciting advise from supporters of the idea.

“It should certainly raise alarm bells that they think they can inject it into the debate,” said Phil Kerpen, policy director at Americans for Prosperity.

The value-added tax, or VAT, as it is called, amounts to a tax-on-everything — or TOE, for the acronym-inclined. It’s a tax on goods that’s applied in pieces throughout the chain of production and distribution and results in an increase in the cost of virtually everything you buy.

The fact that the United States has dug its own hole regarding our debt where Bush and Obama combined can be blamed for a lot of it (I should also state that the liberal congress who has been there since the end of 2006 is also a huge culprit when it comes to voting on and setting budgets).  The National Debt is around $11.3T and growing at a steady pace, while the GDP is somewhere between $13 & $14T, seeing negative growth and possible stagnation in the out years.  This spells disaster for anyone in financial analysis, who understands debt ratios.

Inflation at this point is inevitable and that will mean higher prices for every American.  Each individual household is also responsible for $668,621 based on the latest article out of USA Today.  This obligation includes the total federal debt obligations per household as well as the average debt obligation for an American household at a personal level.  My question is this:  With median household income below $60K in the U.S. (if debt was all your income was used on – no taxes, no food, gas, clothes, shelter etc.),  – do you think Americans would be able to pay that off in their lifetime?  Buhbye American Dream…

The sad fact is that Americans became spoiled – the government was not a good role model, and the sense of saving and living within one’s means quickly flew out the window.

What USA Today, because it’s biased, fails to do is disclose the fact that 2008 alone cannot be blamed for the debt obligations of American citizens tied to the government like serfs.  The Stimulus package, the omnibus package and the budget of Barack H. Obama has increased deficit spending unlike anything this country has seen and his debt obligation alone is more than all presidents in history combined.  His out year budgets are also something to shriek at – he did not have to spend this much money, although the liberal propagandists will spin it and continue to say it was a crisis and he had to do what was necessary because he inherited this mess – I call Shenanigans!  Use Reagan’s model to dig out of a recession/depression – not FDR’s fallacious one, in which he hurt rather than helped.

It should be no surprise to anyone that in order to balance the budget and pay off this debt, taxes have to be raised.  Taxes have to increase to sustain the ever increasing size of government and due to the large drop in tax revenue for 2008 filing it really was an inevitable idea of the beltway gang.

Raising taxes while people are already hurting will make things much worse.  This proposal of a sales tax, much like the EU VAT, will be dreadful on our economy and on average regular “Joe’s.”

Rasmussen just conducted a poll asking Americans what they thought about a national sales tax at this point in time.  A whopping 68% of respondents were against the tax and only 18% approved.  If the White House is really using polling data to govern it may want to take a look at this one!

If the U.S. VAT passes I’ll be happy to point out to the young college-aged waiters that they no longer get tips – just like Europe! You voted for it!

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook