DC Vs The States

I was going to do another Illegal Immigration blog, especially after the rancher was killed on the Border and dear Ex-Gov Janet “It’s a Federal Problem” Napalitano (now Homeland Security Secretary)  is so blase about it, but I will save that outrage for another day.

I found this article by David Broder, no rightwing bomb-thrower or extreme Leftist he.

It points out that while Washington D.C can’t stop spending to save anyone’s lives, the States are cutting programs, services, and raising taxes like mad because they are forced to.

Most states, unlike Washington, are mandated to not run deficits in their budgets.

Most people do as well.

So they are slashing and burning everywhere.

Here in Arizona, our Governor, Jan Brewer, who was given the job after Janet Napalitano could see the iceberg coming and jumped ship before she had to do anything about it has been fighting about this since the day she was handed the office.

And the rancor has been fierce.

But they have to get it done.

Meanwhile, in D.C., they spend $4 Trillion in 15 months, and the CBO projects a nearly $25 Trillion Dollar Deficit by 2020, and the Democrats continue to spend.

They pass Pay-As-you-Go Legislation to put lipstick on the deficit pig and before the inks even dry they roast the pig.

They can’t help themselves.

It’s what they do.

That and they endless obsess about how to run everyone else’s lives for them and the minutiae of political chess matches.

There is no discipline in D.C.

And they don’t want any.

There is enforced discipline on the States.

Which explains why the government always foists the mandates on the States.

They make them do it.

The States are the siblings who have to pick up the pieces that the Drunken,drugged out, abusive Parents in Washington everyone lives with inflict on them.

So, on that note: David Broder (Washington Post):

There is a great divide in American politics. It’s not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between the president and Congress in Washington, on one side, and governors and legislators around the country on the other.

The record of the Washington politicians is summarized in the report that came out of the Congressional Budget Office last week. That nonpartisan scorekeeper announced that it projects the cumulative national debt to increase in the next decade by $9.8 trillion.

That unimaginable (and indigestible) sum is more than a trillion dollars higher than the Obama administration’s estimate. It means a lower future standard of living for Americans because of vastly increased debt.

As Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, pointed out in his commentary on the CBO report, it projects the annual cost of interest on the debt to rise from $209 billion this year to $916 billion by 2020.

Most of that debt is now held overseas by nations such as China and Japan, so we are draining huge sums from ourselves and handing them to others to use in buying us up — or competing against us.

That is the story that has been written and is still unfolding in Washington, with budgets shaped by both Democrats and Republicans. It is a saga of national ruin.

The state side of the story is told most clearly in another report this week, this one from the private Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Staff members Nicholas Johnson, Catherine Collins and Ashali Singham summarized systematically what I had heard anecdotally from many of the governors when they were here last month for their annual winter conference.

Less Spending, More Taxes

The Great Recession knocked state tax revenues down by $87 billion in the fiscal year that ended last September — an 11% decline that was the steepest on record.

In response, the first thing the states did was to cut spending. General fund outlays were reduced by 4% in fiscal 2009 and by another 4.8% in 2010 — even as Medicaid rolls swelled and other recession-related expenses climbed.

But the governors and legislators did not stop there. Two-thirds of the states, 33 of 50, also raised taxes last year, adding more than $30 billion in revenues.

Ten states hiked taxes enough to increase revenues by more than 5% over the previous year’s collections. This happened in California, Florida, Indiana and Nevada, which have Republican governors, as well as in Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina and Oregon, all governed by Democrats.
While the federal government was handing out tax rebates and now is preparing to extend many of the Bush-era tax cuts, 13 states were raising personal income taxes, 17 were passing sales tax and various business tax increases, and 22 were hiking excise taxes on tobacco, alcohol or gasoline.

California, with chronic budget problems, a Democratic-controlled Legislature and a Republican governor, bit the bullet and temporarily raised its income tax rate across the board and its sales tax by 1% and also lifted its vehicle tax.

It’s Different In D.C.

All the states except Vermont operate with a constitutional requirement that they balance their budgets. But I was reminded again during the governors’ conference how different the psychology is in the state capitals and in Washington.

