Unemployment hit 10.2%.  Who knows, maybe it will rise even more.  Hopefully for the sake of many Americans, this will be the worst of it.  But the Democrats and the Obama administration are starting to get nervous.  They worry that the longer you are out of a job, the longer you have to sit there and wonder whether or not your representatives in Washington are really doing what is best for our economy.  They know you have a vote.  So they want to look like they are doing to something to solve this problem.  I know .. we'll have a jobs summit!

That's exactly what Obama plans to do.  He is inviting investors, CEOs, small-business owners, academics, nonprofit officials and labor and financial figures to the White House for a jobs summit.  The focus of this summit, according to Obama, will be why employers aren't hiring.  Duh!  Obama notes that businesses are increasing employee hours and adding temporary workers but "have not yet been willing to take the steps necessary to hire again."

Let me give you a little clue as to why this is the case.

First ... taxes.  All three of the DC heavy hitters, Obama, Reid and Pelosi, are proposing new taxes on business owners.  Oh yeah ... they position these taxes as merely attempts to make the evil, disgusting, filthy, putrid, rancid rich pay "their fair share,"  but every additional tenth of a percent of income tax you're told is being levied on "high income earners" is, in reality, a tax on business owners --- the very business owners who now employ about 70% of Americans with jobs and who are providing 80% of the new jobs.  Now you ObamaBots out there tell me --- since you have all the answers --- why would a business owner who is facing:

1. A nearly 5% increase in his income taxes when the Bush tax cuts expire
2. Another 5.4% increase in his income taxes with Pelosi's rich bastards surtax
3. An increase in his Medicare taxes pursuant to Harry Reid's wishes
4. The prospect of paying Social Security taxes on every single penny he earns
5. God knows what else

Why oh why would this person stick his neck out right now and try to expand his business and hire new workers?  He's in the freaking cross-hairs, for goodness' sake, and you want him to act like everything is hunky dory and get out there and hire people? 

Now with taxes out of the way, the government must stop this outrageous spending spree.  Spending more money is not going to create jobs.  Studying grandparents in Alaska, building puppets in Atlanta and studying tadpoles in Wyoming is not going to grow our economy.  We have already seen that with this $787 billion economic stimulus bill.  The stimulus package was a private sector jobs killer.  Only one state has seen an increase in private sector employment since this idiotic stimulus bill was passed .. and that was North Dakota ... and that's because they hired a new snow plow driver. 

Some of you might be okay with the idea that jobs are jobs.  You don't care if they are in the government or the private sector .. at least people are working.  Well I can assure you that relying on government jobs to turn around our unemployment rate is the wrong way to go.  The Cato Institute explains it best:

The reason is private sector jobs tend to be more productive than government jobs, and there is a considerable cost (i.e., dead weight loss) when government extracts monies from the private sector by taxing or borrowing to pay for the government jobs. Therefore, countries with large government sectors, like France and Germany, tend to have much higher unemployment rates than countries with smaller government sectors.

Another problem that is hindering job growth is our weakening dollar.  I've explained what is happening with our dollar lately.  Our spending and borrowing isn't getting us anywhere in terms of strengthening our currency.  Did you know that a drop in the dollar has the same effect as a tax increase on the American consumer?  Think about that.  The weaker our dollar becomes, the less you can buy for everyone one dollar.  This has the same effect as if you were paying more in taxes.  The same goes for businesses.  The weaker their buying power, the less inclined they are to hire.

So if I, the Talkmaster, were invited to this jobs summit in Washington, here is what I would suggest.

1. Do not increase taxes on Americans by letting the Bush tax cuts expire
2. Get spending under control.  Rather than spend more money trying to create   jobs, try and get spending under control and the economy with correct itself
3. Pass the FairTax.
4. Find something for Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to do that won't be so damaging to our Republic.  Give them some old alarm clocks to take apart and re-assemble. 

I don't think I have to explain to you why #3 would work wonders for our economy.

PelosiCare has now passed the House of Representatives.  PelosiCare is now dead.  It's going nowhere.  Nothing resembling the monstrosity that passed the House on Saturday will be enacted into law by this congress.

There's a 5.4% surtax in the bill on all family incomes of $1,000,000 or more.  If you're single the threshold is $500,000.  Democrats know you don't understand this; but these taxes will hit the very small businesses that we depend on for new jobs. 

Pelosi's bill contains $250 billion dollars in deficit spending ... oh, but wait.  They're voting on that separately so that you can't say the deficit spending is part of Pelosi's bill.  Are you following this? 

You do know that you'll start paying the taxes immediately --- but that you won't start reaping the benefits for another four years or so, don't you?  Quite the con there.  They say that PelosiCare will only cost $850+ trillion dollars over the first ten years ... but don't tell you will only receive benefits for six out of those ten years.  Wait till the next 10 years hits you in the can. 

Thus far nobody has explained where in our Constitution it gives the Imperial Federal Government the power to jail someone for a period of five years for failing to purchase a health insurance policy.  But what the hell does Nancy Pelosi care about our Constitution, anyway? 

California Congresswoman and general dingbat Maxine Waters says that PelosiCare will be as strong as Social Security and Medicare.  (Both programs are nearly bankrupt).  She also says that she can "assure you" that your children will not have to pay for the cost of PelosiCare in the future.  If a member of congress is a reflection of the district that elects him/her, then the 35^th Congressional District of California is a District of dumb masses. 

Some suggest that PelosiCare will cost the American taxpayers and the economy ONE BILLION dollars per page.

It's not often that we hear the painful truth from a Democrat .. much less Hillary Clinton. But it seems that Hillary forgot the power of the Internet and the ability of her comments to spread like wildfire no matter where she speaks. It also seems that Hillary feels free to be more candid in her public statements abroad than she does in this country. Here I am talking about this gem from a Pakistani newspaper. Hillary actually admits that "We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn't move, and that's not what we see in Pakistan."

Funnily enough, Hillary actually seems to think this a bad thing. There are a lot of politicians in Washington these days that wouldn't agree. More taxes means more power and more control and more dependency. Remember ...under the Washington method of accounting every single penny of your earnings are considered as belonging to the government. Any of your earnings you are allowed to keep are referred to as "tax expenditures." In the Democrat's big government eye YOU belong to government (hence the government's ability to tell you that you must buy health insurance) ... as does everything you earn.

A must-read blog every day in preparation for the show is Cato@Liberty. There you will find information like this ... KPMG released its latest global survey of corporate tax systems. Sounds like a real snoozer, right? Well that's why you have me. I'm the guy who wrote a New York Times best seller about taxes.

So back to this survey ... for the 10th year in a row, the average corporate tax rate world-wide has fallen. Now it rests at 25.5%. But that's the average. This means that some countries have a corporate tax rate higher than 25.5% and some less. So ... where is the United States? Well, we're stuck. Stuck at 40% .. where we've been for quite some time. Only one country has a higher corporate tax rate than the United States; Japan.

In case you haven't noticed .. .the world is shrinking. Businesses and businessmen find it easier to move around the world in search of advantageous business climates. In a world of instant communications; in a world where no business hot spot is more than one day's travel from another ... why would a company continue to subject itself to a confiscatory tax rate when it can simply move?

This, of course, brings me to the FairTax. Right now we have the second-highest corporate tax structure in the world. But what would happen if we had the lowest? In fact, what might happen if businesses could operate in the United States without any tax component on capital or labor? What if corporate leaders never had to consider the tax implications of any decision? What if business decisions could be made on the basis of what is good for the company, the stockholders, the employees and the customers, rather than on how to minimize tax consequences. This would be life under the FairTax.

Right now you can bet that business owners are contemplating ways to escape the coming increases in tax rates in the United States. The response will be to move more jobs and more business out of the country. Sure, The Community Organizer will try to find a way to erect some sort of an economic Berlin Wall to keep American wealth from fleeing tax tyranny, but it will only be partially effective. Why not try to attract wealth, rather than looking for ways to chase wealth away?

Well, you know the answer; don't you? To attract wealth the political class must transfer power to the private sector. That isn't going to happen; not with the looters in charge. The game here is power, not the economic welfare of the American people. The FairTax would be the greatest transfer of power from government to the people in the history of our Republic. You don't' see very many people with a "D" after their names who like that idea.

Neal was interviewed about the FairTax for this film, An Inconvenient Tax. Check out the trailer below. Click through to their site for more info.

An Inconvenient Tax - Official Trailer from Life Is My Movie Entertainment on Vimeo.

If you want to know how to scare away the achievers, just look to New York as a model. New York has managed to scare away the evil wealthy earners. You won't be surprised to learn that this is costing New York a lot of money. Over one million taxpayers have fled New York City since 2000. That means one out of every seven taxpayers moved out. Now here's an interesting fact. The people who have been bailing out of Manhattan were earning close to $100,000 a year. The people moving in to replace them earn only about $72,000 a year. That difference is the highest of any city or region in the country.

But what the hell ... who needs all those rich people around anyway. So what if they carry the load when it comes to funding government ... once we get more government in our lives we won't need these stupid rich people and their jobs anyway.

Nancy Pelosi had an interview yesterday with CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, and Maria actually asked a good question! She challenged Nancy Pelosi on the Bush tax cuts, suggesting to Princess Nancy that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would be the same thing as a tax increase.

So here's the question: "Does the expiration of the Bush tax cuts mean that there will be tax increases?"

This could have been answered in one word: Yes.

But Nancy couldn't bring herself to admit it. Instead. Here is what she had to say via The Swamp:

"That wasn't a tax increase,'' Pelosi said. "It is.. eliminating a tax decrease that was there... It was controversial to begin with. It is... a boon to those who have had it for now. But I think that you will see that happen.

"That affects, what? The upper two percent of our population. What we're trying to do is lower... taxes for the middle class, relieve burdens... on business. So that we can be competitive in job creation. And I think you'll see some interesting things emerge-- from the conversations we're having now. ''

What about allowing those tax breaks to expire at a fragile time in an economic recovery, the speaker was asked.

"I don't think many people here see, nor do the American people see those tax cuts at the high end as being job-creating,'' she said. "They don't... think that that's part of the reason we're in the fiscal, the budgetary situation that we're in, because those tax cuts cost money. And... they were... a cost to our budget, without any commensurate impact on the economy for job creation. To return money to the treasury. So, nobody sees those as a job-creator.

"Return money to the treasury?" Did you get that? Tanking earned income away from a small businessman --- and make no mistake, the vast majority of people who will suffer these tax increases are small businessmen and women --- so taking their money is "returning money to the treasury!"

If the voters of this country were (a) not government-educated; and (b) not so focused on their Hollywood celebrity news; they would run this barking moonbat out of office.

Well they managed to do it. The Senate Finance Committee passed the Baucus bill, thanks in part to a lone Republican Olympia Snowe, who, of course, voted for the bill. When it came to growing the government and attacking liberty, who didn't know that Snowe would go along with it? She is the only Republican to vote for any of the healthcare bills out there right now. She even got a shout out from the president ... how cool is that?! So now, the Senate must take this bill and work to merge it with another one. In other words, there is still A LOT of work to be done. This is far from over. So that is why I will continue to try to educate you about what we have in these healthcare bills.

The most important thing for you to understand is that this is NOT about improving American health care. It is ALL about controlling American health care. It is a bid for government power; a bid for political power. The ultimate goal is to further entrench the Democrat party in power ... from this day on.

Here's something else for you to gnaw on.

One of the reasons that Olympia Snowe may have voted for the Baucus bill is because of what she calls its "low" price tag -- $829 billion over ten years. But let's take a look at the big picture. Did you know that $507 billion of that $829 billion will be covered by NEW federal taxes and fees? That's not according to some insurance industry reports, that is according to the Congressional Budget Office.

CNSNews has a list of the new taxes and fees included in this Baucus bill:

-- $201 billion in new taxes on high-premium health care plans.

-- $83 billion in new taxes paid by workers who will receive less employer-sponsored coverage or lose that coverage altogether but will be compensated with higher wages or monetary benefits, which are taxable.

-- $23 billion in penalty fees paid by employers who do not comply with the federal insurance mandate.

-- $4 billion in penalty fees paid by individuals who don't have health insurance.

-- $16 billion in new income and Medicare payroll tax revenue due to changes in Medicare.

-- $180 billion in other tax revenues items calculated by the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT).

According to the JCT, this $180 billion in new taxes would include: A new tax on prescription drug makers that would account for $22.2 billion over 10 years; a new tax on medical device manufacturers that would bring in $38.6 billion; and a new annual tax on insurance companies would net the government $60.4 billion.

Are you starting to notice a trend here? More taxes. More government. More bureaucrats. The Democrats are creating bigger government with more strings attached to the purse.

Elections have consequences.

Democrats in the House know that they can't tax Cadillac insurance plans because the unions have those Cadillac insurance plans. Just what do you think you have been paying for every time you buy an American-made automobile! That means the unions don't particularly like this Democrat idea ... and if the unions don't like it, the idea is all but dead. Democrats would throw kittens into chipper-shredders before they would ever do anything to really upset their precious unions. So now, Princess Nancy and her minions are scrounging to find other ideas to generate revenue. The latest one in the works is a windfall tax on insurance company profits. There you go ... a "windfall tax." Whenever the looters want to legitimize an extra tax on a private sector business they just say "windfall" and their myrmidons fall right into place. After all ... don't we all truly understand that anything not-government is intrinsically evil? And don't we all know that the very quest for profit is a pure and evil manifestation of greed? Let's face it; this money doesn't belong to these businesses anyway, it belongs to the people! Money to the people! So it's perfectly logical to seize it to take care of the people's health care.

Nancy says that the idea is in its very early stages, but it is definitely being considered. That's bull. When it comes to seizing money from the private sector, no Democrat idea is in the early stages. This is a staple of looter politics. Princess Pelosi says, "I believe that all of the participants, whether it is insurance companies or the pharmaceutical industry, have much more they can put on the table to help reduce cost and take us in a downward direction in terms of spending on this health care bill." Well isn't that special? Nancy Pelosi believes that these private companies have more money to put on the table, therefore she will use the force of government to make sure they do so? That's what our imperial federal government has come to.

This is just part of the Democrat plan to demonize the private health insurance companies. Later this week, House looters have called for health insurance executives to testify before Congress to "defend their business practices."

By the way, this week is a big week for healthcare legislation in the Senate. The Senate Finance Committee is going to take a final vote on the Baucus healthcare bill and then send it to the full chamber.

The fun never stops.

What part of this surprises any of you?

We have a tax cheat writing our tax laws. That's right ... Charlie Rangel is a tax evader. A tax cheat. And yet the Democrats successfully killed a resolution that would have removed him as Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee. Remember, only Republicans can be corrupt. Democrats? Theirs is a culture of caring ... right?

For those of you who are government educated - all tax bill originate in the House. Charlie Rangel is the chairman of the committee in charge of drafting tax legislation. While writing the tax laws that govern you this clown has done a good job of avoiding the law for his personal finances. Here are just some examples:

1) Failure to report over $1 million in outside income and $3 million in business transactions as required by the House,

2) Failure to disclose at least $650,000 in assets he had previously failed to list on his House financial disclosure forms,

3) Failure to disclose to the IRS or on his financial disclosure forms $75,000 in rental income for a beach villa in the Dominican Republic,

4) Violation of state laws by claiming three primary residences and breaking New York City regulations by maintaining four rent-controlled apartments,

5) Violation of House rules by using congressional letterhead to solicit donations for an education center bearing his name at City College of New York, and

6) Delinquency in paying his property taxes on two New Jersey parcels and failure to report the sale of a $1.3 million brownstone.

This is a man who clearly believes that he's part of some special class - perhaps a class of one - that to which the laws of this country simply do not apply. All that, and all the arrogance you would ever need.

We also have brain-dead members of Congress who came to his defense. Maxine Waters says that "many members" of Congress suffer from the same issues as Charlie Rangel. What affliction is that? The inability to follow the law? We get punished for that stuff ... why not Rangel? The Republicans want to remove the guy as chairman, but the Democrats vote against it. Now THAT is transparency. THAT is change you can believe in!

By the way, if you want to know what good Charlie Rangel is doing in Congress, just check out the $3 million earmark he snuck into a bill for a city college, which has an academic department created by and named after Charlie Rangel!

Been a while since Web Guy picked out a super-brilliant email for us to feature in the Nuze. Finally he found one. No surprise that it came from Austin, Texas. This guy is probably a 'sip.

Name: Steve
City: austin
Subject:VAT TAX

Gee Neil -
 
Why are you crying about the VAT Tax?
 
Who's going to pay for the couple trillion that BUSH, Cheney & the Gopers borrowed from the Commies in China for your IRAQ WAR?
 
Who's going to Pay for the Hundreds of Billions that Bush, Cheney and the Gopers gave to Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater?
 
How's going to Pay for the Trillions of added deficit spending from Bush, Cheney and the Gopers?
 
You are the definition of a political hack.
 
You would never dare to answer me or address that on your hair-brained radio show- so think about. Stop being a shallow nim-rod cry baby.

Gotta love it.

I've been telling you for a while now that the Value Added Tax (VAT) was a distinct possibility. Just last week I linked to an article outlining all of the signs that pointed to the fact that the VAT is coming.

So here it is. Princess Nancy has now asserted that a VAT is "on the table." And what table might that be? The table at which the people who have the power to change our tax code .. that's what table. So you certainly don't want to lose any sleep over this. There's looters at the table and producers propping it up. Then there's the moochers who are more than ready to give their loyalty to the looters. Where does that put you?

Soon the Democrats will realize what happens when you cut the legs out from under them. Why is that? Because the VAT would be in ADDITION to all of our current taxes. It's not reform, it's just more taxes (with some minor adjustments). We are not talking about an overhaul like the FairTax would achieve - complete abolishment of our current tax system. We are talking about MORE taxes.

But somehow, we are supposed to magically believe that this would not increase taxes on the middle class. At least, that is what Princess Nancy promises. Remember, though ... it's all in the meaning of the word "tax." If it was at one point in your pocket, and it then, without coercion and without your consent, ends of in the hands of government, it's a tax.

Hey! I think I just came up with a new definition of "tax!" Let's try to refine it:

"Money or property owned by a private entity that is transferred by force to the government."

I'm sure Obama would love it!

Warren Buffett has decided to get involved in the healthcare debate. The Democrats just love to tout what Buffett has to say, because generally he sways on the side of taxing the tar out of the wealthy. Clearly, this is coal in the fire for Democrats who are currently deciding how to pay for the healthcare dreams and schemes.

In a recent meeting with Senate Democrats, Warren Buffet proclaimed that wealthy Americans need to pay higher taxes. Senator Claire McCaskill quotes Buffett as saying, "He said rich people are not paying enough taxes ... It was interesting to see someone who is such an aggressive capitalist, who believes so much in our capitalist system, saying we've got the scales way too heavily toward people who are very, very wealthy." Interesting indeed, inasmuch as the top 1% of income earners in this country earn about 20% of income while paying about 40% of income taxes. Oh .... and providing a huge chunk of all jobs in the process.

Here's where Buffet starts his con game. He once again touts this line about paying a lower tax rate than some of his company's employees. He actually believes that most Americans are stupid enough to fall for this fakery .. and unfortunately, he's right.

How easy it to expose Buffet's trickery here? This easy: Buffet's employees pay income taxes. Warren Buffet pays capital gains taxes. Capital gains tax rates are lower than income tax rates. Nice trick ... and he can only pull it off because of the economic ignorance of the American people and the willing compliance of the leftist media.

