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.

George Soros has given his two-cents about greedy Wall Street and their profits. Soros says that the profits made by leading banks on Wall Street are nothing but "hidden gifts" from the state (and by that he means taxpayers). Therefore, he believes that taxpayers are "justified" in their outrage over CEO bonuses and salaries. Soros says, "Those earnings are not the achievement of risk-takers ... These are gifts, hidden gifts, from the government, so I don't think that those monies should be used to pay bonuses. There's a resentment which I think is justified."

This is a typical leftist attitude. The basic premise of Soros' argument is that all wealth belongs to the government, and any portion of your earnings the government allows you to keep constitutes a "gift" from government. Since all wealth belongs to government, government gets to decide how it's distributed.

Then, there's this .... Will somebody then please explain this to me: The federal government set the pay package of Freddie Mac's CFO at $5.5 million, including a $2 million cash signing bonus. Remember, thanks to the taxpayer the government now owns 80% of Freddie Mac. We, the taxpayers, pumped $51 billion into this sucker. So within weeks of awarding a $5 million pay package to the Freddie Mac CFO, the federal government decides to slash the salaries of top executives at financial institutions receiving bailout money.

And don't' forget Franklin Raines ... He was the chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae. He was also the White House budget director under Bill Clinton. I suppose that's how he got the Fannie Mae job. While Raines was at Fannie Mae he was accused of some accounting chicanery that allowed senior executives ... including Franklin Raines ... to earn huge bonuses. How much did Raines get? Try over 90 million dollars. Government insiders cook the books and get away with tens of millions ... and George Soros slams the private sector.

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.

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!

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.