Governors live in the real world, where budgets mean something more than a formula for shifting burdens to the next generation and where there is much less room for partisan game-playing.

Once again this year, Congress has passed a “pay-as-you-go” bill requiring it to make compensatory cuts whenever it increases appropriations for some worthy purpose. Then it turned right around and began waiving the requirement when circumstances pinched.

Discipline is visible in the states. It is still a stranger to Washington.


And after the Health Care Slow Death Takeover bill passed it was even more of a stranger.

The director of the state’s Medicaid program, Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, said last week that reversing health care cuts to comply with the federal health overhaul will cost Arizona $3.8 billion over the next three years.(NYT)

And predictably, Terry “the Tool” Goddard, a massive liberal who managed to become Attorney General is suitably liberal in his condescending and refusal to care about the additional money that the state doesn’t have that this would cost us.

And naturally, all the Democrats in the legislature are against the lawsuit.

That’s bi-partisanship for you!

I think the States are correct in challenging the law because it will be a massive burden in a time when massive burden are definitely not needed.

But Washington doesn’t care.

Their too busy popping champagne corks and looking to see what other “social justice” they can cram down your throat.

And the lawsuit have to go through a gauntlet of Liberal judges, whom I’m sure will be impartial and blind as Lady Justice. 😦

And one Constitution scholar said it was clearly unconconstitutional but because it was so political that the high courts would rule against the States.

If that turns out to be true we have no Constitution left.

And that would be the end.

Because if you can pass a blatantly unconstitutional law and not rule it unconstitutional for political reasons it’s over and there’s nothing left.

Turn out the lights. No one’s home.

So we will have to wait and see.

Meanwhile, the Arizona legislature has to cut nearly 50% more than they already have thanks to ObamaCare.

And that’s reality.

Not the liberal desires of entitlement and control.

The Next Big Stick

As difficult as it was, passing the health care bill is only “a critical first step” in overhauling the system so that it “works for all Americans,” President Obama told NBC’s Today show.”It is not going to be the only thing,” Obama told Matt Lauer. “We are still going to have adjustments that have to be made to further reduce costs.”

Further reduce??


What universe is he living in?

Well, that’s done. So it’s on to the next big stick.

Several companies have come out with their  100’s of millions in new cost estimates for ObamaCare.

The Democrats are mad about it.

And they want someone to pay politically for it, just not them.

So it’s time to take some CEO’s to the woodshed.

Rep. Henry Waxman vowed to haul CEOs into hearings after they revealed just how much ObamaCare will cost their firms. It’s an absurd war on bookkeeping, from a Congress desperate to avoid heat for this fiasco.

In the wake of President Obama’s presidential signature on the gargantuan Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act last Thursday, big companies have crunched their numbers and come up with an ugly picture.

In legally mandated filings, AT&T reported that ObamaCare will cost it $1 billion. Deere & Co. reported $150 million in new costs. Caterpillar must cough up $100 million. 3M must pay another $90 million. AK Steel gets to fork over $31 million. Valero Energy will pay $30 million. There’ll be more as other companies report anticipated costs to fulfill their requirements to inform shareholders. What it shows is a huge wave of costs rolling over the private sector to pay for this bill.

It’s the real cost of ObamaCare, a bill House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had touted daily as “paid for” in her pitch for Congressional votes.

Well, yes, as a matter of fact, it’s paid for because everything is paid for. The question is by whom.

The coming costs are the result of a little-scrutinized ObamaCare provision ending a tax credit for prescription drugs. The credit had been there to encourage firms to carry those costs for retirees.

As a result of ObamaCare’s changes, companies now can either pay for those costs — and lay off workers, hold off expansion or move abroad — or scrap their prescription drug programs altogether, dumping their retirees onto the federal government.

Either way, the costs are “paid for” — but they’ve also just skyrocketed, thanks to ObamaCare.

Instead of admitting the economic reality voters and companies have been warning Congress about, and maybe offering to read the bill next time, Waxman seeks to blame the very businesses the Democrats have just victimized.

It’s a sorry spectacle because Congress paid no attention at all to anyone who raised a yellow flag about how badly the cost-shifting would hit the private sector.