Here's an idea. Read this and then see if you can figure out why our politicians wouldn't go for this in a heartbeat!

Because of America's punishing tax system there is a lot of money that is owned by Americans but invested overseas. How much? Well, before the economic downturn some people estimated that figure at around $13 trillion. That's with a "T" folks. How much of a hit has it taken? Well, let's cut it back by about 30% and say that the figure now stands at $11 trillion.

It would be grand, wouldn't it, if that money came back home to America to go to work in our economy? So ... why doesn't that happen? Taxes, that's why. That money is overseas doing well, thank you very much, earning money outside of our confiscatory tax system. If a corporation or individual tries to bring some of that money back home our federal government jumps on it like Clinton on a bimbo.

Now .. what if that money could come back home to work in our economy without being taxed? Under the FairTax, of course, that would be the case. Not only would that money come back to work here, but it could be put to work creating jobs and growing wealth without any tax component being added. But we don't have the FairTax right now, so how can we get this done?

AMNESTY!

There you go! Declare a tax amnesty for all American-owned dollar-denominated deposits overseas! Welcome that money back home without any taxes, any interest or any penalties. Just ask the money to come home and work here! Would every dollar come home? Certainly not! But let's just go for about one-half about $5.5 trillion! Do you have any idea what this could do for our economy? That's the equivalent of about seven Obama stimulus plans. What's more, this money wouldn't be spent by politicians trying to insure their reelection. The cash would belong to and would be spent by the private sector! You can be sure that unless someone saw an investment opportunity - a possibility of a financial return - the money would not be spent on puppet theatres or giant inflatable alligators (seriously). Over $5 trillion dollars infused into our economy could be quite a jolt, especially in the private sector.

OK ... is there anything wrong with this amnesty idea? Sure there is! I've already outlined it. The money would be spent by the private sector, not the government. We have an administration based on the premise that America's greatness comes from government, not freedom. In the minds of these politicians the way to make America greater is to move as much money from the private sector to the government as possible, and then have the government spend it. That, by the way, is exactly what Obama is trying to do with the overseas funds. Tax them. Send the IRS out there looking for these corporations and people. Bludgeon the Swiss into releasing account information. Increase penalties. Beat this money into submission and then seize as much of it as you can.

There are, after all, puppets to be built.

This week, Nancy Pelosi and her myrmidons will work on their plans to pay for healthcare reform ... and you know they're just busting their guts to throw out some good old Democrat tax increases. Keep in mind that these are tax increases ON TOP of the increases that will come into effect when the Bush tax cuts expire.

But Nancy Pelosi has found herself trying to balance the egos of her Democrat Caucus and her union supporters. She has done this by suggesting a tax increase on "Cadillac" insurance plans. This type of tax is more popular in the Senate. In fact, the Baucus bill includes a 40% tax on insurers for plans worth more than $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families.

As of right now, none of the plans include an income surtax on the wealthy to pay the difference for these Democrat dreams and schemes. But who knows what she will propose this week. She may propose a tax on the evil, disgusting, vile rich people who dare to earn more than $500,000.

All we can be sure of is the fact that wealth envy is going to rear its ugly head again. I hope you are ready for it.

... they will accomplish with cap-and-trade! I am referring to Obama's idea that healthcare reform is going to spur all sorts of new business and create all sorts of new jobs. Since we already know this won't be the case when it comes to healthcare reform, they most certainly will get their way with cap-and-trade legislation.

Last week, Barbara Boxer introduced her cap-and-trade bill. She, too, believes that cap-and-trade will lead to a jobs boom in the United States. She says that it would bring billions in private investment. Well - Barbara Boxer really isn't all that bright, so it's hard to take any jobs promise she makes seriously. It's far more likely that he taxing and regulatory schemes will be a jobs killer.

Assuming that Boxer's bill is somewhat similar to the Waxman-Markey climate bill that has been around for months, we can assume the following:

One independent analysis predicts our nation would lose 2 million jobs if the House plan is enacted. In Virginia, an estimated 15,500 jobs would be wiped out by 2015, and 72,000 jobs would be lost by 2030 under Waxman-Markey.

Even the Government Accountability Office (GAO) warned that a cap-and-trade climate bill could result in great economic pain for little environmental gain. The GAO noted that climate legislation could make American companies less able to compete internationally and drive American jobs overseas to nations that do not limit greenhouse gas emissions. This would increase international emissions enough to offset or overwhelm any reductions made by the United States.

I don't know about you, but that definitely sounds like a way to spur economic growth in our country. Don't ya think?

I've told you plenty of times that the Obama administration has absolutely no chance of sticking to its promise that it will not raise taxes on people earning under $250,000. But then he supports cap-and-tax legislation. Healthcare legislation. All of which will constitute in tax increases, whether Barack Obama considers them "taxes" or not. But another idea floating around out there is the VAT tax. So here is James Pethokoukis to connect the dots and explain how a VAT tax seems more likely than ever:

1) The joint statement from the just-concluded G20 Summit in Pittsburgh called for balanced global growth -- which means Americans must spend less and save more and reduce its budget deficit.

2) That same weekend, John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama's presidential transition team and an outside White House adviser, tells a Bloomberg reporter that a value-added tax is "more plausible today" than ever, adding that "there's going to have to be revenue in this budget." A VAT is a kind of consumption tax.

3) Yesterday, the Center for American Progress, the liberal think tank with close White House ties, holds a conference on the rising national debt. While speaker after speaker -- Paul Krugman, Roger Altman, CAP President Podesta (again), Laura Tyson -- admits entitlement spending must be reduced, they also agree that taxes must be raised. Altman suggests $400 billion in new tax revenue is needed almost immediately to calm financial market fears, and a VAT would be a great way of doing it. That's $400 billion a year, by the way, not over ten years.

4) Also, yesterday was the first meeting of President Obama's tax reform panel led by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. In a two-part interview with Charlie Rose airing yesterday and today, Volcker says that if Washington can't get spending under control, either a VAT or a carbon tax would be effective revenue raisers. "Those are two big ones," he says.

5) As they used to say in the Soviet Union, "It's no coincidence." This is also the conclusion of one Washington insider with ties to the White House economic team: "Does this all add up to a trial balloon? Of course, it's a trial balloon. And I expect the administration will propose major tax reform, including a VAT."

California is going in the tank. Big time. And quickly. Part of the reason is because it has driven away many of the achievers. Taxing the tar out of the productive in society will do that. But it seems as though things have gotten so desperate, that someone in California has actually admitted that their tax system is driving away the wealthy and therefore decreasing tax revenues.

So a state commission came up with a report for Gov. Schwarzenegger recommending "bold changes to California's tax system. So when a state wants to get back on its feet, what does it recommend?

-Repealing the sales and corporate taxes and replace them with a new business levy that taxes net receipts

-Flattening the income tax rate to reduce the burden on the wealthy.

As we said yesterday in the Nuze ... that reducing the tax burden on the wealthy is going to doom this stuff. Those evil people have to pay their fair share you know.

The Tax Foundation has done a study on which states are best suited for businesses ... and those that are set on punishing the achievers. The study ranked the "business-friendliness" of the states' tax systems based on five different aspects: corporate, individual income, sales, unemployment insurance and property taxes. The states with the best tax systems were "business-neutral, broad based, and transparent, and that states whose systems most reflected this ideal were the most competitive."

Want to know the states that met this criteria? In descending order ...

-- South Dakota
-- Wyoming
-- Alaska
-- Nevada
-- Florida
-- Montana
-- New Hampshire
-- Delaware
-- Washington
-- Utah

My home state of Georgia (for now) is bordered by Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Caroline and ... Florida. The Georgia Public Policy Foundation reports that Georgia's business tax climate has become worse .. moving from 27th to 29th in the nation. That's a dangerous trend when Florida, with it's 5th most business-friendly tax climate is just down I-75. The only neighboring state that ranks worse than Georgia would be North Carolina. In the meantime property owners in Atlanta were just hit with a 45% property tax increase.

At least Georgia isn't at the bottom of the list. The states that ranked absolute worst for businesses were New Jersey, New York and California. Hmmmm ... could that be why we so many people from New York and Jersey in Florida?

Now ... speaking of California, perhaps they see the problem and are getting ready to take some action. A commission studying California's tax structure has come up with some ideas:

• Repeal all sales and corporate taxes
• Flatten the income tax rate
• Reduce the tax burden on the high-achievers a/k/a the "wealthy."
• Levy a new tax on business net receipts.

Democrats are already attacking the recommendations. What's not to like? Well .. right there at the front of the list would be, as the critics present it, letting the "super-wealthy .. off the hook from paying their fair share." Oh how the left likes that "fair share" line. In the meantime the producers and high-achievers continue to move out of Taxifornia. The left will never learn.

The Obama administration is desperately searching for ways to take more money away from you and use it to fund its dreams and schemes. After all, the painful truth that most people forget is that the government does not earn any money. Basically, there is only one way for the government to get money to spend, and that is to seize it from the private individuals who worked for and earned it. Since government is force, this isn't hard. You have producers and looters. Not hard to figure out which is which, is it?

When you think about it, one big difference between Republicans and Democrats is the manner in which they choose to loot, and the subtlety with which they operate. With all of the spending The Chosen one has generated, you just know that they're burning some midnight oil trying to figure out new methods of plunder. One particularly onus tax is gaining much favor ... the value-added or VAT tax. In fact, John Podesta says that some form of a VAT tax is "more plausible today that it ever has been."

Podesta says that a consumption tax would "create a balance" with other economies and could substantially effect competitiveness. Now, Podesta says that a VAT tax would be regressive but can be "balanced" by exempting certain products and "[supporting] low-wage workers." By "supporting" low-wage workers Podesta, of course, means more income transfer and welfare programs.

Let's wade through some of the rhetorical bull squeeze here, shall we?

Podesta calls the VAT a "consumption tax." When you really think about it, ALL taxes on business are consumption taxes. That would be business tax burdens are passed down to the ultimate consumer of the product or service taxed. Right now businesses and corporations pay federal income taxes, one-half of the Social Security taxes, unemployment taxes, worker's compensation taxes and a bunch more. These taxes are built into the price of whatever that corporation or business sells to its customers. Eventually all of these taxes are paid by the final consumer. All that Podesta (and Obama) are proposing is the addition of one more tax --- one more tax to roll down hill and nail the consumer at the end of the chain of production.

If this idea gains traction in Washington will you be ready? Will you be ready to duplicate the 9/12 DC tea party with a FairTax march on Washington. You know, and these political hacks know that there is a better plan out there. A TRUE consumption tax. Let every product and service reach the ultimate consumer carrying absolutely no tax component at all ... then charge an honest and open inclusive sales tax as the product goes from the marketplace to the final consumer.

It is beyond outrageous that Obama's dog washers would be considering this atrocity when a fully researched and vetted idea like the FairTax is out there. But we all know why the political class will fight the FairTax, don't we? The VAT would ADD to the power of the political class. When they get to sit up there and decide what will be taxed, and what will not be taxed; and to set the rates for those taxes ... now that's what power is all about. The FairTax, on the other hand, transfers that power to the people. The payment of taxes would be voluntary. You could chose to live at the sustenance level and pay no taxes at all to the federal government. You only pay taxes when you make the voluntary decision to expand your spending past that required to provide the basic necessities to your family. You're in control. Complete control And that's what makes the FairTax so frightening to the political class.

Watch this VAT nonsense, my friends. It is something that will not only take dollars out of your pocket; it is a tax you will truly come to hate. Just another wonderful change you can believe in.

Throughout this debate over healthcare, many Americans have argued that a mandate to purchase health insurance in unconstitutional. It looks like somebody in Washington finally woke up and took the message to the Joint Committee on Taxation. Senator John Ensign (a Republican from Nevada) asked the Committee's Chief of Staff, Thomas Barthold, about the penalty for not obtaining health insurance. Barthold came back with the following response:

People who fail to pay the $1,900 fee for not purchasing coverage under Obamacare would be charged with a misdemeanor, charged a penalty of up to $25,000 or face up to a year in jail.

Now remember, Barack Obama does NOT consider this mandate a tax. Just last weekend with George Stephanopoulos, Obama said, "The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase." Now we have already been through this asinine argument about auto insurance versus health insurance. It's a crock. But if the government has the ability to through you in jail over failure to purchase health insurance, that is a tax.

Even knowing this, Republican (RINO) Senator Olympia Snowe crossed the isle last week and voted with the Democrats to reject an amendment that would have eliminated this individual mandate.

Please ... you're not still driving around with an Obama-Biden bumper sticker on your car, are you? Have you no pride?

Yesterday I presented you with some facts about Obama's welfare spending compared to Bush's spending on the Iraq war. These are just little tidbits that you can hide in your brain, in case you happen to be cornered by a rabid liberal struggling to make a logical point.

So here is your friendly fact for the day. By the end of Obama's first term in office (2012), the top 30% of American families will be forking over nearly $1 trillion to be redistributed to the bottom 70% of Americans. How does this redistribution occur? Easy. By the point of a gun, with government holding the trigger. Even if Barack Obama does not get any of his proposals passed on taxes, healthcare and climate change, the income redistribution in this country will be unprecedented.

Here are some more facts that you won't find in the mainstream media. About what? The Democrat's nationalization of health care, that's what. Need I remind you that that is 18% of our economy? The Heritage Foundation has conducted an analysis to figure out the economic opportunities that would be lost if the Democrats get their way with our healthcare system. This study was done so that we can understand, in real terms, how this is going to affect our economy. Take a look at just a few of their findings:

• Job losses would mount over time as potential high-income earners forgo job-creating endeavors. By 2019, the economy would offer 452,000 fewer jobs than it would have without the reforms.
• Self-employed individuals as a group would have $16 billion less income in 2019 (nominal dollars).
• The surtax would impose a deadweight cost of $12.8 billion in lost gross domestic product (GDP) in 2011, rising to $68.2 billion by 2019 and costing taxpayers an average of $46.7 billion per year.
• A typical family of four would have $995 less in disposable income in 2019 -- enough to pay for routine annual checkups for the four individuals.

You shouldn't be surprised by these figures. This is an economic price that Democrats are more than willing to pay in order to get complete control over your healthcare.

Let me see if I can make an important point in another way. You're a Democrat. You haven't had complete power in Washington for almost 20 years. You believe that complete control of this country is your birthright. You vow that if you ever control the House, the Senate and the White House again you will act immediately to make sure that you never lose that power and control again.

Along comes Obama. The media loves him and portrays him as a virtual God. He's elected president. What's more, the Republicans have so fouled up their stewardship of the government that you now have control of the legislative branch as well. So ... what do you do?

The goal is easy: You want to control an important aspect of the voter's lives. The "how to" is a bit problematic. Not only to you have to seize this control, but the people whom you want to control have to welcome your initiative with open arms! Thankfully, for Democrats, this isn't all that hard. You're going to take away some of their independence and some of their freedom - but you have to offer something in return. Over the past 60 years the Democrats have learned this tactic well. If you just offer Americans some security in return for their liberty, all-too many of them will step up, eager to make the trade. Now ... where do Americans want security? Well, you can't really guarantee them job security, and offering every one of them a roof over their head is probably a little difficult. But how about health care? Other nations do it, so it ought to be a slam dunk here! Just absolve these Americans of their responsibility for their own health care, and they'll welcome you with open arms. Then ... when election time comes around, you have them by the short hairs.

Come on now, just how hard was this to figure out.

The state of Michigan is well on its way to taxing the tar out of the job makers and the achievers, in order to spread the wealth. Lawmakers in Michigan are currently considering a plan to help sure up the community health department's budget. What they want to do is tax healthcare providers in order to pay for Medicaid coverage for the poor. The taxes would range anywhere from 1.7% to 4% and would be paid by doctors and healthcare providers. The lawmakers believe that this tax will generate six months worth of revenue.

So let's get this straight .... The state of Michigan wants to tax all healthcare providers in the state in order to raise reimbursement rates for healthcare providers to provide services for poor people. Some lawmakers aren't worried because the people opposing the plan would be those without Medicaid patients, which tend to be "high-end doctors." (Read: doctors for evil, rich people) In other words ... these "high-end doctors" will be paying a tax that will then be redistributed to other doctors who treat poor patients.

Now you have a clearer understanding of why Michigan's economy led the rest of this country into a recession. These folks were way ahead of us. As soon as they get this cranked up it will surely catch the eye of the DC looters.

What fun.

The fallout from Obama's media blitz over the weekend continues. The main issue that Sunday talk show orgy was his interview with George Stephanopoulos over taxes. According to Barack Obama, requiring everyone to carry health insurance ... and making them pay a fine if they don't ... is not a tax increase.

Unfortunately for the President, he was flat out wrong. In fact, the Max Baucus bill being debated in Senate committee probably as we speak says, "Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an "excise tax." The Democrat-controlled Senate says it's a tax increase. The dictionary says it's a tax increase. Obama says it ain't so. Hey, PrezBO! Looks like you're really not helping your credibility problem.

We can nail this down even better .. .this from Jake Tapper:

To be more specific, if a taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income is between 100-300 percent of the federal poverty level, "the excise tax for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or an individual claimed as a dependent) is $750 per year. However, the maximum penalty for the taxpayer unit is $1,500."

If a taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income is above 300 percent of federal poverty level "the penalty for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or as an individual claimed as a dependent) is $950 year" -- with a maximum penalty of $3,800.

"Exemptions from the excise tax will be made for individuals where the full premium of the lowest cost option available to them (net of subsidies and employer contribution, if any) exceeds ten percent" of their adjusted gross income.

It's clear ... it's a tax. These penalties will be collected by none other than the Internal Revenue Service. If you fail to pay these "fines," you will be forced to at the point of a gun by the government or thrown in jail. Simple as that.

Barack Obama did a media blitz over the weekend, appearing on upwards of five different networks to sell his healthcare bill to the people. If this goes anything like his joint address to Congress, there may be a slight spike in support for his healthcare plan ... but that won't last long.

A bad plan is a bad plan .. and there's no way for Obama to dress this one up. People aren't buying it, and maybe that is because the people don't believe him. Like this, for example ... Obama told ABC that requiring individuals to have health insurance, or fining them in the amount of $3,000 if they fail to do so, doesn't amount to a tax increase. He says, "For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase ... Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase."

First of all, let's address this comparison to the car insurance industry. We had heard this line repeatedly from Obama and his team. I can't understand why some of the brilliant minds in the media haven't done this already. Auto insurance and health insurance are two very different animals. You can start with the simple fact that driving is a choice. No one is forcing you to get a driver's license or a car. No license, no care, no insurance. Furthermore, so long as you keep your motor vehicle on your private property no insurance is needed in most states. You can drive your car or truck all over you farm, ranch, backyard or any property you own ... so long as it doesn't show up on a public highway you don't need to insure it. Auto insurance is a contractual arrangement between people who use public highways. You don't have to use the highway, but if you do you contract with other's who do to insure your vehicle.

Another point .. if you mooch rides from your friends, you don't need auto insurance.

