The looters must have hated this. Right there on your very own television screen you could see people - hundreds of people - lined up to receive their Swine Flu shots. Particularly poignant were the pictures of young women carrying infants waiting hours in these lines for their shots.

You do know, don't you, that the manufacture of this Swine Flu vaccine was essentially a government operation. To be sure, private manufacturers were producing the vaccine; but they were doing so under government contracts following government rules and regulations and with no small amount of control and interference from government bureaucrats. There is no doubt that if the private drug manufacturers had been turned loose to produce this vaccine and to sell it on the open marketplace there would have been no shortages. The shortages were caused by government. This is your future when the looters manage to take over one-sixth of our economy --- when the government controls your health care. Oh ... you're going to love this stuff.

Where did we get this? Well, from MSNBC, of course. MSNBC anchor Carlos Watson had this little gem for listeners last Monday:

"..you start to wonder whether in fact the word socialist is becoming a code word, whether or not socialist is becoming the new N-word for frankly for some angry upset birthers and others."

No surprise there. After all, haven't we learned that any criticism leveled at The Community Organizer has to be based on nothing but the fact that he's a black man in the White House. It's ALL racist; not just using the "socialist" word, but ALL criticism. Get used to it. It's really pretty simple ... if you don't believe that government is what makes America great .. you're a racist. Now you know.

In case it's still not clear to you; in case you're still wondering if you might be a racist or not ... I found some help for you. Just follow this flow chart!

You'll see that the chart came from "Missourah.com" You ought to check out the website. It's pretty good! Now bookmarked for use in my show preparation.

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.

In the wake of the reveal of Nancy's House healthcare bill, the Congressional Budget Office has released another analysis. It believes that when it is all said and done, the Democrat's government option would only end up covering 2% of Americans. Those are the estimated numbers for Americans under the age of 65. With a pool of 30 million people, only 1-in-5 would sign up for the government option. The rest would then buy into the private option (because the government will force everyone to carry health insurance, remember?). The theory is that less healthy people would be more drawn to the government option because they are moochers. As a result, premiums for the government plan would increase and end up being more costly than private plans.

So why push the government option at all? After all, it's only going to cover a paltry 2%! Glad you asked. The reason for the government option is to put in place the machinery that will be needed to run the private health insurance companies (along with their "obscene" and "immoral" profit margins of 2.2%) out of business. You can't expect the government option to come on the scene with a huge market share. This has to be earned ... and it will be earned by using the bottomless well of taxpayer funds and an endless parade of new government regulations to run the private insurers out of office. The looters are patient. They've been waiting for this opportunity since HillaryCare was killed off by the 1994 voter's revolution. It make take years, but the government option will lead inexorably to a single-payer system .. and the single-payer will the federal government. Give the looters their health care "reform" and you will one day be completely reliant on the decisions and whims of government bureaucrats - people quite possibly not qualified to work in the private sector - in all matters related to your health care.

What fun!

What have the Democrats managed to tuck into this 1,900 page healthcare bill? Well how about goodies like this ... uncovered by BigGovernment.com:

Section 2531, entitled "Medical Liability Alternatives," establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]...... a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys' fees or imposes caps on damages.

Well that's rather obvious, isn't it? Just what in the hell does this have to do with health care reform? How does protecting trial lawyer's contingency fees improve the delivery and quality of health care to the American people? It is a gift from Nancy Pelosi directly to trial lawyers ... trial lawyers who contribute tens of millions of dollars to Democrats in every election year. Any changes made on medical liability lawsuits will not be allowed to affect the livelihood for her beloved trial lawyers.

What else appears in Nancy's healthcare bill? Well I talked to Jamie Dupree last week about the fact that the world "shall" appears 3,425 times. Here are a few more .. how about the fact that the bill requires at least 42 studies. The word "report" also appears 364 times and "tax" is used 214 times.

By the way, with 1,900 and a cost of $894 billion, that comes out to about $2.24 million per word.

Apparently hell froze over. You can now read a Boortz column in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Here's the first one.

Mark Steyn on the Obama administration's promise to "speak truth to power."

The climate change summit in Copenhagen is just weeks away .. and apparently nothing major is expected to happen because the Obama and the Democrats have failed to pass cap-and-trade legislation in the United States.

What does The Wall Street Journal think of Pelosi's health care bill? How about "The Worst Bill Ever"

Here's a little reminder of why cap-and-trade would be disastrous for our economy.

This jobs "created or saved" nonsense; you're not buying that, are you? Oh, wait. If you would by this "change you can believe in" nonsense you would buy almost anything ... so maybe you should read this.

European leaders want a global fund so that rich nations can contribute and help developing nations fight climate change.

I told you about this one last week .. annual Medicare fraud: $60 Billion; annual profits of top ten insurance companies: $8 billion

The United States has ensured the return of ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya. So much for democracy.

Barney Frank's legislation in the House affirms the assumption that too-big-to-fail is not only a reality but a reality that should be acknowledged in law.

Barney Frank also wants financial institutions to pay into a pre-funded trust that would cover the cost of a government takeover, if ever necessary again.

Healthcare reform has become nothing more than a cheesy Washington soap opera starring Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Obamacare vs. the Hippocratic Oath.

The head of the National Endowment for the Arts is Barack Obama's biggest cheerleader.

George Will explains a current controversy in Washington, where the right to privacy is under assault for resident who sign petitions to trigger reform.

This week will test Obama's political clout, where Obama has endorsed threatened Democrat candidates up for re-election in Virginia, New York and New Jersey.

Is this what President Obama meant when he said this would be the most "transparent administration in history"? Rather than coming up with plausible lies, the administration seems to be fine using the transparent kind.

A simple calculator could figure out that the taxpayers have spent $160,000 per job created/saved by Obama's stimulus plan. But the White House calls this "calculator abuse."

Government should not subsidize health insurance -- for the uninsured, the poor, the elderly or anyone else -- or regulate health insurance markets. Here's why.

Federal banking regulators seized nine more banks.

Rather than trying to read these massive bills coming out of Congress, why don't the politicians sit down and read the Constitution. Seems like some could use a refresher.

One of our favorite brain dead politicians is under full-scale investigation by the House ethics committee.

Taxpayer funded studies on how Congressmen can avoid constituents. Sounds about right.

What happened to Obamamania? Those Obama bumper stickers have been flying off cars since reality set in.

This is what you get when you vote AGAINST a party rather than FOR a party you believe in.