The Chamber of Commerce’s assessments of the impact on companies were dismissed in favor of MoveOn.org’s hysterical “analysis” howling for socialized health care. And the bill passed.

Now it’s time to pay the piper, and Waxman doesn’t want to pay.

He has decided to haul the executives into yet another round of star chamber hearings to explain just why two and two make four.

This is an implied threat to companies either to cook their books or face legal or political sanctions for embarrassing Congress by revealing the true impact of its health care bill on the private sector.

It has its place with what Stalin did in Soviet Russia, denouncing farmers as hoarders after setting artificially low prices for crops, and what Hugo Chavez is doing today in Venezuela, dictating prices on raw goods and limiting access to money while penalizing companies for passing on those costs to customers.

If Waxman gets away with this, it will be just as corrosive on the private sector here. It’s only happening because companies operating in market conditions dared to embarrass Congress with reality.(IBD)

Add to this the Chris Dodd bill on Financial Reform where the Treasury Secretary will have the power to seize a business if he believes it will fail.


The bill would establish a liquidation fund financed by the industry and authorize the appointment of FDIC as receiver for insolvent companies, with SIPC acting as trustee for broker-dealers. All that sounds reasonable. You don’t notice the danger until you’re deep into the 1,336 page bill.

The government is to take over not only defaulting financial companies but those “in danger of default”. Five conditions are listed to define default and in-danger-of-default. Two are straightforward—the company will be filing for bankruptcy shortly or its board or shareholders agree to a government takeover.

The other three conditions allow the government to take over even when a company is not filing for bankruptcy and its board/shareholders do not consent. What it means is that the secretary of the Treasury can decide that a company is about to collapse even if it does not look that way to other people.

So you want to embarrass the President with your economic forecasts do you, Mr CEO?

Well, maybe we just need to take your company way from you.

So you want to give money to the GOP to defeat us in November or 2012?

Well, maybe we just need to take your company way from you.

When you operate on  “the end Justifies the means” that the Democrats are, and they got the drug high from winning the Health Care battle why wouldn’t they go there?

They absolutely would.

It’s the Chicago Way.

And the Mafia.

And the Soviets.

And Hugo Chavez.

And Castro.

So why wouldn’t they.

Moreover, consider that if there is any public suspicion of what’s going on, the company is dead. Once the Treasury decides a company is doing down, this decision will become self-fulfilling. That company will go down. The way the bill is written, it vastly expands government power to make arbitrary choices—like liquidate bank x but let bank y stand. A preview of this happened in 2008, when the Treasury and Fed decided to backstop Bear Stearns but not Lehman Brothers.

Perish the thought, but suppose a secretary of the Treasury has a crony who really wants to buy an investment bank on the cheap—and will provide some future quid pro quo. Pick a time when equities are down and you could make a case that a financial company is wobbly. Voila, it gets liquidated in a fire sale.

Maybe this sounds far fetched—a politician would not do something just for his own interest, would he?(CSM)

To allow the government to make a determination of what could or might happen is to create a whole new arena for political corruption.

But “The end justifies the means”.

The end being, of course, absolute power corrupting absolutely.

And Free Speech? Well,  FREEDOM IS SLAVERY…and you wouldn’t want to say anything bad about Big Brother now would you…

The Mind- It’s a Terrible Thing to Waste

Historians criticized proposed revisions to the Texas social studies curriculum Tuesday, saying that many of the changes are historically inaccurate and that they would affect textbooks and classrooms far beyond the state’s borders.

The changes, which were preliminarily approved last week by the Texas board of education and are expected to be given final approval in May, will reach deeply into Texas history classrooms, defining what textbooks must include and what teachers must cover. The curriculum downplays the role of Thomas Jefferson among the founding fathers, questions the separation of church and state and says that the U.S. government was infiltrated by communists during the Cold War.

Because the Texas textbook market is so large, books assigned to the state’s 4.7 million students often rocket to the top of the market, decreasing costs for other school districts and leading them to buy the same materials.

Discussions ranged from whether President Ronald Reagan should get more attention (yes), whether hip-hop should be included as part of lessons on American culture (no), and whether President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address should be studied alongside Abraham Lincoln’s (yes).