With Obama's plan, the very fact that you're drawing breath is all that is needed for the government to step forward, put that omnipresent gun to your head, and say "Buy health insurance, or else pay the $3,000 fine"

And if you don't pay the fine? What then? Are they going to put you in jail? Are they going to seize your bank accounts? One think you can be sure of: The punishment the government cooks up for you miscreants who don't obey the government's mandate to purchase health insurance will certainly be more serious than the punishment that has been dealt out to Charlie Rangel for his tax evasion and avoidance shenanigans.

Now, back to this idea that this would not be a tax increase. I guess it all boils down to how you define the word "tax." If you will recall during the campaign, Barack Obama promised that he wouldn't raise taxes on 95% of Americans (even though half of Americans don't pay any income taxes). He then raised taxes on cigarettes. The dumber you are the poorer you are, and the poorer you are the more likely it is that you will be a smoker. So was the cigarette tax hike a tax on the very 95% of Americans that Obama said he would leave alone? Of course it was. The left will tell you, though, that it is the cigarettes that are being taxed .. not the people.

Webster's Dictionary has a definition of a tax. George Stephanopoulos pulled it out and used it on PrezBO yesterday: "tax"--"a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes." How does Obama's mandate NOT constitute a tax? Ditto for the penalty!

Obama's response to Stephanopoulos seems to be "Look, if I say it's not a tax, it's not a tax. I won. I'm the president. I get to define the terms, and when the government requires people to spend money on a particular product or face a fine .. it's not a tax."

Elections have consequences. One of the consequences of this one is that we now have to completely redefine the word "tax" in our vocabulary to make sure that nobody can ever say Obama raised taxes on those 95% of Americans he vowed to leave alone.

Let's move on to the Baucus plan that was revealed to us last week. The Heritage Foundation has done some excellent research and come up with a list of Seven Fatal Flaws in this Baucus healthcare bill, many of which would ultimately lead to tax increases.

• Middle Class Tax Hike: The Baucus bill would impose a new sales tax on drugs and medical devices and a new federal excise tax on insurance plans that exceed $8,000 for an individual and $21,000 for a family. These taxes will ultimately be passed down to the consumer, putting many middle class families on the receiving end of a tax hike.
• An Individual Mandate: In 2013, almost everyone would be required to purchase health insurance that complies with new federal standards. Those making more than three times the poverty level would face a tax penalty of $950 (maxing out at $3,800 per family) and $750 (maxing out at $1,500 per family) for those below 300 percent poverty. This penalty could apply to individuals with incomes as low as $10,831 a year.
• No Privacy: In order to enforce the tax penalty provisions, the government would be forced to collect detailed health insurance information on Americans, reducing patient privacy and adding significant administrative costs to employers and insurers.
• A Pay-or-Play Employer Mandate: Employers with more than 50 employees that don't offer health coverage would have to pay a penalty for each employee who qualifies for new federal subsidizes under the bill. Inevitably, low-income workers will be hurt the most as employers would simply downsize or cut wages.
• A Thinly Disguised Public Option: The Baucus bill invites indefinite federal control of a "co-op" by providing an unnecessary $6 billion in federal funding for startup loans and grants and it gives broad latitude to the HHS Secretary to regulate co-ops and promote them. The co-op created in this bill is literally an acronym for a new government-run health plan.
• Medicaid Expansion: Under the Baucus bill, millions of Americans would end up on Medicaid. The current Medicaid program is unsustainable and poorly serves the needy and indigent now. Taxpayers will pick up the new costs of Medicaid, and states will have little flexibility for real reform.
• Medicare: The Baucus bill establishes value-based purchasing, requiring compliance with government guidelines on the delivery of medical services. Hospitals and physicians who don't comply would get lower Medicare payments. This approach could bias or compromise doctors' decisions and contradict U.S. law on the federal interference in the practice of medicine.

... but unfortunately not in the United States. Sweden announced over the weekend that it is going to cut income taxes in order to stimulate the job market. The government says, "The coalition government has agreed on reforms for jobs and entrepreneurialism that will increase employment in the long-term. It has to be more profitable to work and more companies should be able to hire employees."

Seems like such a simple concept. I wish someone in the Democrat Party would take notice.

Yesterday Max Baucus released details of his healthcare bill. The summary alone was 223 pages. I'll bet that Jamie Dupree got very little sleep last night, combing through the sucker. But to give you a quick overview, here's how the Congressional Budget Office summaries the bill:

Among other things, the Chairman's proposal would establish a mandate for most legal residents of the United States to obtain health insurance; set up insurance "exchanges" through which certain individuals and families could receive federal subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing that coverage; significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid; substantially reduce the growth of Medicare's payment rates for most services (relative to the growth rates projected under current law); impose an excise tax on insurance plans with relatively high premiums; and make various other changes to the Medicaid and Medicare programs and the federal tax code.

The Wall Street Journal has some more details on this $856 billion healthcare boondoggle.

Assuming that the healthcare debate would overshadow this piece of news, the Obama administration came to a startling conclusion about its cap-and-trade plan. It has concluded that this cap-and-tax scheme ... which has NOTHING to do with global warming ... would cost taxpayers $200 billion a year.

Read that again: this bill would cost you, the taxpayers, $200 billion a year.

That breaks down to an additional cost per American household of $1,761 a year.

That is the equivalent of raising personal income taxes by 15% (for the producers who actually pay income taxes).


Are you prepared to shoulder the burden to pay for this ponzi scheme?

Well ... you really showed up over the weekend. Those of you who participated in the Tea Party protest in Washington sure did make a splash. You are to be congratulated. You did it! You showed up in numbers that not only surprised the DC police, but that I suspect shocked the political class. I was at an event last evening where I had a chance to shoot the breeze with both of Georgia's U.S. Senators. Let me tell you, my friends ... you've made an impact. There will be a lot of Senators and Representatives heading back to their Capitol Hill offices today trying to figure out just what this tremendous showing means.

The White House seems to already have it figured out. Presidential dog-washer David Axelrod said yesterday that the people who showed up in Washington yesterday "don't represent mainstream American views." So ... there you have it.

I'll tell you who else is surprised. That would be the New York and Washington press corps. As my father would have said, "They didn't know whether to s___ or go blind." (Where did these Marines get all of these colorful sayings?) The media, you see, has an ideological platform to support; and trying to give the appearance of presenting an objective picture of what happened media in Washington over the weekend, while protecting their ideological platform, turned out to be almost impossible.

The first issue to come up was the parsing down of the crowd size. Many lamestream media outlets described the protest as "thousands." Then it grew to "tens of thousands." But in fact, the number could have been as high as 1.5 million protestors. Sadly, it took a British newspaper to report the higher figure. To visually see how many people showed up in Washington, take a look at this time lapse video. Pretty neat, huh?

Also take a look at two instances that occurred on CNN, while trying to cover the Tea Party protests over the weekend. The first is CNN trying to do a story on Rep. Joe Wilson:

Toward the end of the live broadcast, the anchor just turns around to address the crowd because she is being drowned out by the protestors. The next is CNN interviewing a Tea Party protestor. You can tell exactly what this anchor is thinking, but this protestor handled himself with civility and eloquence.

If you ask Obama or his advisors like David Axelrod ... they will tell you that this DC protest does not represent the mainstream view in America. That's also what they said over the month of August for people who voiced their opinions at the healthcare town halls. This is the strategy of the left: marginalize the outcry. Make them feel isolated. It's harder to fight something if you feel that you are alone.

If you really want some change in Washington, you can't let Washington and the mainstream media marginalize you in this manner. You have to continue this sentiment through next year's election and beyond.

My question: Was this a moment or a movement. If this is truly a movement, you have to keep the momentum going through election time because that is when you can really make a change.

We can hope, can't we?

The mainstream media also had a hard time covering the ACORN scandal that hit last week. To my knowledge, FOX was the only channel carrying the story that went a little something like this: James O'Keefe video tapped his counseling session with an ACORN employee. He posed as a pimp and brought along a "prostitute" and was advised by an ACORN employee how they could get loans for their prostitution business, etc.

Somehow, the revelation of this video turned into an issue of race.

Here's a statement released by Margaret Williams, a board member of Maryland's ACORN office: It is clear and not coincidence that FOX continues to attack and divide our nation along racial lines. We believe our country is beyond this type of attack and call on all Americans to demand that FOX stop its racist coverage.

Here's another statement from ACORN's chief organizer Bertha Lewis. She says that conservative forces were conspiring to make ACORN the "Willie Horton for 2009." She also says, "We are the boogeyman for the right wing and its echo chambers."

The latest? Now ACORN is claiming that the video was altered and in no way represents what went on in that office in Baltimore.

Meanwhile, the fallout from this ACORN expose is not looking good for James O'Keefe. He is now facing the prospect of being prosecuted by Baltimore City's State Attorney. His crime? Violating a Maryland law that makes it illegal to tape someone without prior permission. If he is convicted, he could go to state prison for five years.

Isn't this just rich? O'Keefe vividly illustrates for the American people the essential corrupt nature of the ACORN organization .. and now he's facing the possibility of criminal prosecution. The ACORN workers who aided and abetted the illegal prostitution business? They can't be prosecuted because the only evidence against them was illegally obtained .... In Maryland you can't videotape someone without their permission.

Something good has come from this whole episode. The Census bureau has informed ACORN that they will have no role assisting the federal government in the 2010 Census. I say watch this one closely. The Obama Administration is going to do all it can go inflate the census numbers in minority areas, especially Hispanic areas, so we'll see if this ban of ACORN actually holds. My guess? ACORN will be up to its usual corrupt tricks during the Census. We'll see if I get a big "I told you so" on this one.

You know the story by now. Some independent filmmaker and a 20-year-old flatbelly walk into an ACORN office in Baltimore. They're there for some tax help. ACORN, you see, will help people with tax forms ...for a fee. He tells the ACORN workers that he's a pimp and the girl is his prostitute. They need help in reporting her income. The ACORN workers don't bat an eye ... they suggest that she should report here income as a performance artist. Then it gets good. They tell the ACORN staffers that they're bringing in some "very young" girls from El Salvador and the girls will be turning tricks for them. Now understand what we're talking about here .. slavery. These young teens will be held and forced to work as teen hookers for this guy. What did the ACORN workers do? They offered some advice to the "pimp" and his "prostitute" on how to hide these girls and get some tax write-offs for their care.

This is ACORN folks. These are the people who are under investigation throughout the country for voter fraud. These are the people who nurtured our President as he community activated his way to the White House. These people are crooks. Their very reason for being is to destroy the fabric of our country in order to prepare us to be a nation of government.

What did ACORN have to say when the video surfaced? They called it "gotcha journalism." What in the hell does that mean? I guess it means that a journalist checks out an organization that is receiving boatloads of public funds to see what they'll do if presented with a clear-cut plan for sex slavery and child exploitation. Then the journalist finds that the organization seems willing to actually help the bad guys get away with their scheme! Then the journalist spreads the word ... and this is "gotcha journalism?" Well then I guess you can say that I love "gotcha journalism."

Oh ... and ACORN fired the two workers that were involved in this mess. But don't expect anything to change here. It will be ACORN business as usual. And prosecution? Are you kidding? Do you think that the federal government would even consider prosecution for aiding and abetting? Are you forgetting who's in the White House and who is running Justice?

With Congress returning to Washington next week and PrezBO giving his address to a joint session of Congress, the Democrats need to figure out their healthcare plans and they need to figure them out real quick. Also .. the looters need to figure out how they are going to pay for all of this. I think that maybe ... just maybe ... the Democrats have figured out that the people of this country are not in the mood for more spending and the debt that comes along with it. So whatever the healthcare plan turns out to be, it can't contribute to the deficit or cost taxpayers more money ..... unless they are rich. That seems to be the failsafe approach to things. When in doubt, play up the wealth envy. That's exactly where we are headed.

Senate Democrats are already re-examining proposals to raise taxes on the evil, filthy, disgusting rich in order to pay for their healthcare dreams and schemes. Typical of Democrats, they will not call these tax increases. They will simply "limit tax deductions" or "let tax cuts expire." Pretty clever, huh? But the main proposal that Barack Obama is seriously considering would be to limit federal tax deductions for rich families - or, to be more accurate, the people out there who own the small businesses that provide most of America's jobs. So .. know what? Let's just substitute the word "employers" for "rich." For the most part it's accurate, but it sure changes the tone of the rhetoric.

Here we go ...

The original proposal would cap the value of itemized deductions at 28% of the total claimed by employers. Which employers? The employers whose small businesses show more than $250,000 a year in income. These are the employers who are providing 80% of all new non-government jobs in our economy, and 70% of all extant jobs.

Sounds a bit different, doesn't it?

Don't think that this isn't already happening in America, folks. Business, entrepreneurs, the achievers, the job creators can only last so long under an oppressive tax system. When I say "oppressive" I mean a system that punished achievement. While our tax system is nothing to brag about, the UK has income tax rates topping out at 50%.

What's the result? Brain drain. According to a survey by a leading accounting firm, one out of every five entrepreneurs says that they would not start a business again under the present system in Great Britain. At that, 90% believe that the UK is at "serious risk of brain drain" because of tax increases. Out of the 350 small businesses questioned, 89% believes that business talent will move abroad seeking more favorable conditions, and 12% say that there is a significant chance that they would move their own business.

Nigel May of the accounting firm MacIntyre Hudson says, "The Government's optimistic forecasts for recovery are based on the assumption that Britain's entrepreneurs will continue to innovate, build, work and take risk as they have before ... What the Chancellor may have overlooked is that these essential activities for future growth rely on the very people his so-called 'targeted' tax rises hit the hardest."

That is exactly what I have been saying about Barack Obama and the Democrats in this country. Their economic principals are flawed ... you can't tax people who make over $250,000 and expect our economy to recover. These are small business owners who create most of the jobs in this country. These are the people who provide paychecks. Who invest in our economy. Who donate to charity.

This is why the FairTax is so appealing to businesses. Tax burdens do make an impact on business owners. Without our imperial federal tax structure, trillions of dollars could return to this country. Imagine what THAT would do for our economy?

There's a tea party caravan on the way to Washington. The people in this caravan say that they've had just about enough of big government and high taxes, and they're exercising their free speech rights to let some of the high and mighty inside the beltway know.

OK ... I have an idea; perhaps a better way to make a statement. If you have a septic tank you know at least two things:

1. You know what is in that septic tank.
2. You know that there are people who will come to your home and pump that stuff out of there every once in a while.

You also probably suspect that there is an overabundance of that very same stuff in Washington DC. So .. how about another caravan!

Close your eyes for a second and try to envision about 100 of those septic tank cleaning trucks heading to Washington DC. Just drive into town, circle the Capitol, drive down the National Mall, and then find a place for a little rally. They symbolism would be wonderful.

OK ... I'm the idea man here. I don't do all that well at implementing, so I'm leaving this up to someone else. Hint: The symbolism here would be so strong that you can bet the Democrats would try to find a way to stop you; probably using the Department of Homeland Security.

The AFL-CIO has come up with a brilliant plan to reap billions of dollars ... tax evil corporation profits. The plan is to tax every stock transaction. While they call it a "small" tax (about a tenth of a percent) the tax would generate $50 billion to $100 billion a year. Policy director for the AFL-CIO, Thea Lee, says there are two reasons for imposing the new tax: raising revenue and discouraging speculative financial activity. She explains, "The big disadvantage of most taxes is that they discourage some really productive activity ... This would discourage numerous financial transactions. People flip their assets several times in an hour or a day. They make money but does it really add to the productive base of the United States?" Now, what might this money be used for? The goal would be to use the tax revenue on infrastructure projects (for unionized employees, obviously). And get this, the tax could be applied nationwide or internationally.

Question: Who should make the decision as to when to buy or sell a stock? The government? Some union hack? Hey! Here's an idea! Let the person who owns the stock decide when to sell it! And let the person with money decide when to invest! I think there's a word for that ... "freedom," I think. But then we're talking about unions, aren't we?

Government wants back in. The Democrats want the government back in. In where? To our financial institutions, that's where. Make no mistake, the looters are more than a little upset that companies like Goldman Sachs have not only repaid their loans but are now making billions in profits. That drives them wild! What in the hell are those companies and the people who invest in them doing with all of that money that we could be using to buy votes .. or that could be spent to employ union workers. Well ... since these companies and their investors have broken free and are once again thriving, let's just levy a little tax against trading in their stock.

But hold tight, my friends. You ain't seen nuttin yet. Wait until the looters propose going after your pension funds, your IRAs and your 401Ks. It just not fair that you should have a comfortable retirement when so many people are going to have to rely on the busted Social Security system.

Medicare is one of these brilliant government programs that have grown so hugely out of proportion that we cannot continue to fund it at its current level. This is the way it seems to have worked with every single government spending program ever instituted by the federal government. This is most certainly the way it will turn out with ObamaCare. This is why reports like this should scare you. Rep. Betsy Markey of Fort Collins, Colorado says that come Medicare recipients will have to give up some of their current benefits in order to reform the healthcare system.

Here's Betsy's actual quote: "There's going to be some people who are going to have to give up some things, honestly, for all of this to work ... But we have to do this because we're Americans."

There you go, folks. We have to give up things that we've worked for; things that we've paid for ... because that's what Americans do.

Moving the clock forward now ... say for about 14 years. Let's make that 14 years after the Democrats get their nationalized healthcare. This healthcare program will have grown to a size of epic proportions and Americans will be completely and totally reliant on the government for their healthcare ... just the way the looters want it. But there's one problem: it has become grossly expensive. Taxes have been raised to the point where the achievers, the evil rich, are bailing out. They can't bear the weight, the burden, of this redistributive society any longer. So Congress decides that it needs to cut back on healthcare spending. You are being told that your need for health services will have to be weighed against the needs of the rest of your fellow Americans .. and that you just might have to give up some medical care that someone else needs more. You'll be expected to go along, though, because that's just what we do. Why? Because "we're Americans."

THAT is the healthcare future for your grandkids if you don't keep the pressure on your representatives. Look .. sure, there are problems with the delivery of healthcare. Those problems, however, were CAUSED by government .. and more government isn't the solution. The private sector can deliver these services in the most efficient manner possible - but only if government backs off. That solution doesn't work, though, for Democrats. Why? Because this isn't about improving the delivery of healthcare services to the American people. This is about CONTROL. Governments don't exercise more control by backing off.

People who purchased cars recently under this cash for clunkers program may find out a little something they weren't expecting: that $4,500 rebate from the government taxpayers is taxable.

Not only are you taxed once, but this blogger points out that depending on which state you live in, you could be taxed twice on clunker rebates. "Specifically, you pay sales tax on the full vehicle price (effectively paying sales tax on the $4,500!) and what's worse those states that tax income (that would be most of them!) might wind up counting this as income for state income tax purposes too, effectively taxing you twice."

Even when the government tries to kiss you, it is just a prelude to a good screwing.

As soon as the Democrats get through with seizing control of your health care, they're going to go right back to the Cap-and-Tax bill. It's already passed the House, and Senate Democrats are licking their chops?

How eager are the Senate Democrats? Well, Maryland Democrat Senator Benjamin L. Cardin is positively giddy with excitement. He recently called cap-and-tax "the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time." Revenue producing? And here stupid me thought this was about the economy. Cardin also said the Democrats would have to pass cap-and-tax in a reconciliation bill because to do otherwise would be to allow a "handful of Republicans" to tie up this great revenue bill in the Senate.

There is not one dollar in your pocket that these Democrats don't want to put their hands on. Hope you're planning your escape.

Transcript of remarks made by Leo Carrington (who doesn't exist) to a mandatory meeting of all employees of Carrington Automotive Enterprises, Inc. (which doesn't exist either) on August 17th, 2009 at the Royal Payne Hotel (a purely imaginary place) in Norfolk, Virginia (which does, in fact, exist).

I would like to start by thanking you for attending this meeting, though it's not like you had much of a choice. After all, attendance was mandatory. I'm also glad many of you accepted my invitation to your family members to be here as well. I have a few remarks to make to all of you, and then we'll retire to the ballroom for a great lunch and some employee awards.

I felt that this meeting was important enough to close all 12 of our tire and automotive shops today so that you could be here. To reassure you, everybody is being paid for the day --- except me. Since our stores are closed we're making no money. That economic loss is mine to sustain. Carrington Automotive has 157 full time employees and around 30 additional part-timers. All of you are here. I thank you for that.

When you walked into this auditorium you were handed a rather thick 78-page document. Many of you have already taken a peek. You were probably surprised to see that it's my personal tax return for 2008. Those of you who are adept at reading these tax returns will see that last year my taxable income was $534,000.00. Now I'm sure this seems rather high to many of you. So ... let's talk about this tax return.

Carrington Automotive Enterprises is what we call a Sub-S - a Subchapter S corporation. The name comes from a particular part of our tax code. Sub-S status means that the income from all 12 of our stores is reported on my personal tax return. Businesses that report their income on the owner's personal tax return are referred to as "small businesses." So, you see now that this $534,000 is really the total taxable income - the total combined profit from all 12 of our stores. That works out to an average of a bit over $44,000 per store.

Why did I feel it important for you to see my actual 2008 tax return? Well, there's a lot of rhetoric being thrown around today about taxes, small businesses and rich people. To the people in charge in Washington right now I'm a wealthy American making over a half-million dollars a year. Most Americans would agree: I'm just another rich guy; after all ... I had over a half-million in income last year, right? In this room we know that the reality is that I'm a small business owner who runs 12 retail establishments and employs 187 people. Now here's something that shouldn't surprise you, but it will: Just under 100 percent ... make that 99.7 percent of all employers in this countries are small businesses, just like ours. Every one of these businesses reports their income on a personal income tax return. You need to understand that small businesses like ours are responsible for about 80 percent of all private sector jobs in this country, and about 70 percent of all jobs that have been created over the past year. You also need to know that when you hear some politician talking about rich people who earn over $200,000 or $500,000 a year, they're talking about the people who create the jobs.

The people who are now running the show in Washington have been talking for months about raising taxes on wealthy Americans. I already know that in two years my federal income taxes are going to go up by about 4.5 percent. That happens when Obama and the Democrats allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. When my taxes climb by 4.5 percent the Democrats will be on television saying that this really isn't a tax increase. They'll explain that the Bush tax cuts have expired .. nothing more. Here at Carrington we'll know that almost 5% has been taken right off of our bottom line. And that means it will be coming off your bottom line.

Numbers are boring, I know ... but let's talk a bit more about that $534,000. That's the money that was left last year from company revenues after I paid all of the salaries and expenses of running this business. Now I could have kept every penny of that for myself, but that would have left us with nothing to grow our business, to attract new customers and to hire new employees. You're aware that we've been talking about opening new stores in Virginia Beach and Newport News. To do that I will have to buy or lease property, construct a building and purchase inventory. I also have to hire additional people to work in those stores. These people wouldn't immediately be earning their pay. So, where do you think the money for all of this comes from? Right out of our profits .. right out of that $534,000. I need to advertise to bring customers in, especially in these tough times. Where do you think that money comes from? Oh sure, I can count it as an expense when I file my next income tax return .. but for right now that comes from either current revenues or last year's profits. Revenues right now aren't all that hot ... so do the math. A good effective advertising campaign might cost us more than $300,000.

Is this all starting to come together for you now?

Right now the Democrats are pushing a nationalized health care plan that, depending on who's doing the talking, will add anywhere from another two percent to an additional 4.6 percent to my taxes. If I add a few more stores, which I would like to do, and if the economy improves, my taxable income ... our business income ... could go over one million dollars! If that happens the Democrats have yet another tax waiting, another five percent plus! I've really lost tract of all of the new government programs the Democrats and President Obama are proposing that they claim they will be able to finance with new taxes on what they call "wealthy Americans."

And while we're talking about health care, let me explain something else to you. I understand that possibly your biggest complaint with our company is that we don't provide you with health insurance. That is because as your employer I believe that it is my responsibility to provide you with a safe workplace and a fair wage and to do all that I can to preserve and grow this company that provides us all with income. I no more have a responsibility to provide you with health insurance than I do with life, auto or homeowner's insurance. As you know, I have periodically invited agents for health insurance companies here to provide you with information on private health insurance plans. The Democrats are proposing to levy yet another tax against Carrington in the amount of 8 percent of my payroll as a penalty for not providing you with health insurance. You should know that if they do this I will be reducing every person's salary or hourly wage by that same 8 percent. This will not be done to put any more money in my pocket. It will be done to make sure that I don't suffer financially from the Democrat's efforts to place our healthcare under the control of the federal government. It is your health, not mine. It is your healthcare, not mine. These are your expenses, not mine. If you think I'm wrong about all this, I would sure love to hear your reasoning.

Try to understand what I'm telling you here. Those people that Obama and the Democrats call "wealthy Americans" are, in very large part, America's small business owners. I'm one of them. You have the evidence, and surely you don't think that the owner of a bunch of tire stores is anything special. That $534,000 figure on my income tax return puts me squarely in Democrat crosshairs when it comes to tax increases.

Let's be clear about this ... crystal clear. Any federal tax increase on me is going to cost you money, not me. Any new taxes on Carrington Automotive will be new taxes that you, or the people I don't hire to staff the new stores I won't be building, will be paying. Do you understand what I'm telling you? You've heard about things rolling downhill, right? Fine .. then you need to know that taxes, like that other stuff, roll downhill. Now you and I may understand that you are not among those that the Democrats call "wealthy Americans," but when this "tax the rich" thing comes down you are going to be standing at the bottom of the mud slide, if you get my drift. That's life in the big city, my friends ... where elections have consequences.

You know our economy is very weak right now. I've pledged to get us through this without layoffs or cuts in your wages and benefits. It's too bad the politicians can't get us through this without attacking our profits. To insure our survival I have to take a substantial portion of that $534,000 and set it aside for unexpected expenses and a worsening economy. Trouble is, the government is eyeing that money too ... and they have the guns. If they want it, they can take it.

I don't want to make this too long. There's a great lunch waiting for us all. But you need to understand what's happening here. I've worked hard for 23 years to create this business. There were many years where I couldn't take a penny in income because every dollar was being dedicated to expanding the business. There were tough times when it took every dollar of revenues to replenish our inventory and cover your paychecks. During those times I earned nothing. If you want to see those tax returns, just let me know.

OK .. I know I'm repeating myself here. I don't hire stupid people, and you are probably getting it now. So let me just ramble for a few more minutes.

Most Americans don't realize that when the Democrats talk about raising taxes on people making more than $250 thousand a year, they're talking about raising taxes on small businesses. The U.S. Treasury Department says that six out of every ten individuals in this country with incomes of more than $280,000 are actually small business owners. About one-half of the income in this country that would be subject to these increased taxes is from small businesses like ours. Depending on how many of these wonderful new taxes the Democrats manage to pass, this company could see its tax burden increase by as much as $60,000. Perhaps more.

I know a lot of you voted for President Obama. A lot of you voted for Democrats across the board. Whether you voted out of support for some specific policies, or because you liked his slogans, you need to learn one very valuable lesson from this election. Elections have consequences. You might have thought it would be cool to have a president who looks like you; or a president who is young, has a buff bod, and speaks eloquently when there's a teleprompter in the neighborhood. Maybe you liked his promises to tax the rich. Maybe you believed his promise not to raise taxes on people earning less than a certain amount. Maybe you actually bought into his promise to cut taxes on millions of Americans who actually don't pay income taxes in the first place. Whatever the reason .. your vote had consequences; and here they are.

Bottom line? I'm not taking this hit alone. As soon as the Democrats manage to get their tax increases on the books, I'm going to take steps to make sure that my family isn't affected. When you own the business, that is what you're allowed to do. I built this business over a period of 23 years, and I'm not going to see my family suffer because we have a president and a congress who think that wealth is distributed rather than earned. Any additional taxes, of whatever description, that President Obama and the Democrats inflict on this business will come straight out of any funds I have set aside for expansion or pay and benefit increases. Any plans I might have had to hire additional employees for new stores will be put aside. Any plans for raises for the people I now have working for me will be shelved. Year-end bonuses might well be eliminated. That may sound rough, but that's the reality.

You're going to continue to hear a lot of anti-wealth rhetoric out there from the media and from the left. You can chose to believe what you wish .. .but when it comes to Carrington Automotive you will know the truth. The books are open to any of you at any time. I have nothing to hide. I would hope that other small business owners out there would hold meetings like this one, but I know it won't happen that often. One of the lessons to be learned here is that taxes ... all taxes ... and all regulatory costs that are placed on businesses anywhere in this country, will eventually be passed right on down to individuals; individuals such as yourself. This hasn't been about admonishing anyone and it hasn't been about issuing threats. This is part of the education you should have received in the government schools, but didn't. Class is now dismissed.

Let's eat.

© 2009 Neal Boortz

A listener pointed me to this article by David Sirota that appeared on Salon.com. It's called "The me-first, screw-everyone-else crowd: Nothing will keep the rich from whining about how tough easy street is," and it is written by David Sirota. Based on the title, I knew that I was in for a treat. So what I am going to do is explain to you why this whiny liberal has no idea what in the heck he is talking about.

I know I should be mortified by the lobbyist-organized mobs of angry Brooks Brothers mannequins who are now making headlines by shutting down congressional town hall meetings. I know I should be despondent during this, the Khaki Pants Offensive in the Great American Healthcare and Tax War. And yet, I'm euphorically repeating one word over and over again with a big grin on my face ....

I'm also fairly certain that when many of you run into the me-first, screw-everyone-else crowd, you don't feel like confronting the faux outrage. But on the off chance you do muster the masochistic impulse to engage, here's a guide to navigating the conversation:

What they will scream: We can't raise business taxes, because American businesses already pay excessively high taxes!

What you should say: Here's the smallest violin in the world playing for the businesses. The Government Accountability Office reports that most U.S. corporations pay zero federal income tax. Additionally, as even the Bush Treasury Department admitted, America's effective corporate tax rate is the third lowest in the industrialized world.

My response: Sorry. Obama isn't talking about raising taxes on corporations. He's talking about raising taxes on Americans earning over $200 or $250,000 a year. These small business owners provide 70% of all jobs in our economy, and are creating 80% of all the new jobs. They report their income on individual income tax returns ... the returns filed by the very people that are Obama's crosshairs for a tax hike. Your little ploy of plugging "corporations" into a discussion on raising business taxes sure didn't work all that well for you, did it?

What they will scream: But the rich still "pay close to 60 percent of this nation's taxes!"

What you should say: Such statistics refer only to the federal income tax. When considering all of "this nation's taxes" including payroll, state and local levies, the top 5 percent pay just 38.5 percent of the taxes.

My response: Once again you try to change the terms of the debate. This is not about "the nation's taxes." We're talking about raising income taxes. So, as uncomfortable as it may be to you, let's keep the discussion there. The top 1% of income earners in this country pay over 40% of all income taxes. They earn about 20% of all income. By any measure they're more than carrying their load.

What they will scream: But 38.5 percent is disproportionately high! See? You've proved that the rich "contribute more than their share" of taxes!

What you should say: Actually, they are paying almost exactly "their share." According to the data, the wealthiest 5 percent of America pays 38.5 percent of the total taxes precisely because they make just about that share -- a whopping 36.5 percent! -- of total national income. Asking these folks to pay slightly more in taxes -- and still less than they did during the go-go 1990s -- is hardly extreme.

My response: Well, we've pretty much covered this, haven't we? The discussion is over income taxes, not "total taxes." It's too bad you libs have to change the terms of the discussion in order to come even close to making a valid point.

I hope you noticed a few other things about Sirota's Salon column. There's the name-calling, of course. The "Brooks Brothers Brigade," and "me-first, screw everyone else." Leave it to a liberal looter like Sirota so play the wealth envy card. And as for this "me-first" stuff .. imagine how much better off our country would be if every citizen was dedicated to providing for their own needs first and foremost, and then found time to insert themselves into the lives of others.

By the way ... David Sirota was once the press secretary for Vermont Congressman (now Senator) Bernard Sanders. Sanders is an avowed socialist. Funny how the pieces fit, isn't it?

Well, folks. The figures are out. The latest numbers from the IRS have hit the mean streets --- and guess what? The rich still aren't paying their fair share! Well .. that will be the liberal line, but since you're reading the Nuze YOU are going to know the truth. So here it is .. the latest figures from the year 2007, according to the Tax Foundation.

The top 1% of taxpayers officially paid 40.4% of total federal income taxes. This is the highest percentage in modern history. Compare that number to twenty years prior (1987) when the top 1% of taxpayers paid 24.8% of income taxes. Now if you're not initiated into the Church of the Painful Truth you're probably thinking that the evil top 1% probably earn way over 40% of the income. Well .. you would be wrong. These nasty, disgusting and oh-so-easy to hate high-achievers actually earned about 22.8% of total adjusted gross income. And just how much does some crook have to earn to be in this top 1%? Try $410,000. Remember now .. many, if not most, of these wretched people are small business owners and their adjusted gross income is really their business income. Still .. they're nasty. Right?

Ok .. more painful truth. The share of taxes paid by the top 1% of taxpayers now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95% of taxpayers. Again, the top 1% paid 40.4% of incomes taxes while the bottom 95% paid 39.4% of the income tax burden. For those of you who are government educated, that means that the top 1% of taxpayers (which is just 1.4 million people) paid a larger share of the income tax burden than the bottom 95% of taxpayers (which is comprised of 134 million people). This means that the evil rich are carrying the road.

The key to these numbers is that over 9 out of 10 Americans will never see them nor will anyone ever share these numbers with them. So the Democrats will, in spite of these numbers, be able to continue to demonize the evil rich and spread the lie that somehow they aren't "paying their fair share." To make things worse ... Democrat demagogues will continue to promote the idea that all of their vote-buying social welfare programs can easily be funded with additional taxes on the rich. Where do they start? When the top 1% is paying about 80% of all income taxes?

Well .. it gets worse. Now for the first time, the IRS decided to break things down even further. It presented data on the super rich, the top 0.1% of tax earners. We are talking about the top 10% of the top 1% of earners. About 141,000 taxpayers fit into this group. Those 141,000 people account for 12% of the adjusted gross income earned but they pay 20% of all federal income taxes.

A caller last Friday asked me where I would move to find better economic opportunities. Well .. there's two answers to that.

We all know that Barack Obama and the looters are making all sorts of plans to raise taxes on the producers. If you wish to stay in this country there may not be all that much you can do to escape higher federal income taxes. You can, however, beat some of the rap by moving to a state that has no state income tax. Perhaps that ought to be your first move. If you're out of work right now your chances of finding new and meaningful employment might be better if you were to move to a state where economic improvement will come sooner and stronger. States without a state income tax will be leading the economic recovery, so perhaps one of those states should be in your plans.

So .. what states are those? Here's your list: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. Note also that Tennessee and New Hampshire only tax interest and dividends, not wages and salaries. If the looters realize their tax dreams the marginal rate for high-achievers in Georgia will be over 50%. That ought to create a bit of southbound traffic on I-75.

But wait (as they say), there's more! States with lower taxes will have the edge when it comes to economic recovery, but there's another element to consider .. unions. States with right-to-work laws, where you can't be forced to join a union in order to work, will certainly have an edge over forced-union states when the recovery gains steam. Of the states with no state income tax, Alaska, Washington and New Hampshire are forced-unionism states. They'll be lagging behind when it comes to economic recovery. So ... if moving is an option for you, consider Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee and Wyoming.

Now .. if the looters make things so bad that you might have to consider leaving the country, you might want to look at the 2009 Index of Economic Freedom from The Heritage Foundation. Here's your link. There are five countries/city-states that have a higher index of economic freedom than the United States. With the Democrats passing laws restricting executive pay and the government takeover of certain businesses, I'm sure that the U.S. is moving on down the list. At any rate; here, in the order of their rating for economic liberty, are the Top Five: Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand. Delta is ready when you are --- but you may get bumped.

Here's some more Hopey-Changy news for the esteemed American middle class. You know all that stuff that PrezBO was promising? Yeah .. that's it: that there would be no middle class tax cut.

Tax cheat Timothy Geithner and White House advisor Larry Summers made the rounds on the TV shows over the weekend. Something peculiar stuck out about their comments: they would not commit to uphold Barack Obama's pledge only increasing taxes on the evil, filthy, disgusting rich.

Tim Geithner says that it is imperative that the government slash its deficits. Would the administration be willing to increase taxes in order to do that? Geithner says, "We're going to have to do what's necessary ... We can't make these judgments yet about exactly what it's going to take and how we're going to get there."

Well ... whatever. It's not as if Geithner pays taxes anyway.

Then Larry Summers says that he cannot rule out tax increases on the middle class in order to pay for Obama's healthcare reform plans. Summers says that it is too early to tell what is going to be necessary in order to revamp the healthcare system. He says, "It's never a good idea to absolutely rule things out no matter what, but what the president has been completely clear on is this: That he is not going to pursue any of his priorities, not health care, not energy -- nothing -- in ways that are primarily burdening middle-class families."

I'll tell you exactly how they are going to do it. They are going to continue increasing taxes on the evil, filthy rich. That is the politically sound thing to do, and we know that this has nothing to do with healthcare or deficits. It has everything to do with maintaining power.

There's no other way to say this, and it's not as if you haven't already noticed. American is becoming a nation of fat, disgusting lardasses. We are a nation of overindulgent blubberbutts. One third of American adults are obese. Visual observations would point you to a higher number.

But it didn't always used to be this way. The obesity rate in America has risen 37% from 1998 to 2006, this according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs. Along with expanding waste lines comes .. you guessed it .. expanded healthcare costs. Obesity-related health spending has doubled in one decade to $147 billion. That's because being a lardass has its consequences: diabetes, heart disease, scooters. All of these things cost money. In fact, obese people can expect to pay an average of $1,400 more every year than a normal person on medical expenses. I don't have a problem with that. They chose to gorge and live an unhealthy lifestyle, and they should be made to pay for the consequences.

Now the Democrats have whined and moaned about the increased cost of healthcare. This is one of the main reasons why they say they want healthcare reform - to control the 'sky-rocketing' costs of healthcare. Even though their plans will not lower or control the price of healthcare one bit. But that is beside the point. Why they've also failed to tell you in that 9.1% of medical spending in this country is spent on obesity-related conditions. Just one decade ago, that number was only 6.5%.

OK ... so here's a suggestion. Senator Looser (John Kerry) is proposing a tax on what he calls "gold-plated" health care plans. Well, these plans aren't the problem. If some people work harder than others and can thereby afford more comprehensive healthcare plans ... why should they be punished? If Kerry and the rest of his Democrat sycophants think they can lower healthcare costs through taxation, how about a fat tax? The VAT seems popular with these people .. why not a FAT? The Fat Accumulation Tax. The heavier you are the more taxes you pay to cover the cost of your extra medical care.

You get more of the behavior you reward. Lower taxes on the productive Americans who are powering our economy. You get less of the behavior you punish .. a FAT tax. Make these people pay for their slovenly habits and watch them thin down. And don't give me this poverty nonsense either ... if you can afford the FAT, don't eat the fat.

The Democrats are still scrounging to figure out more ways to tax the tar out of Americans in order to fund their government healthcare scheme. The latest idea they are said to be considering is a 10% excise tax on cosmetic surgery .. face-lifts, tummy tucks, hair transplants, etc. It would use the tax code as a means of enforcement. Not only would procedures prohibited under Section 213 of the tax code not be deductible, but they would be subject to a new tax.

Well .. here we go again. This is more of the same from the Democrats - go after those evil, disgusting high-achieving rich people by taxing the stuff that they do with their money. That ought to bring them down to size. The middle class isn't out there getting face lifts ... so they won't complain about the new tax.

I told you yesterday that sooner or later the Democrats will find a way to tax pretty much anything that high-achievers can do by virtue of their higher earnings. That will include special taxes on nicer homes, better cars and more exciting vacations. Think I'm kidding? Just wait ... and you have a chance to put more of these dangerous people in office next year, go for it.

While the White House is not so crazy about the idea of taxing employee benefits, what it now considering is a plan to tax "gold-plated, Cadillac" insurance policies. A top White House official told the POLITICO, "A premium charge on top of the most expensive packages is one of the ways to ensure that there's a lid on health-care costs ... The president believes this is an intriguing idea."

Even Barack Obama himself says, "What's being talked about now, I understand, is the possibility of penalizing insurance companies who are offering super, gold-plated Cadillac plans."

What an idea here! Once they get this in place they why not spread it to other areas of the market place? I have one great idea already! How about taxing "gold-plated" housing! Now there's an idea that any Democrat could fall in love with in a heartbeat. Here's how it would work. While there are so many Americans who cannot afford a basic one bedroom, one bath house of their own, how can it be fair that some Americans can go out there and buy a five-bedroom, five-bath mansion? The obvious solution here would be to pass a special tax on "gold-plated" mansions and then use the money to help the poor, poor, pitiful poor buy a home of their own! Hey! And once we get this in place for homes we can go after expensive automobiles! Yeah! I can see it now! A tax on "gold-plated" automobiles to help the great unwashed be able to afford transportation.

What a wonderful new Democrat idea we have here. I just can't wait to see it expanded.

Well, let's call it slightly promising. It seems that with every day that passes more and more people start to express doubts over the Democrat's plan for a nationalization of our health care system. Now some of the nation's governors are weighing in with their concerns over the possibility of increased Medicaid costs.

Is it possible that the people of this country are going to catch on? A huge portion of American citizens - perhaps a majority - care about only one thing; shedding yet another personal responsibility. They don't care who runs our health care system as long as they don't have to take personal responsibility for their own health needs. Just look around you at the ever-increasing proportion of lardasses in our society. These people don't care enough about their own health to push back from the table or to drive by a fast food joint without turning in. Do you think they have one desire in the world to take responsibility for their own health needs? If someone else wants to do it, that's just fine with them ... especially if the evil rich can be forced to foot the bill. That just leaves these gargantuan hulks more money for Whoppers and Quarter Pounders.

Perhaps, though, the people who will end up paying the bills - the achievers - are starting to take note of the terrible costs to be paid for what will surely be a sub-standard health care system. Who knows? Maybe the slovenly caucus will actually start wondering just how they're going to like it when the government tells them they can't have a particular medical procedure because they're too old ... or too fat.

No Private Sector Options on the table

There has never, in the history of civilization, been an economic system devised by man that did a better and more efficient job of delivering need and desired goods to the population than our system of free enterprise. How many of you think that you would have those iPhones in your pockets if the government was still closely regulating the phone companies? Yet the Democrats' plans for health care completely ignore the private sector. It's all government. There are some very easy private sector options that could be tried before the government takes the whole ball of wax over ... and if you want just a few easy examples, here you go:

Allow insurance companies to tailor health care policies to the specific needs of the customers. I, for instance, do not need maternity protection or coverage for alcohol rehab.

• Allow consumers to purchase health insurance companies across state lines.
• Widen the availability of medical savings accounts.
• Allow consumers to deduct the cost of insurance from their taxable income.
• Allow doctors, nurses and medical suppliers to take a credit against any income taxes due for the market value of services provided free to those living at or below the poverty level.

There .. that took about 30 seconds. All viable private-sector options, yet none are on the table for the Democrats in Washington.

This isn't about improving our health care. This is all about taking OVER your health care and making you that much more dependent on government.

Come on, folks. You NEED to wake up here.

Las Vegas can be a bit exhausting, so all I wanted to do on the AirTran flight home yesterday was saw some logs. I cranked up the Kindle, though, and started reading the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. An AJC editorial presented some ways the Atlanta area might crawl out of the economic doldrums. Here was one suggestion:

"We believe, though, that Atlantans in the right tax brackets should shake off a bit of their investing conservatism and put more dollars behind our hometown startups and young companies.

"If the prospect of triple-digit investment returns aren't enough, consider the civic good of helping the region grow high-paying jobs.

"Surely Atlanta investors can step up more, even during hard times, and seize potentially lucrative, if risky, opportunities.

Say what?

This jewel of an editorial was written by one Andre Jackson representing the AJC editorial board.

Well, Andre ... have a seat. I have a few things to say to you. First ... I haven't seen your name before, so I have no idea how long you've been hanging around the AJC. You should know, though, that your paper has excelled in promoting wealth envy since I stepped off that Greyhound here 42 years ago. Your editorial board has never missed a chance to throw the word "greed" at high-achievers. In reading years worth of AJC editorials you would scarcely know that Atlantans with money to invest actually worked for their wealth. They earned it. To the editors of the AJC they were either "lucky" or they exploited some poor, downtrodden, pitiful poor people. AJC editorial word processors have a two-key macro for inserting the phrase "pay their fair share" into commentaries. I dare say that there is not one person on the editorial board that could come close to telling you (a) what percentage of total income is earned by the top 1% of income earners; and, (b) what percentage of total income taxes the disgusting top 1% pay.

So .. here you come suggesting that the very people your paper has made a cause out of vilifying for decades step forward and, if necessary, sacrifice a goodly portion of their wealth in Atlanta startups.

As it turns out, I have a bit of money I could invest, but I'm holding those funds very close. Let me tell you why, sport. I would bet five dollars to a donut hole that you voted for Obama. Good for you. Hope you're enjoying all of this wonderful change while you're telling me how you want me to invest my money. While you're getting your jollies from the hopey-changy thing I am working overtime trying to figure out how to save as much of my future income and retirement nest egg from this guy as I possibly can; and I suspect I'm not alone.

Have you taken stock of how your man wants to raise our taxes? Or, I should say, have you seen his plan of attack on the very people whom you think ought to be pouring money into Atlanta startups? Let's start with a guaranteed 4.6% tax increase in about 17 months. Then we have surtaxes ranging from 1% to 3% to cover his health care dreams, plus taxes on our health care plans. Charlie Rangel has an even higher surtax - this one over 5% -- waiting for the super achievers, the ones with real money to invest. Then let's add to all of this a reduction in allowable tax deductions (really another tax increase) and the removal of the Social Security earnings cap. You total these goodies up and the tax rate will be around 50% for the people you think have all this money to invest. And Andre ... we're just talking federal taxes. You might want to remember that our esteemed city council just raised property taxes by 45%, and then there's the Georgia income tax on top of it all. To make things even worse, Obama thinks that Christine Kirchner, the President of Argentina, is one of the hottest things going in this hemisphere. She nationalized all pension plans in Argentina. Retired Argentineans will now get their checks from the government. Do you, Andre, want to convince me that your president isn't thinking the same thoughts here?

Tell you what, Andre. When we get a president and a controlling party in Washington that exhibits even a faint affection for capitalism and economic liberty, you can drop us another note. When we have a governing --- or "ruling," as Obama likes to day --- party that doesn't see tax increases as the answer to every problem plaguing mankind; when the leaders of this nation respect private property ... then you can talk to me about investing in your pet startup projects. While this menace is in the White House, and while the corrupt Charlie Rangel is writing our tax laws, I'm sitting tight.

There is no way that Democrats could be ignorant enough not to understand that their proposed tax increases are going to hit businesses. Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a 5.4% surtax on income over $1 million along with other smaller surtaxes on the evil, filthy, disgusting rich people earning more than $250,000.

The Tax Foundation has done an excellent job of figuring out exactly how this is going to affect the achievers - the business owners who write paychecks and provide a source of income for millions of Americans. The charts are worth a peak, but here are some of their findings ....

- 70.1% of returns facing a tax increase have some form of business income.

- 26.0% of all income earned by those returns facing a tax increase is business income.

- The total tax increase on business income would be $51.3 billion, a 24.5% increase, assuming business income is the last dollar of income earned.

- 36.7% of the total tax increase is attributable to tax increases on business income, assuming business income is the last dollar of income earned.

- The average return with business income would face a total tax increase of $3,246.

- The average return facing a tax increase would face a total tax increase of $54,716.

- The average return with business income that is facing a tax increase would pay an extra $66,979.

There's a lot more .. and it will be easier to understand if you read the chart.

And speaking of businesses .. the House Democrat plan also plans to impose a penalty of 8% of payroll if employers do not offer health insurance. This will be the case for all but the smallest of businesses. According to this editorial in the Miami Herald, a survey by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) found that 20 percent of its respondents would simply shut down if they were faced with this choice. They couldn't afford it. One out of four said they would replace full-time workers with part-time workers in order to avoid having to pay anything.

Now this is change you can believe in! Remember, folks. Elections have consequences.

... these tax increases still aren't going to be enough. Late Friday night, the Congressional Budget Office released an estimate: the House Democrats' healthcare bill would increase the federal deficit by $239 billion over the next 10 years.

So now what? The Democrats are going to cut existing programs even more in order to meet their goal of paying for the bill? Yeah .. sure they are. Those programs represent votes. Each program has a voting constituency. No cuts. No, they are going to increase taxes even more on the filthy, disgusting, evil rich. Based on what you have already read above, you know how well that is going to turn out.

Not all that well, huh?

Have you gone from recognizing that the stimulus isn't working to actually trying to figure out why? Allow me to help.

Economists will tell you that the economy will really start to recover when people start spending money. Thus far, that isn't happening. The only stimulus money was actually put into the hands of the people was that pitiful $400 for individuals and $800 for families. Most of these people used the extra money not to buy something, but to either save or pay down some bills. They're scared, remain scared, and aren't in a buying mood right now. A one-time check doesn't really do it. They need to see a long-term and permanent increase in their take-home income, and thus a long-term increase in their ability to spend. How do you do that? Simple - tax cuts. Not just a one-time check, but a real tax cut. And not just a tax cut for the poor (who don't pay taxes anyway) and the middle class; but a tax cut for everyone, businesses included. Let the people who create the jobs keep more of the money they earn - and what happens? Do you think that somehow more jobs might be created?

President Hopenchange went the opposite way. Instead of a promise that people will be able to keep more of what they earn, his administration (and the entire Democrat party, for that matter) delivers a cacophony of rhetoric about increasing taxes on the very people we need to start the economic recovery. How smart his that? In the meantime they dump billions of dollars into idiotic government pork projects and call it economic stimulus.

It's the old Bill Clinton "You won't spend your money the right way" bit revisited. Just how long are we going to sit around and let these so-called "leaders" in Washington play us for such fools? When do the majority of Americans wake up and see this as the government power play it is? With so many Americans being government educated, there's not much real hope out there. Let's face it, the Republican Party sure isn't doing anything worth mentioning. They can't even come up with a counter-offer to Obama's socialized medicine.

Now ... Cristina has chosen some reading assignments.

An FCC commissioner, Michael Copps, has an internal report which examines the state of media journalism. The report discusses, "ways to address issues such as the rise of media conglomerates and the prevalence of opinion journalism." Known as the Notification of Inquiry, this is the first step the FCC usually takes when making new rules to regulate media.

As you can imagine, the report talks about the decline of traditional media and the rise of others such as blogging. But there are a few ideas that I want to point out. These are ideas that are circulating in the FCC and could have potential impact on yours truly, not to mention the basic concept of freedom of the press.

One idea presented in the report is using the tax code as an incentive to help struggling news outlets. We are talking about either tax breaks or government handouts. See politicians love to do that .. use the tax code to punish or entice. That is why they are so resistant to ideas like the FairTax - because it would remove this powerful weapon from their arsenal. Consider this ... if the government creates a system of government tax breaks or handouts for various elements of the media, don't you just know that media outlets that are more friendly to Obama will get the goodies? After all, that's the way its working with stimulus funding. If your area voted Obama you're more likely to get help. Here we will have government bureaucrats picking media winners and losers. Some Americans see the danger in that.

Another issue floated in the report is the possibility of "behavior rules" for broadcasters. I love this one. All we know as of right now is that "behavioral rules" might include guidelines that broadcasts serve the public interest - as defined by government.

Look ... despots know they need to control the dissemination of information to their people. They already have their control over our education processes .. now control over information is next.

You can see the despot's desire to control broadcasting in his words. Copps says, "Since we still need broadcasters to contribute to the democratic dialogue, we need clear standards that can be fairly but vigorously enforced ... It is time to say 'Good-bye' to post-card renewal every eight years and 'Hello' to license renewals every three years with some public interest teeth."

Talk radio is shaping up to be the primary gathering point for opposition to Obama's grand government schemes. This is not going to go unchallenged. Obama will most certainly shut us down if he can find a way to do so.

Taken in Hilton Head, SC .... clearly this person has no idea what they are voting for.

Well now. Our economy is really lunging forward, isn't it? What a ride! Are you holding on?

We're billions of dollars further in debt (trillions?) and the economy is still stagnant. TARP, the stimulus bill, massive debts our children and grandchildren will have to pay .. and what has this all brought us? Banks aren't lending, businesses aren't hiring - let along expanding - and consumers aren't buying. Oh, to be sure, the malls are crowded. Turn up the thermostats and see how long that lasts. Those aren't shoppers, they're just your neighbors trying to stay cool while watching the latest absurd teen fashion and freak shows.

Do what the initials SNAFU mean? That word was created to define government action, or inaction as the case may be. In 1942 Time magazine carried this revelation: "Last week U.S. citizens knew that gasoline rationing and rubber requisitioning were snafu." Well .. if there was ever a SNAFU, our economy would fit the description. To fully understand this, you have to know what the acronym stands for. Go ahead ... Google it

So ... after hundreds of billions of dollars, government seizures of GM, Citigroup and others, imminent bank nationalization, massive favors handed to unions at the expense of private investors, and a pantload of new czars in the White House ... all done to kick start our economy ... what do we have. SNAFU, that's what. Or TAUFU, if you like.

Look ... I'm just a talk show host. What the hell do I know? I've been sitting behind a microphone for 40 years now sparring with hundreds of thousands of callers who generally knew a helluva lot more than the hundreds of politicians I've interviewed over that time. Having said that ... I'm betting that this particular talk show host can, in just a few hundred words, give you some better ideas for kick starting our economy than you've heard from Obama and his Democrat sycophants over the past four months. Oh, and throw in most of the Republicans as well.

It's not all that hard, really. All you have to do is recognize and acknowledge the true goal of the political class. It's summed up in one word: POWER. You think they actually give a flying Krispy Kreme about you? What? I know you were born at night, but was it last night? They may care about your vote .. but that's it. It's power, my friends. Power and little else. Politicians will spout some lofty rhetoric about public service and wanting to leave this country a better place when they leave office; but, with few exceptions, that changes rather quickly. Once they get used to the privileges and the perks that go with their exalted positions their mindset changes. These people don't name research centers, bridges, parks, sports stadiums, university buildings, highways and office buildings after themselves because of their dedication to public service.

Where does that leave us? It leaves us in a situation where the people in power, the people who make the rules and decide how our economy is going to be fixed, are going to worry first about preserving and expanding their power and secondly (if they have time) about putting us back on a track to prosperity.

The basics: What does it take to get our economy moving again? Spending. If nobody is spending nobody needs to produce. You aren't going to gather the raw materials and personnel together to spend time and money creating a product or service unless you have some degree of confidence that there are people out there who either have or can borrow the money to buy it. Our economy is a constant day-by-day election process. The products and services put into the marketplace are the candidates. Consumers are the voters. Dollars are the ballots. If a candidate gets no votes, the candidate either reinvents himself or just simply goes away. The whole process slows down or grinds to a halt if the voters don't have ballots to cast.

Clearly, to stimulate our economy money had to be spent. That's basic. The question, then, was who gets to spend the money? If the American public gets to make the choices as to when and where the money is spent, that equates to power for the people. If, on the other hands, those decisions are made by the political class, it means no power to the people - the power goes to the elected elite. Now would someone please try to explain to me why these politicians, as completely immersed as they are in building their individual power bases, would ever want to turn over the power that goes with spending these huge sums of money to the great unwashed? How in the world is that going to benefit a politician? How do you generate a campaign ad for radio telling the voters that you deserve reelection because the private consumers in your district kept the local hardware store and a few clothing shops in business with their spending? Better you should be able to lay claim to a few road widenings and resurfacings and a new rehearsal hall for the local high school band.

Do you remember how much that stimulus bills was? Let's just call it $750 billion. For the sake of argument let's accept that this $750 billion had to be borrowed and spent to get our economy cranking again. Once you've accepted the $750 billion figure we're going to borrow, you then have to decide just who gets to spend that money and what they get to spend it on.

Here's an idea from Texas congressman Louis Gohmert (R 1st Dist.). Gohmert wanted a tax holiday. I've taken his idea and expanded it a bit. Last year Gohmert was floating an idea of allowing the American people to go one full month without paying any federal income or payroll taxes. The idea was that they would then spend this money and stimulate the economy. When Obama started talking about the $750 billion dollar stimulus price tag I did some quick calculations. It seems that $750 billion is almost exactly equal to the amount of federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes withheld from American paychecks over a six-month period.

Are you following me? How about not a one-month tax holiday, but six months? How about letting people keep almost their entire paychecks for one-half of a year?

So -- here are the two possible scenarios our politicians had to work with:

1. Borrow the $750 billion and let the politicians (the looters) decide how it is going to be spent to stimulate our economy.
    
2. Give the producers a six month period in which they owe no federal income or payroll taxes. For these six months they get to keep their checks. This puts $750 billion into the hands of American workers - American producers - to spend and invest.

Either way you are going to have to borrow $750 billion. If you give the people a six-month tax holiday the money will have to be borrowed to replace the lost revenue.

You see it, don't you? There is one huge difference between the two plans. Under the government spending scenario the politicians get to decide how the money is spent. In other words, they get the power. Remember ... power is the goal. It's everything to the political class. Politicians wanted to decide which road is built, which park is refurbished, and which research project gets additional funding. Every one of these decisions would be made based on the political capital it will generate.

Under the tax holiday plan the people, not the politicians, get to cast the ballots/dollars. Spending choices would not be made on the basis of political expediency, but on the free choices of the people. Businesses that delivered a good product and good customer service would get the votes, not politicians who delivered a pork project to their districts.

A dollar spent on a new lawnmower at the hardware store does not generate a single vote. A dollar spent on a new job mowing grass along an Interstate highway does.

So ... there was a decision to be made. Massive amounts of money were going to be borrowed and spent to stimulate our economy (or so the storyline went). But just who would get to spend the money?

Do you remember that famous Bill Clinton line? It was January of 1999. The place was Buffalo, New York. The federal government had actually collected more tax money that it needed. There was a surplus. Someone asked Clinton if, considering the surplus, there might be a tax cut. His response: "We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right... But ... if you don't spend it right, here's what's going to happen." He then went on to describe the gloomy future of Social Security when more people are collecting benefits than paying taxes.

Sure .. it's your money. You worked for it; you earned it. That money actually represents the expenditure of a portion of your life ... and here's this politician telling you that even though he doesn't actually need that money right now, he's going to go ahead and keep it because if he returns it to its rightful owner - you - then you won't "spend it right." Now excuse me, but don't you get to decide what would be the right way and the wrong way to spend your money?

You know the rest of this story. The politicians in Washington decided that they would be doing the spending, not you. You just could not be trusted to spend it "right." So President Obama sent the word to Princess Pelosi to gather together all of the spending dreams and schemes of her Democrat members of congress and compile them into a massive spending bill. The bill would be pure pork and designed for nothing more than to secure reelections; but it would be called stimulus.

Now I could waste a few thousand words here describing all of the absurd ways this money is being spent. Vice President Biden actually told us that there would be waste. He was talking to business leaders in New York in early June when he said that waste would be inevitable in spending the stimulus money. Inevitable doesn't begin to cover it.

• The House just passed a massive tax hike on virtually all of the American people, ostensibly to help fight global warming. In the meantime New York City just had its coolest June in 51 years. How can the American people be conned so successfully like this? Answer: Government schools.
   
• Do you think your friend might have cheated in the Peachtree Road Race? You can click here to check on them. If their name doesn't show up they didn't run the whole race ... and there they are wearing that t-shirt.
   
• Well, the Independence Day celebrations are over. You can go back to trying to be as completely dependent on government as possible.
   
• Will Obama and Chavez be successful in getting their buddy put back in power in Honduras?
   
• The NYT is reporting that shifting oil prices are jeopardizing global economic recovery. Nothing is hurting our recovery more than government's decision that it will get to spend all the stimulus money.
   
• New York City just had its coolest June in 51 years. This right after we passed a massive tax hike to fight global warming.
   
• Does it seem just a bit absurd to you to be celebrating freedom while the government tells you that you aren't allowed to have fireworks?

The House and the Senate are working on their versions of the healthcare bill after they return from the Fourth of July holiday. But we are starting to get a better idea of what to expect from the House. Especially considering the advice doled out yesterday by Tom Daschle and John Podesta. They support the idea of taxing some employer-provided health benefits. This seems to be the direction we are heading in.

The healthcare bill currently being considered by the House would include the following, according to the Charlotte Business Journal:

-Employers would have to pay at least 72.5% of the cost of insurance premiums for full-time employees

-Employers would be required to pick up at least some of the tab for insuring part-time employees

-Businesses that don't provide that minimum level of coverage would be required to pay the federal government a fee based on 8% of their payroll

-Small businesses would be exempted from that "play or pay" requirement

You know things are bad when a socialist Eastern European country passes a bill to lower taxes in order to help its economy recover. Hungary's socialist government passed a tax bill that will cut current personal income taxes and "social contributions" paid by employers to the government. It will also raise the lower income tax bracket to that "average" incomes are taxed at a rate of 17%.

They didn't get it all right, though. The parliament did pass a "wealth tax" on real estate and luxury items.

Wealth envy is universal .. but at least the Hungarians know that lowering tax rates will be the shortest route to economic recovery.

On Friday, your House of Representatives passed the largest tax increase in American history. Most of them probably couldn't tell you many details about the bill, considering the Democrats were still ramming through 300-page amendments as of late Friday night. In fact, on Friday afternoon House minority leader John Boehner tried to dissect some of the language of that 300-page amendment on the House floor. But after his mini-filibuster was over ... the House voted ... and it passed. There were 44 Democrats who voted against the bill. They're all up for re-election in 2010. But there were eight Republicans that ended up voting for the bill, which passed 219-212. So here they are.

Mary Bono Mack (CA)
Mike Castle (DE)
Mark Steven Kirk (IL)
Leonard Lance (NJ)
Frank A. LoBiondo (NJ)
John M. McHugh (NY)
Dave Reichert (WA)
Chris Smith (NJ)

So what can you do? Well, your voice can be heard at the ballot box. The next time these hacks come up for re-election, you simply vote them out of office. Show them that their time for monkeying around in Washington is over. That's it. We know this won't happen though. Every one of these politicians has a long list of wonderful pork projects they've brought back to their districts ... projects that give them all the reelection juice they need.

Meanwhile, now the next battle is in the Senate. Make even more of a concerted effort to contact your Senators and make sure that they won't be conned into voting for this huge tax increase based on the global warming scam.

For those of you who need a refresher ... here are some details from Investor's Business Daily:

An analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation projects that by 2035 it would reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion. In an average year, 844,000 jobs would be destroyed, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by almost 2 million (see charts below).

Consumers would pay through the nose as electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, as President Obama once put it, by 90% adjusted for inflation. Inflation-adjusted gasoline prices would rise 74%, residential natural gas prices by 55% and the average family's annual energy bill by $1,500.

Hit hardest by all this would be the "95% of working families" Obama keeps mentioning as being protected from increased taxation. They are protected, that is, unless they use energy. Then they'll be hit by this draconian energy tax.

And what would we get for all this pain? According to an analysis by Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the World Climate Report, the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 -- the goal of the Waxman-Markey bill -- would reduce global temperature in 2050 by a mere 0.05 degree Celsius.

It's a scam, folks. It is not about the environment, it is about gaining power. It is not about creating jobs, because it won't. It will actually kill jobs. Speaking of that .........

The Obama administration has gotten itself into a little pickle. You see, on the campaign trail, Barack Obama made the mistake of promising that he would not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year. But now reality has hit. He really wants to get this healthcare reform passed and he needs to find the money to do it. One option that has been on the table is taxing healthcare benefits as income. Anyone who isn't government educated might immediately understand that this would clearly constitute a tax increase for a lot of Americans, including a lot of 'em making less than $250,000 a year.

So over the weekend, George Stephanopoulos asked Obama's senior advisor David Axelrod about this option. Axelrod did not say what the people wanted to hear: Axelrod said that taxing healthcare benefits would not be an option because that would clearly constitute an increase in taxes for the middle class. Instead. Then, having said that, he immediately reversed course and "left open" the possibility that Obama would still sign legislation calling for taxing health care benefits if such a bill were passed.

Axelrod avoided answering the question directly by saying, "The president had said in the past that he doesn't believe taxing health care benefits at any level is necessarily the best way to go here. He still believes that, but there are a number of formulations and we'll wait and see ... The important thing at this point is to keep the process moving, to keep people at the table, to the keep the discussions going. We've gotten a long way down the road and we want to finish that journey."

Throughout the questioning Axelrod refused to re-state Obama's promise to not raise taxes on the middle class. Are you starting to get the picture here?

So ... tax increases for the middle class if that's what's needed to "keep the process moving." Now I get it.

I mentioned this one on the air last week, but it is so outrageous that it is worth repeating. When it comes to healthcare reform, the Senate is considering the idea of allowing union-negotiated benefit packages go un-taxed. Yep, as I just talked about in the Nuze item above, there is still an option on the table that would tax employee healthcare benefits. However, if that plan makes it into the bill, union-negotiated contracts would be exempt from paying these taxes.

You can thank Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus for this one. He's the one that believes that any major changes to the US healthcare system should exempt perks secured by existing collective bargaining agreements. In other words ... they would be grandfathered in. Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute makes a good point. He says that this "smacks of political favoritism ... "I can't think of any other aspect of the individual income tax that treats benefits of different people differently because of who they work for."

So this would be a way to still tax benefits, but magically exclude 12.4% of American workers who happen to be union members. In the end, who is going to have more of a say come election time?

It seems that there was a Tea Party tax protest scheduled for Independence Day in Gwinnett County. The event was going to take place in the parking lot of the old Macy's at Gwinnett Place Mall. Gwinnett Place is a Simon mall. The parking lot where the event was to take place is privately owned. The owner of the property had given permission. Last week the Simon people asked the event organizers to come to a meeting. Even though Simon did not own the property, there were some contractual agreements that gave Simon control over what could and could not be done there. So ... the Tea Party is now history. Julianne Thompson, the co-organizer of the event, tells us that Simon didn't like the fact that the word "protest" was being used to promote the event --- besides, Simon doesn't like "political events" on property they control.

So .. there you go. The Scheduled Atlanta Tea Party is history. The vendors, fireworks, children's activities ... all of it cancelled. No alternative location could be found on such short notice. So, on this Independence day, we want to thank Simon Property Group, Inc. for standing up for the cause of liberty. Not.

There are other Tea Party tax protests in the Atlanta area for Independence Day. Check out this list of nationwide protests to find one near you. 

Newt Gingrich was on the show earlier today and urged you all to go sign the petition to stop the energy tax. It might help the cause if we gave you a link to that. Consider it done.

Oh you're going to love this one. An amazing attack on the American entrepreneurial spirit. There's a repulsive suggestion floating around Washington right now. Louis Gerstner, the former CEO of International Business Machines Corp is pushing the idea that short-term investment gains should be taxed at 80%. Gerstner says that taxing short-term gains would counter the culture of "greed" on Wall Street.

Meanwhile, he believes that selling an investment after five years should carry a zero tax rate in order to re-establish a culture of true investors compared to traders.

Do you realize how many American businesses would not exist today if short term investment gains had been taxed at 80%. If you have an idea, count yourself among the elite. Remember ... government education.

California is in big budget trouble budget wise. It may run out of money by July 28th. So when in doubt, propose new taxes. This time, California regulators want to impose a statewide carbon fee. The fee would be paid on utilities, oil refineries and other industries that produce pollution. Naturally, this would raise millions of dollars for the state, but it says the money would go toward regulating greenhouse gas emissions and fighting global warming.

It's a scam, folks. It's not about the environment .. it's about money and power. Hey .. how about you folks stop all that spending on illegal aliens in California? That would be a start.

As I've already pointed out, the Obama administration knows that it has to act quick on these big agenda items. Healthcare has clearly taken center stage lately. But we can't forget about Obama's energy legislation. The cap-and-trade bill is back in the mix, and guess what? Obama wants the bill to be passed next week! Next week will be dubbed "energy week." Well isn't that special!

Gawd, that was fast. Just in case you don't remember how incredibly painful this bill would be for the American economy, Citizens Against Government Waste has some more details:

In reality, this cap-and-trade plan is nothing more than a hidden tax that The Heritage Foundation has estimated could increase the average American family's energy bill by $1,500 annually!

..... These higher operating costs for utilities, oil companies, and industry will ultimately trickle down to individual Americans, and you will pay an estimated 74 percent more for gasoline, 90 percent more for electricity, and 55 percent more on your natural gas bill. And that's not the end of it. You'll also pay more for every product that requires fossil fuels in its manufacture or transportation!

The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade plan will also grow the size and cost of government by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a greenhouse gas (GHG) registry, create a GHG emission allowance transfer system, and set emission allowances from 2012-2050. This army of new bureaucrats will eventually control every aspect of industrial, commercial, and individual energy use. You won't be able to tune up your car or install a grill in your back yard without federal interference ... perhaps even a costly environmental impact study. What's more, the cap-and-trade program will necessarily be ripe for political favoritism and corruption, as politicians and bureaucrats manipulate the system for favored industries.

Climatologist Chip Knappenberger has estimated that the 83 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions mandated under Waxman-Markey by 2050 will result in a drop in climate temperature of only nine-hundredths of 1 degree Fahrenheit. That's equivalent to just two years of avoided global warming.

It's a tax, my friends. It's all about the government getting more of your money. The pretense here is the environment. There's a reason why these environmental pushes come from the political left. It's not about the environment. It's about expanding the scope and the size of the Imperial Federal Government. It's about control over your life. Wake up. Global warming is a fraud.

A recent Gallup polls shows that 40% of Americans describe themselves as conservative. Only 21% of Americans call themselves liberal and 35% consider themselves moderate.

Clearly all of these conservatives don't consider themselves to be Republicans. Many of them are round in the ranks of or in sympathy with the Libertarians. A lot of them even vote Democrat. Conservative doesn't always equate to Republican. There are a lot of conservatives, for instance, who do not feel that it is the government's role to control a woman's reproductive life. Many of them won't vote Republican until the party starts to concentrate more on governance than it does on people's personal lives.

Fact is, the Republican party is out of fresh and new ideas, and it is ignoring the good old ones. Where are the Republicans who are standing up with anything more than a whimper for free enterprise?

OK .. you know where I'm going. I'm completely convinced that if the Republican party would put its full support behind the FairTax, and pledge to pass it as soon as they have control of the House and the Senate, it would turn next year's midterm election on its ear. The FairTax would become the issue. Sure, the Democrats would demagogue it, but as more and more Americans learned the truth their demagoguery would serve to hurt their cause, not help it. The formula here is so simple. Would you rather pay the government 33% of everything you earn, or 23% of everything you spend. What do you think of the idea of nobody paying any taxes at all to the federal government until they have provided for the basic necessities for their family? Now think about that one. Should the government have a claim on one single penny of the money you earn --- or, to state it differently --- should the government have any claim on one single minute of your life before you've taken care of your own family's basic needs? Unless I miss my guess, most Americans would answer "no" to those questions. Can't you see the Republicans running on a campaign of "Not one penny for the government until your family is taken care of." Well, that's the FairTax.

Why won't the Republicans get behind this? The FairTax is the most thoroughly studied and researched piece of legislation ever to have been placed before the Congress of the United States. Still, the Republicans don't believe that they can stand up to Democrat demagoguery. They have no confidence in the voters. They think that the voters will respond to simplistic and sophomoric ideas like calling the Democrat Party the "Socialist Democrat Party." Yeah ... that's showing 'em. But when it comes to supporting and promoting legislation that would bring about the largest transfer of power from the government to the people in our history .... The Republicans shy away.

There are trillions of dollars ... perhaps as much as $13 trillion ... in American dollar-denominated deposits working in overseas economies. Those dollars belong to Americans and American corporations. Stimulus? You want stimulus? What if that money came flowing back home to work in our economy? Can you imagine the stimulus to our economy that would result from just one-half of this money coming back home? This money would be spent by the people who earned it and own it, not by the government. The spending decisions would be privately made, not made in Washington's dark chambers. Obama's idea? Pass laws that tax these overseas earnings right here at home. Construct an economic Berlin Wall. If you see a dollar trying to escape our tax system, shoot it down without remorse. The FairTax plan? The FairTax play that could be the Republican plan? Tell the people who hold this wealth to bring it home with absolutely no federal tax consequences whatsoever. No taxes, no interest on taxes, no penalties .. nothing. Bring it home and put it to work in America and for Americans. But ... have you heard one single Republican present these different approaches to the American people?

How can the Democrats frighten the Republicans so much on this plan? The Democrats would argue for withholding money from your paycheck before you even see it. The Republicans could argue for presenting you with 100% of your paycheck every payday. The Democrats could argue for taxing everything that moves. The Republicans could argue for businesses operating in the US with no tax component on capital or labor. The Republicans aren't willing to take on this argument?

How sad it must be to have the hearts and minds of the plurality of the American people, but be unable to translate that into actual support. How on Earth do we have Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid running the show? Again, I said there were two reasons. The first being that the Republican Party has nothing going for itself. The second is because the American people have been conned ... at least in the presidential election ... into voting for a man who promised them "hope" and "change."

Elections have consequences. Are you starting to figure that out yet?

Last week Obama urges Congress to adopt a government option for healthcare .. a plan that will cost over $1.3 trillion. On Monday Barack Obama announced to the nation that he was going to ramp up stimulus spending.

Now, all of the sudden, Barack Obama is worried about spending. Yesterday he urged Congress to reinstitute Paygo. That would require Congress to finance the cost of any spending initiatives by either increasing taxes or cutting something from the budget. Based on the Democrats lofty schemes -- universal healthcare, increased spending on education, energy legislation, bailouts, stimulus spending - it doesn't seem like much is going to be cut from the budget. In fact, we are talking about the largest expansion of government in history, and that is on top of our $1.8 trillion federal deficit. Oh and somehow Obama also plans on cutting the deficit in half by the end of his first term.

So how is all of this going to happen? Well it sure isn't going to happen with economic growth, not with this economic fascist running the show. So the answer is ... tax increases. That's the only way.

We have three basics economic classifications in this country. Producers, moochers and looters. The moochers are licking their chops, the looters are putting on their ski masks and the producers are looking for cover.

You can rest assured that there won't be any direct new taxes or increases on the moochers; after all, those are Democrat voters. Obama's plan is simple. All he has to do is tax the wealth. Seize the money from the evil rich, the job providers, the corporations, the small businesses. We already know that this is the plan to pay for healthcare .. Obama said so earlier this week. Listen to how he says this, "Entitlement increases and tax cuts need to be paid for ... They are not free, and borrowing to finance them is not a sustainable long-term policy." When Obama says "tax cuts" he is actually referring to government handouts. You would know that if the media was treating this honestly. Someone has yet to explain to me how it is possible for Obama to give tax cuts to people who don't pay income taxes. But then again, he is like God (sort of) ... right?

Apparently some items would be exempted from Paygo: Medicare payments to physicians, the estate and gift tax, the Alternative Minimum Tax and tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003.

But here is how it really works. This paygo thing is nothing but a gimmick. At least that is what Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, believes. He explains that "the Paygo law required Congress to make across-the-board cuts in entitlement spending at the end of any year in which the Congressional Budget Office found that Paygo requirements had not been met. He said lawmakers responded each time by passing another bill, waiving the Paygo requirements." In other words, it is nothing but a talking point. It's a charade to make you believe that these politicians actually care about spending when in fact they don't. All they care about is making you, the ignorant voters, more dependent on government.

You can read this article that appears on Salon.com. The article highlights all of the crazy conspiracy theories cooked up by the evil right-wing! The article also documents who has been spreading these "myths." Mind you, I am not a Republican and I am surely not at the top of the talk radio pecking order ... but these people didn't even bother to include me. Go figure. But I'll just give you an example of this list:

Myth: The president wants to raise my taxes.

What they believe: No matter what he may have said on the campaign trail, many conservatives are convinced President Obama's secret agenda now that he's in office is to suck every last cent out of hard-working Americans through tax increases. The anti-tax tea parties on April 15 vividly displayed this widely held belief. Granted, some who attended the events exist on the political fringes, but many notable Republicans, such as Newt Gingrich, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas and Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina were also big tea-party supporters.

Who's been spreading it: CNBC's Rick Santelli won fame for his trading-floor conniptions, but he didn't start the tea-party movement or the post-inauguration antitax groundswell. (A whole cadre of conservatives has been warning about Obama's desire for higher taxes. In addition to Gingrich, Perry and Sanford, other right-wing luminaries such as Michelle Malkin and Dick Armey have also propagated the tax myth. However, give credit where credit is due: Unquestionably, the unofficial sponsor of the "Obama is going to raise my taxes" movement has been Fox News. Fox on-air personalities such as Glenn Beck, Neil Cavuto, and Sean Hannity steadily warned their audience of promoted the tea party demonstrations with unbridled gusto and Fox Business has the impending Obama tax hike.

What is real: Obama will raise taxes -- just not on most of the people who are worried about it. For those who make under $250,000 a year (the vast majority of Americans), Obama's tax plan will either lower income taxes or leave those taxes unchanged. The tax increases, which by most estimates amount to $1 trillion over 10 years, are targeted at the incomes of top-tier earners, as well as their capital gains and itemized deductions, such as charitable donations. Obama wants to use the increased tax revenues to pay for healthcare, as well as the soaring national debt and the two wars his predecessor started. Making the myth even more ridiculous is that even with Obama's tax raise on the wealthy, the top tax rate in the nation will still be far lower than it was during the reign of Ronald Reagan, that great beacon of conservative economic policy.

Reality ... there are many ways to raise taxes. Obama's wonderful plan to raise taxes on the evil SOBs who earn more than $250,000 a year amounts to a plan to raise taxes on America's small businesses. These small businesses account for about 70% of all existing jobs, and about 80% of all new jobs. Here's the dirty little secret. The owners of these small businesses report their business income on their personal tax returns. These small businesses represent a huge percentage of the people who report those earnings over $250,000 a year. Obama wants you to believe that his tax increases will simply be taxing people who make over $250K a year. The reality is that he will be taxing these small business owners. And how will they respond? One way would be to raise prices. Pass those tax increases off to the consumers. Government-educated myrmidons don't really see price increases as tax increases, but that's the reality. If the tax increases can't be passed off in the price structure, they will be passed on in wage limitations for employees, or even a reduction in employment figures.

Are you starting to see how useful government education is to the looters? Obama can repeat his "no tax increases on those making less than $250,000" a year line, and the government-educated dupes buy it. Isn't it time for you to look beyond the headlines a bit and try to figure out what is really going on?

So what plans are the Democrats hashing out, waiting for Obama to approve and deliver the news to the masses? An outline of the "American Health Choices Act" comes from Ted Kennedy's committee. Now get this ... in this bill, employers would be required to offer healthcare to its employees or pay a penalty to the government. We are talking ALL employers - private businesses - will be forced, by the government, to pay for health insurance for ALL employees; including part time workers.

I know you get hearing this ... but I just can't find anything in the Constitution that permits the government to force private individuals to buy health insurance for other private individuals. That's what going on here. The government is saying "So and so needs health insurance, so YOU go buy it for him. How do you think our founding fathers would feel about this? But who cares, right? They're just a bunch of dead white men anyway.

Also in this bill, all Americans would be guaranteed health insurance. But don't you worry, if poor people can't pay for it, this bill would provide subsidies for them to buy their policy. That's another entitlement program to add to the list. Oh and in case you didn't figure this out by now ..... everyone will be required to purchase health insurance. There could be a tax penalty for people who have "adequate financial resources" (as defined by the government) but do not freely choose to get insurance. You will not be allowed to self-insure. What do you think this is? A free country?

For the insurance side of things, there will be a government option. According to AP, "Insurance companies' profits would be limited, and private companies would have to compete with a new public 'affordable access' plan that would for the first time offer government-sponsored health care to Americans not eligible for Medicare, Medicaid or other programs." Private companies have to make a profit. Government does not. Look for the private sector to be crowded out in the end. Government rules.

So now the real question when it comes to these healthcare schemes is how to pay for it. Well, it didn't take long for the Democrats to come up with a plan: tax the rich. What other way is there?

President Obama wants Congress to consider the idea of taxing the wealthy instead of his supporters. Remember that there is a plan floating around out there, initially proposed by John McCain during the campaign, to tax employee healthcare benefits. The Obama administration had been considering the idea, but it seems as though Obama is going to go the easy route of demagoging the evil rich.

Specifics? Well he wants Congress to consider "limited tax deductions for Americans in the highest tax brackets." Now notice the language ... Obama and the Democrats will never, ever call this a tax increase. Nope. They will stick with the line that they want to limit tax deductions. PrezBO's plan is to attack the two highest tax brackets (36% and 39.6%): He wants to set a 28% cap on tax deductions. This would include mortgage interest, investment expenses and charitable donations. Once your deductions amount to 28% of your taxable income, the deductions end. Obama may not believe in a war on terror, but he sure believes in waging war on private charities! And why not? After all, these private charities are competing with government. That just can't be allowed to happen.

As if preparing your taxes every year isn't arduous enough as it is, the government now wants to become even more involved in the process. The IRS is working to require paid tax preparers to be licensed by the government. Another complication to the processes of looting ... just what we need. More government bureaucrats to license people to professionally and seize their money. Look ... IRS employees can't even do tax returns right, so just who are they going to find to figure out whether private sector preparers can do it right or not?

The IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman says that this will help reduce mistakes and combat fraud. He says, "Paying taxes is one of the largest financial transactions individual Americans have each year, (duhhhh) and we need to make sure that professionals who serve them are ethical and ensure the right amount of tax is paid." Oh, so Doug here believes that the private sector is incapable of providing a service ethically without the intrusion of government.

Rep. John Lewis from right here in Georgia says that he supports the measure because poor people are often taken advantage of by "fly-by-night" tax preparers. Hey wait, if they are poor, then they aren't paying income taxes anyway.

One of the results? Added costs. These tax preparers are going to have to spend money to meet the government requirements, and that money will be passed down to the taxpayers. When is this going to end?

Did you hear what the CEO of Microsoft had to say about Barack Obama's tax plans? Remember that last month, Barack Obama outlined a plan to outlaw or restrict about $190 billion in tax breaks for offshore companies. This includes companies like Microsoft. So Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer says that his company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacted Obama's plans. He says, "It makes U.S. jobs more expensive ... 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."

Is anyone listening?

Now, this is nothing that both you and I don't already know. Barack Obama claims that his proposals will create jobs in the United States. Most of you who aren't government educated will understand that that is a flat out lie. Now, we have the CEO of the world's largest software company saying that he would take employees and move them overseas if Obama enacts his plan. That is exactly the OPPOSITE of what Obama claims would happen. But what does Steven Ballmer know? I'm sure the government will have its say in companies like his soon enough.

Watch .. the Democrats have plans for an economic Berlin Wall. Any jobs caught trying to climb over the wall will be shot.

For months, Barack Obama has pushed the issue of healthcare reform on the Congress. Yesterday he cranked up the rhetoric a bit. He sent a letter to Max Baucus and others involved in the creation of this behemoth of a government growth bill. Here are a few things that he wants to see done.

First, he wants at least $200 billion cut from Medicare and Medicaid spending in order to pay for the changes in the healthcare system. Ok, that is definitely a lot of money. However, is it going to cover the costs of creating a government healthcare system? Absolutely not. Economists believe that the true tab for Obama's healthcare scheme is over $1 trillion. But I guess it is the thought that counts.

Obama also said that if ... and that is a big if ... Congress ends up "requiring individuals to purchase health insurance," Obama would make sure to exempt "people who can't afford it." This "hardship waiver" would be a new government entitlement program. Also exempt would be small businesses. He says that small businesses should be exempt from any mandate that employers offer health benefits or pay a tax to finance government subsidies. Oh, so now we are talking about the government MANDATING that private businesses offer employees medical benefits. Can someone please point out the clause in our Constitution that gives the imperial federal government the authority to compel businesses of any size to cover the health care costs of their employees? I've looked ... and I can't find it.

That leads to the next point - tax increases. Obama did not address the issue of taxing healthcare benefits to pay for the poor, poor pitiful poor to have health insurance. He did, however, remind Congress of his tax proposal to "limit itemized deductions for upper-income earners." That's another way of saying that he wants to increase taxes on the rich. But the point is ...... he's gonna spend the money somehow, and cutting Medicare spending isn't going to do it. Your children are going to pay for this folly, and your grandchildren.

Note, please, that there is nothing in Obama's letter, or in his rhetoric, that speaks to any enhanced role for the private sector in our health care future. The goal here has long been to put government in complete control of each and every American's health care. It's about power. In Washington it is always about power. Legislation and ideas that enhance the power of Washington over the people of this country are celebrated, while legislation and idea that transfer power from Washington to the people are denigrated and fought. The FairTax comes to mind. Washington is having a rather easy time taking full control over our health care system because Americans welcome it. One month from today is July 4th, America's most hypocritical holiday. Americans who today are clamoring for the government to take responsibility for their healthcare will, in one month, be singing the praises of freedom. Give me a break.

While the rest of the world is arguing about whether or not Sonia Sotomayor is a racist - she isn't - and concerned about the government takeover of General Motors ... the Democrats are busy working on their baby ... nationalized healthcare.

The looters are determined to have a bill out by August and so they are hashing out the details of their grand plans. Those details include two things: how do we trick the people into believing they have a choice when it comes to healthcare and how can we further demonize the rich to pay for it?

Do you want to know where we stand right now? Read this, from the Politico:

If Congress were to take a vote on a health reform bill today, Democrats and Republicans would find a surprising level of agreement -- so much so that the broad outlines of a consensus plan already are taking shape.

Sick or healthy, rich or poor, all Americans would be guaranteed access to health insurance.

In fact, they'd probably be required to purchase it -- perhaps through mandates in the law that would include stiff tax penalties for anyone who tried to opt out.

Newly created insurance marketplaces would make finding a plan as easy as shopping for cheap airfare. People could keep their coverage, even if they switched jobs. And they might be able to choose between private insurers and a government-backed plan.

But here's the catch -- none of this would come free, with the wealthiest Americans likely to face higher taxes to help pay for coverage for all.

If the Republicans don't get their act together real quick, there is going to be absolutely no hope to block this monstrous excuse for government growth and control.

Are we encouraging companies to turn to the government? GM is going to save more than $12 billion in tax breaks .... If it ever becomes a viable company again. But these new tax rules don't apply to companies that don't turn to the government for help but are taken over by other private companies. Chrysler, for example, could lose the value of its tax write-offs if it merges with Fiat.

The AP explains:

U.S. taxpayers are about to become majority shareholders in GM, acquiring more than 70 percent of the company in exchange for billions of dollars in aid. Under ordinary circumstances, an ownership change like that would trigger a big tax hit for a money-losing corporation like GM, severely limiting its ability to use current losses to lower future tax bills.

But these are far from ordinary times. The Treasury Department has, in effect, suspended long-standing tax rules for companies that receive bailout money, providing benefits not available to firms that don't receive government help. New Treasury rules could provide GM billions in tax breaks once it becomes profitable and starts paying taxes again, which could be years away.

The value of those savings, however, would be dramatically reduced if GM is taken over by another company. Decades ago, Congress severely restricted the ability of money-losing companies to cash in on the tax breaks if they are taken over by other companies.

The goal was to discourage corporate takeovers for the principle purpose of avoiding taxes, Willens said.

The government, however, doesn't want to penalize firms for taking part in the taxpayer-financed bailout, so the Treasury Department has issued several notices in recent months creating exceptions for firms that receive bailout money. Under the new rules, corporations can keep their tax breaks if the government becomes a majority owner.

OK ... let's put this in language that even the purposely dumbed-down government educated myrmidons in this country can understand. If you are running a substantial private business and if you decide that it is your responsibility to weather this economic storm and keep your business viable without using taxpayer's money and submitting to more authoritarian government control, you will then have to pay your taxes just like everyone else. Wait ... NOT like everyone else. That would be because if you decide that you can't make it on your own, and government intervention with taxpayer's money would be helpful, you will be rewarded with corporate tax breaks. Got it on your own, no help. Play footsie with government control, financial benefits await. Not the way to run a free enterprise economy.

Do you remember the story a few months ago about a woman who was selling her virginity in order to pay for school?  Alina Percea is 18-years-old.  Apparently she had a real itch to study computers, but she couldn't afford it.  So she auctioned off her virginity, and the winning bid went for $13,827 to a middle-aged Italian man.

So now ...... here comes the government for its share of taxes.  You see, Alina was in Germany on a student visa.  In Germany prostitution is legal, but hookers are taxed at 50% of their earnings. 

So now the question is: is she a considered a prostitute?

On top of all this, Alina may also be liable for a large VAT bill when she leaves Germany, because she earned so much money in such a short amount of time.

Government will do anything to get its hands on your money.  The middle-aged Italian dude got what he wanted.  Did Alina? 

The federal income taxes for every taxpayer would have to rise by roughly 81% to pay all of the benefits promised by the government under current law.

How do you figure that? Bruce Bartlett will explain.

As expected, the Obama administration revealed more changes to the tax code yesterday. Remember that it had to find ways to come up with more tax revenue because it miscalculated how expensive it is going to be for the government to bring healthcare to the people! One of the many ways the government plans to get more of your money is by closing tax loopholes for all those evil rich people ....

A senior administration official says, The proposals "take on what we believe are a series of unjustifiable loopholes, unjustifiable tax breaks that we simply cannot afford."

That who cannot afford? The imperial federal government? Is it entitled to this money that is earned by you, the taxpayers? What they are really saying is that this money belongs to us .. and we just can't afford to let the people who earned it keep it. We'll let them keep just enough to keep them working. Are you starting to "get it" folks?

Obama released the details of his budget yesterday. This disaster is 1,500 pages long. We can't afford the $3.4 trillion price tag. The money simply isn't there. Obama believes that the more money the federal government spends, the greater America becomes. This is the mindset of a man who believes that our greatness comes from government. I don't think I've ever seen anyone so in love with government as Barack Obama.

Oddly enough, the news today isn't that Obama is proposing spending $3.4 trillion. The media is all abuzz over the news that Obama has proposed cutting $17 billion in spending and completely eliminating some programs. Let's get real folks .. this $17 billion is just one-half of one percent of Obama's budget. Government spending has doubled in the past eight years ... and if all you can find to cut is one-half of one percent than you aren't worth a damn as an administrator or CFO.

What's more ... PrezBO's list of proposed budget and program cuts is less than the list put forth by George Bush proposed last year. Bush proposed $34 billion in savings. Now speaking of proposed spending and program cuts ... just because these cuts are proposed doesn't mean that they actually happen. In fact, half of Obama's proposed cuts are the very same ones that Bush tried to get nixed from the budget when he was in office.

Earlier this week I told you of news reports that the Obama White House was using the services of a behavioral psychologist for briefings on the way people react to large dollar figures. Interestingly enough, most people can't differentiate between $17 million and $17 billion. Once the numbers get that high they all bland into a numerical sameness. This means that Obama can propose spending $3.4 trillion and then propose $17 billion in savings and the people think that he is actually doing something incredible! Aren't you comforted by the idea that the president is hiring behavioral psychologists to help him pull the wool over your eyes?

Here is something to keep in mind. Posturing about spending cuts usually means nothing. Presidents generally roll out a long list of spending cuts. It's all for show. The cuts are generally ignored by Congress. So while he may tout the fact that he is proposing a cut of $17 billion, the chances of that actually happening are as slim as my chances with Angelina Jolie - and she's so covered with ink I don't think I'm interested anymore. Let's go with Allison Krause.

Here is something else to keep in mind. Even if Congress adopted these proposed cuts, it would not actually reduce government spending. In fact, Obama's budget is going to increase overall spending. So any savings that Obama may generate from these cuts will be used to pay for more government programs ... the ones that Obama wants to create, like government healthcare.

Amidst these proposed cuts, what gets an increase in federal funding??

The IRS. Yep, Obama wants to double the funds for the IRS to enforce tax laws. There's another $890 million of your tax dollars. Rather than spending more money to enforce a tax system that doesn't work and punishes achievement, how about implementing a new tax system that will allow the taxpayers to keep this money and allow businesses to bring jobs to this country without fear of being punished by the government.

Then there's endless examples of mindless government pork projects. While Obama's budget does seek to cut several education programs, (won't happen) there are a few other "educational" programs that were seen as worthy of maintaining their federal funding. One, for instance, is a $9 million program to promote the history of whaling and trade in Massachusetts.

Here's a list of all the programs that Obama is cutting in this budget. One of these cuts, by the way, is a 9% cut in the unit of the Department of Labor that's in charge of regulating unions. Gotta thank the people that put you in office.

Another detail in Obama's budget is that he plans to end tax breaks for those evil, filthy oil and gas companies. In other words, Obama wants to increase taxes on the oil industry. He wants to end $26 billion in tax breaks, which he classifies as "unjustifiable loopholes ... costly to the American taxpayer and do little to incentivize production or reduce energy prices."

Did he say "costly to the American taxpayers?" Well, he can get away with that because he suspects you don't realize - and many Americans don't - that every penny of additional taxes these evil oil companies have to pay to the federal government will be added to the cost of the products they produce. The tax increases will show up at the gas pumps. I know that this is a difficult concept for the government-educated dumb masses to understand, but corporations - and this includes oil companies - don't pay taxes. They collect taxes from their customers, shareholders and employees and pass them on to the government.

Again ... let me point out that the greatest ally the looters in Washington could possibly have is an uneducated population.

... and this time it's none other than Dave Ramsey.

The FairTax is a bold proposal. It is only natural that people are going to try to criticize it. Is it too much to ask for these people to do at least a modicum of research so that they at least appear to know what they're talking about?

This time the culprit is Dave Ramsey. I like the guy, and I like his approach. His sermons on living debt free are right on, and no doubt he's helped millions of people to improve their financial. OK .. mighty fine. But now he's taken it upon himself to opine that the FairTax simply isn't, in his words, "fair."

Let's take this quote from Ramsey's article: "People would only pay taxes on items they buy, except for food, basic clothing and other kinds of necessities." Most of the FairTax supporters know that this is just flat-out wrong. The explanation is incomplete. If Ramsey really was informed on the FairTax he would know that you pay taxes only on items that you buy at the retail level, and that food, basic clothing and other kinds of necessities are included. Ramsey would also know about the prebate. He would know that every household in this country --- that is, every legal household --- would get a credit or check from the Treasury Department every single month equal to the FairTax they would be expected to pay on the basic necessities of life during the following month. This FairTax prebate is so essential to the FairTax plan that to ignore it, or to be unaware of it entirely, is worse than careless.

Ramsey also writes of the FairTax "This means it's more of a burden on poor people, because they would pay a higher percentage of their overall income." Sorry, wrong. The poor, poor pitiful poor would pay virtually nothing - zero percent of their income - to the federal government. [ALERT! Brilliant thought follows!] To pay any taxes at all to the feds the poor would have to spend above the poverty level. If they're doing that ... they're not poor. Pretty easy, isn't it? I wonder why Dave Ramsey doesn't get it? Is there a chance he just shot from the hip here without doing any real research? The FairTax deserves better than this flippant, uninformed treatment.

Dave Ramsey could be a good proponent of the FairTax. He's very bright, and he would recognize the beauty of this plan if he just would take the time to actually study it. Knowing what you're talking about .... Is that too much to ask?

Weird, this audio clip on YouTube seems to show Ramsey supporting the FairTax. Huh. Maybe he's lost changed his mind since that was recorded.

President Obama is trying to follow through on his campaign promise to close tax loopholes and clamp down on all of those evil rich people and corporations who dare to put their money in overseas accounts where they have more potential to grow. Obama says, "If financial institutions won't cooperate with us, we will assume that they are sheltering money in tax havens and act accordingly." Read that again - please. Either cooperate with us or we're going to assume you're breaking the law. I may be wrong, but don't we have a long and valued tradition whereby the government assumes innocence until guilt is proven? Guilty until proven innocent ... sounds about right. Just another change we can believe in.

So what exactly is Obama's plan? Well for starters, companies that generate profits abroad would not be able to write off any domestic expenses. This is commonly referred to as "deferral." The thought behind this is that it will reduce the incentive for American companies to base some or all of their operations in countries that won't gouge them to death with taxes.

Obama also wants to overhaul regulations known as the "check-the-box" rules, which give companies the ability to decide where their subsidiaries should be taxed.

Another part of Obama's plan is to .... Imagine this ... hire more government hacks! Not just any hacks, but 800 new agents for the IRS in order to better enforce the tax code.

Here's your bottom line. There is somewhere between $10 and $13 trillion dollars of American wealth that have been sent overseas where those dollars can be free to work and produce wealth in places where tax treatment is more favorable. These dollars are fleeing tax tyranny and looking for freedom, much like people in East Berlin tried to get over that wall to find freedom in the west. The East German communists shot those people down in cold blood. Obama wants to do the same to your money. He's and his Democrat pals are erecting an economic Berlin Wall to keep your money from escaping their tyranny.

I've told you about studies similar to this ... but here is a recent example of how people would rather see the government seize money from the rich than earn more money for themselves.

In Minnesota, the Star Tribune did a little poll. It found that two-thirds of people would want the government to seize wealth from rich people in order to help solve the state's budget woes. But then when it comes to raising taxes on everyone ... not just the filthy rich ... 60% of Minnesotans say absolutely not.

So taxing the rich is OK. Other taxes that are popular with Minnesotans are those on tobacco and alcoholic beverages. But they aren't done there ... 57% of people believe that corporations should pay higher taxes. Higher taxes? Are these people completely brain dead? Do they not understand the fact that the United States already has outrageously high corporate tax rates? Of course they don't; because you are talking about the government educated dumb masses. You are talking about people who believe that evil rich people and greedy corporations don't pay their "fair share" in taxes. And you're talking to people who are so uneducated and obtuse that they don't understand that all taxes paid by businesses filter down to the people who ultimately purchase whatever that business is producing at the retail level.

I'll say it again: At the core of most, if not all, of the problems facing our country today you will find a public that is so uneducated that they just can't understand basic concepts of governance and economics. Government schools were designed to create a populace that was educated just to the point that they would be good government subjects and good employees. Government education has been a massive success.

Are you enjoying your whopping $10 a week from Obama's "Making Work Pay" tax credit? Well enjoy it while you can, because the government is more than likely going to re-seize it in the long run. This is because new IRS withholding tables could cause millions of taxpayers to receive more money than they are "entitled" to under the credit. For some, this will mean a smaller-than-expected tax refund. For others who calculate their withholding differently, you could end up owing the government, come next April.

Here are some prime examples of what some people may be facing.

-- A single worker with two jobs making $20,000 a year at each job will get a $400 boost in take-home pay at each of them, for a total of $800. That worker, however, is eligible for a maximum credit of $400, so the remaining $400 will have to be paid back at tax time--either through a smaller refund or a payment to the IRS.

-- A married couple with a combined income of $50,000 is eligible for an $800 credit. However, if both spouses work and make more than $13,000, the new withholding tables give them each a $600 boost--for a total of $1,200.

-- A single college student with a part-time job making $10,000 would get a $400 boost in pay. However, if that student is claimed as a dependent on a parent's tax return, she doesn't qualify for the credit and would have to repay it when she files next year.

And when it comes to Social Security and veterans, there are a whole heap of issues there too. But don't you worry. Tax cheat Timothy Geithner says that he is "exploring ways to mitigate that effect."

That should make you feel much, much better.

Barack Obama decided to celebrate his 100th day in office by hosting town hall meetings. At one of the meetings in St. Louis, Obama decided that he was going to address all you evil right-wingers who got out there to protest of tax day. When asked a question about fiscal discipline (something Obama knows nothing about) and entitlement reform, here is what he had to say:

"Those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I'm not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around ... let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we are going to stabilize Social Security. But ... let's not play games and pretend that the reason [for the deficit] is because of the Recovery Act."

So there you have it. If you watch FoxNews or attended a tea party .. Obama would like to have a "serious" conversation with you.

OK ... I'll contact the White House and ask for a "serious" conversation with President Obama about the FairTax. Now ... on a scale of 1 to 10 ... with 10 being "no way in hell, Jose" ... what do you think my chances are?

This is how the Democrats in Congress are trying to argue in favor of Obama's tax increases on small business owners. Senator Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota, took the floor of the Senate and made the following presentation to counter the Republican argument that Obama's tax increases are going to hurt small business owners.

From the New York Times:

To prove the Democrats' point - that only minute portion of actual small business owners would face a tax increase under the budget plan - Mr. Conrad displayed a poster on the Senate floor featuring a large photograph of former Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Cheney, who has been vocally critical of the Obama administration, would qualify as a small business owner under the Republicans' definition, Mr. Conrad said, even though only about $180,000 of Mr. Cheney's more than $3 million in income in 2007 came from small business interests.

Then, Mr. Conrad let loose a final dagger. "I would say, that's a tortured definition," he said of the Republicans' qualifications for small business owners, a naked reference to the Bush administration's interrogation policies for terrorism suspects.

Wonderful. You see what Kent Conrad did here, don't you? He presented to the American people the idea that Dick Cheney is representative of America's small businesses and is thus unworthy of consideration when it comes to worrying about tax increases.

The looters are in control ... and you job isn't safe. Unless, that is, you work for government.

It's been a while since we have heard from Minnesota Democrat James Oberstar. He has decided that he wants Congress to enact a mileage tax. Yep. A mileage-based tax on cars and trucks would help offset the fact that federal gasoline tax revenues are in decline. Oberstar doesn't want to waste time on pilot programs. He sees that as a waste of time that could be spent collecting tax revenue! He wants this passed now so that the government can start paying for highway program. However, a congressionally mandated commission estimated that switching to a vehicle-miles traveled tax would take a decade to put in place on a national level.

Here's the danger. Oberstar and his buddies in the congress would just love to have both the mileage tax and the present federal taxes on gasoline. They're talking tax increases here .. not just a different way of raising the same revenue. Oh how Democrats love tax increases. Oh ... and stand by for the program to prevent this tax from affecting the poor, poor pitiful poor.

Over the weekend, Barack Obama decided that it would be a good idea to re-institute the pay-as-you-go legislation, otherwise known as PAYGO. Basically, this would require that any new federal spending be offset by cuts in the budget or ... tax hikes!

Wait a minute her! Obama just presided over the largest government spending increase in the history of our nation .. and now he's on the PAYGO kick? We all know he's not going to cut any government spending to pay for his new programs, so what does that leave? Raise taxes, that's what. The key here is that you don't raise taxes on the people what brung you to the dance. So ... if you're an achiever. If you are an evil business owner. If you're one of those people who provide about 80% of the jobs out there ... it's BOHICA time. Raising the tax rates on the productive is change you can believe in.

Europe is known for its devastatingly high tax rates. So you know that things are bad when Europeans start complaining that they are being taxed too much. In this case, I am referring to the United Kingdom where the government is planning to increase the top income tax rate to 50%. This increase, of course, will hit the British high-achievers.

I mean, we are dealing with a country that already taxed its top income earners at 40% ... close to the United States. The rate was supposed to increase to 45% this coming November, but this rate wasn't going to get the government enough money. So now, this 50% rate will apply to citizens earning more than $217,515 per year. That's the top 1% of taxpayers in the UK.

Great Britain's Alistair Darling says that the reason for these tax increases is so that the government can "help to pay for additional support for people now ..." He also says that "Britain's elite should pay more because their earnings have almost doubled since 1996." The rich should pay their fair share!

So what is going to happen? My guess would be that British producers and achievers will look for greener pastures. There are already talks about fears of "brain drain." Gee, ya think? That's what happens when you decide to tax the tar out of the achievers. They will eventually go somewhere else where they can still be achievers but keep more of the money that they earn.

And when it all is said and done, a report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies said, 'The Government's plans to raise income tax rates for people on incomes above £150,000 are very unlikely to raise the revenue that it has predicted, and indeed more likely to reduce revenue overall." That would be because this tax increase punishes achievement .. and even the Brits should know that you get less of what you punish.

Yesterday Barack Obama met with his cabinet members. The big story to get from this is the fact that Obama requested his cabinet agencies to trim a collective $100 million off their budgets.

Is it just me, or is anyone else slightly insulted by this?

Come on, folks! Let's get real here. Obama says that he is going to go line by line and streamline the budget .. and all he can come up with is $100 million? Folks, we are talking about a man who has proposed a budget worth $3.6 trillion. We are talking about a government that currently holds a $1.2 trillion deficit. And he asks his entire cabinet to trim $100 million?

Think about it like this ... that is 1/36,000 of the money Obama plans to spend next year. Or as this article puts it, "if the budget were a yardstick, the administration would be proposing to shorten it by 1/1000 of an inch. That's 25.4 microns, or about half the width of a human hair." I think I can do a better job of showing you just how little money this is. Let's say that you are a 300 pound lardass. You want to lose weight. How much weight would you lose if you reduced your massive quivering bulk by the same percentage Obama is proposing reducing next year's spending? Answer: Just a hair over 13/100ths of one stinking ounce. (0.13333 oz.) Wow! Now you don't have to ask for that seat belt extender any more!

So he says that the money is going to add up. Ok, so when is he going to request more cuts? Are there plans for more cuts? Is this just lip-service? What focus group told the Obama administration that $100 million was the magic number that will restore confidence in the American people? "If you show the people that you can cut $100 million from the budget, they are going to believe that you are handling their tax dollars with care!"

For everyone who got out there on tax day and attended a rally, whether it was a tea party or a FairTax rally ... is this what you wanted? Is this really going to bridge the "confidence gap" that the Obama administration speaks of?

Yeah, didn't think so.

So now we are going to go through a quick list of things that you could get for $100 million.

• $100 million is the equivalent of 402,000 iPods
• 2.16 million barrels of oil
• 4,500 Toyota Prius cars
• 5,000,000 eyebrow waxing appointments for Nancy Pelosi ... and a Brazilian thrown in just to get her out of the salon.
• Less than one-quarter of the budget increase that Congress awarded to itself.
• 4 percent of the military aid the United States sends to Israel.
• Less than half the cost of one F-22 fighter plane.
• 7 percent of the federal subsidy for the money-losing Amtrak passenger rail system.
• 1/10,000th of the government's operating budgets for Cabinet agencies, excluding the Iraq and Afghan wars and the stimulus bill.

So .. $100 million might mean something to you, but it means absolutely nothing to government. Obama's silly little publicity stunt with this $100 million nonsense shows either how out of touch he is with federal budget realities, or it shows how ignorant he believes the American people to be. You choose.

The left most certainly didn't like the spectacle of the tea parties and FairTax rallies on tax day. Liberals would much prefer that you just file your tax return and shut the hell up. After all .. this protesting government thing is something that rightwing extremists do, right? I think that we all knew that the left would try to find ways to denigrate the protests ... and here you go.

Princess Nancy has come forward with her own theory as to how these rightwing extremists came to be protesting our government spending habits and our tax code. You'll love this. Nancy Pelosi actually believes that these tea parties are supported by ... ready for the class-warfare card? ... "the high-end." That's just another way of saying the evil, filthy, disgusting rich. Here's her quote:

"This initiative is funded by the high-end. We call it 'astroturf'; it's not really a grassroots movement. It's astroturfed by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class."

So there you have it, folks. Rich people were behind this. They're somehow using the masses to protest taxes so that the evil rich won't have to pay their "fair share" of taxes. Why is it only the "great" middle class that is deserving of a tax cut? Is Princess Nancy implying that the evil rich don't actually work to earn any of that money? Hmmmm. You know, of course, that she actually does believe that. Oh .. by the way, Nancy and her husband are worth in the tens of millions.

Why the "Astroturf" word? Well ... and let's see if we can follow this: The tea party movement is not true grassroots. It's fake. Fake because it's promoted and financed by some rich people .. and Fox News, of course. Fake grass = Astroturf. Get it? Unusually clever for liberals, I'd say.

Oh and by the way, guess who happens to be known as the master of "astroturfing" in Washington? Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod. Basically what it happens is a corporation or political party creates the impression of something being caused by spontaneous "grassroots" behavior .. when in fact it is very much manufactured.

So this is what Nancy Pelosi believes the tea party movement to be all about. And therefore, your anger and your frustration is not worthy of her time because it is coming from an artificial source.

I don't think there was anything false or manufactured about what happened on April 15th. Do you? But that's how the Democrats are going to get around this ... by pretending that your actions aren't fueled by genuine concern for your children's future.

Wouldn't you like to see Pelosi just reduced to another one of the 435 members of the House of Representatives? What a day that would be ... and that day only comes around when the actual productive people get off their duffs and actually vote when the next election comes around.

I hope that by now, the name Susan Roesgen is a household name. I hope it is a name that is equated with idiocy. I'm sorry, folks. There is no other way to put it. Her little tirade at the tea parties the other day was an embarrassment for CNN.

A blogger has now released footage of what happened after Susan Roesgen decided that her tea party coverage was "no longer suitable for family viewing" .... It seems as though the tea party protestors had their way with her. Gotta love it. Warning: bad words.

Also ... if you're wondering why Roesgen targeted Fox News in her rant, this might clear that up for you. About once a week Drudge profiles the ratings for the cable news networks. Here, through the magic of cut-and-paste, is the latest:

Total viewers Wednesday from 8:00 to 11:00 PM:

FOXNEWS 3,390,000
MSNBC 1,210,000
CNN 1,070,000
CNN HEADLINE 909,000

See that? Fox News has three times plus the viewers that CNN draws in. And you wonder why CNN takes shots at Fox?

Viewership for specific shows:

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,980,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,239,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,947,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,740,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,401,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,185,000
COMEDY DAILY SHOW 1,777,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,499,000
COMEDY COLBERT 1,446,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,336,000
CNN KING 1,292,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,149,000
CNN COOPER 1,021,000

So now you know why Anderson Cooper was grumbling about the tea parties. Looks like he's feeding on the bottom of the fish tank here.

I was wondering yesterday how the media would be responding to these anti-tax rallies across the country yesterday. I suggested that the leftist media would be presenting the protestors as rightwing extremist nut jobs who were motivated by greed and wanted to make sure that none of their money was ever used to help the (ugh) "less fortunate."

So, how did it turn out? Have you heard about this CNN reporter named Susan Roesgen? If you have the time and want to listen to her report from the Chicago tea-party you can click right here or watch below. If not, well ... let me tell you. This Roesgen person was, as I said, covering the Chicago rally. She picked out a rather inarticulate person from the crowd: "Ok, you're here with your 2-year-old ... why are you here today?" The protester said that he was here today because he heard the president say that he believed what Lincoln stood for and he then tried to explain Lincoln's attitude toward taxes. Rather than interviewing this guy, Roesgen started to argue with him: "Sir, what does this have to do with taxes? What does this have to do with your taxes?" Then she asked "Do you realize that you're eligible for a $400 credit ...?" At that point the man said "let me finish my point?"

Wait a minute! Read that again? This guy is protesting taxes, and this ignoranus CNN reporter asks him if he realizes that he is eligible for some type of $400 credit? What is she saying? I'll tell you what she's saying. This guy shouldn't be protesting taxes because he's going to be getting a check!

The interview proceeds. The man says that Lincoln believed that people had a right to the fruits of their own labor and that "government should not take it." Roesgen then stuck her finger in his face and said "Do you know that the state of Lincoln gets $50 billion dollars out of this stimulus, that's $50 billion dollars for this state." At this point someone in the crowd says something and the man becomes a bit frustrated. Roesgen turns away and starts talking to the anchor. Now listen to this gem from this wonderful, objective CNN reporter:

"OK, Cara, we'll move on over here. I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government. Anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right wing conservative network Fox, and since I can't really hear much more and I think this is not really family viewing it's time to come back to you Cara."

The CNN anchor ... Cara or Kara or whatever ... then says "Wow, that is a prime example of what we're covering here. Susan pointed out everything plain and clear what she's dealing with."

Well .. there you have it. These tax protestors are "anti-government." The don't want to be taxed out of fifty percent of everything they earn .. and they're anti-government. They're also anti-CNN. Where did THAT come from? Do you know that Pew research did a poll last year and found that more Democrats and independents watch Fox News than Republicans? But to Susan Roesgen Fox is right wing and conservative.

The fact is Roesgen was saying just what the Democrats wanted her to say. Last night the Atlanta Journal-Constitution was reporting that "...critics -- especially Democrats -- have labeled the gatherings as frauds created by Republican advocacy groups with the backing of deep-pocketed lobbyists and Fox News." Yup ... these idiots at these rallies couldn't possibly have opinions of their own. They're just a creation of the Republican Party and Fox. Roesgen handled the Democrat message a little clumsily ... but handle it she did.

It was also rather odd that when Roesgen would look into the camera when she was talking about stimulus checks for Illinois. Why? Because she was making her own statement. She was the person being interviewed ... not the actual protestor. She wasn't really that interested in what this guy had to say ... she had her own opinions and she wanted to make sure they got aired.

There you have it folks. This is the way much of the liberal media will be covering the protests today. These are anti-government right-wing kooks

Yesterday was quite a day for a lot of you who are fed up with our current levels of spending and waste. So maybe you weren't able to catch the president's reaction to the tea party protests.

Obama's response was that he had already delivered the most "progressive tax cut in history, with 95% of families getting a tax break in every pay check." Now for most of you who attended some sort of protest or rally yesterday, this explanation should infuriate you because you know the truth. You know that Barack Obama has not cut taxes for 95% of Americans. It's a calculated lie. Over 40% of those people don't pay income taxes in the first place? You know better, folks. Obama has changed the American language in many ways. He calls the war on terror an "overseas contingency operation." He calls acts of terror "man caused disasters." Now he's calling government handouts to people who do not pay income taxes "tax cuts." The media, of course, lets him get away with this. His "progressive" tax cuts are what have people up in arms to begin with - the achievers in this country are being taxed at rates that will eventually lead to a giant shrug.

By the way ... under Obama's definition our tax code is an act of terror on the American people. Nobody can deny that our tax code is a man-caused disaster. As such it is, by definition, an act of terrorism against the American people. Nice.

Obama says that Americans need a "government that is working to create jobs and opportunity for them, rather than simply giving more and more to those at the very top in the false hope that wealth will trickle down."

No, no and hell no. It is not the role of the government to create jobs for people. There is this little thing called the private sector that is far more capable of providing jobs for people. But the more you tax the small business owners and the entrepreneurs and the evil rich ... the more jobs government is going to create, because it is squeezing out the private sector! Also ... and do I really need to say this? ... the government doesn't "give" to those at the very top. Those at the very top EARN. They ACHIEVE? The government doesn't GIVE to them .. the government TAKES from them .... And then gives to those at the bottom and call it tax cuts.

Finally, Obama says, "We start from the simple premise that we should reduce the tax burden on working people, while helping Americans go to college, own a home, raise a family, start a business and save for retirement." In other words, Obama wants to reduce taxes on the middle class while providing handouts to ensure that people can do to college and own a home.