Of particular contention was the requirement that lessons on McCarthyism note that “the later release of the Venona Papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.”

The Venona papers document communication between the Soviet Union and its spies. Historians dispute the extent to which transcripts show Soviet involvement in American government.

Also contentious were changes that asserted Christian faith of the founding fathers. Historians say that the founding fathers had a variety of approaches to religion and faith; some, like Thomas Jefferson, were quite secular.

Some textbook authors expressed discomfort with the state board’s changes, and it is unclear how readily historians will go along with some of the proposals.

“I’m made uncomfortable by mandates of this kind for sure,” said Paul S. Boyer, emeritus professor at University of Wisconsin-Madison and the author of several of the most popular U.S. history textbooks, including some that are on the approved list in Texas.

“We now have the ability to deliver completely customized content” to different states, said Josef Blumenfeld, spokesman for Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, one of three major publishers that supply Texas with most of its social studies textbooks. (referring to online resources)

But some historians weren’t so certain. Fischer, who is a historian at the University of Northern Colorado, noted that first-year teachers fall back on what’s most readily available to them — their textbooks.

“Teachers have a lot to do and a lot on their plate, and if there’s a nice big textbook that the kids have been taking home, they’ll use it,” he said.(WP)

As a person who has a Degree in Education and was at one time in my life going to be a History Teacher, this kind of manipulation of the fact enrages me.

This should not be a partisan issue.

It’s about the facts.

And nothing but the facts.

Warts and all.

But Liberals can’t leave politics out of it.

New York Times: After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.

So again, Liberals go for the if it’s not 100% us, it must be all them.

So education continues to be the proxy war of the future minds.

Orwell was correct, Education is a key.

Control their thoughts and you can control them.

Dr. McLeroy, a dentist by training, pushed through a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the nonviolent approach of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported.

“Republicans need a little credit for that,” he said. “I think it’s going to surprise some students.”

I know many Liberals who will be appalled. They believe they are the sacred holder of Civil Rights and no one can touch them on that.

Much like their “compassion”. That is, until you disagree with them and their fangs come out and they want to destroy you.

When I was preparing to be a History Teacher I full expected to get into a lot of arguments, simply because for me History should not be about ideology, it should be about what happened and why.

The Good, The Bad and the ugly.

And then you decide.

But the ideologically driven can’t deal with that.

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. George Orwell

Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. George Orwell

Punch Drunk Arrogance

Have you noticed that the Democrats aren’t happy they passed Health Care reform for the masses.

They are happy they beat “your ass”.

They are like the school bully who just knocked you down after a fight.

They are only happy they won.

That’s it.

They did the in-your-face End Zone Dance.

That’s what the past 15 months has been about.


That’s all.

And now, the “winners” are feeling their Wheaties and want more!

“He goes into these into these negotiations, and into these legislative battles, with a stronger hand because people understand that he’s going to fight for what he believes in,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in an interview. “Congress proved to itself that it’s well within their power to do the big things that’ll bring about the type of change that they were elected to bring.”

Gibbs contended that Republicans may be more gettable now: “Understanding that what they got out of the health care thing was virtually nothing, I think they may think twice on financial reform. There’s certainly ample evidence that their ‘strategery’ needs a little reform.” (Politico)

So the bully has been emboldened to kick you even more, to expand his empire.

Hear it from a Liberal:

The second biggest threat to America’s vibrancy is the exploding federal debt. Again, Democrats can utter the words of fiscal restraint, but they don’t feel the passion. This bill is full of gimmicks designed to get a good score from the Congressional Budget Office but not to really balance the budget. Democrats did enough to solve their political problem (not looking fiscally reckless) but not enough to solve the genuine problem.

Nobody knows how this bill will work out. It is an undertaking exponentially more complex than the Iraq war, for example. But to me, it feels like the end of something, not the beginning of something. It feels like the noble completion of the great liberal project to build a comprehensive welfare system.

The task ahead is to save this country from stagnation and fiscal ruin. We know what it will take. The Democratic Party does not seem to be up to that coming challenge (neither is the Republican Party). This country is in the position of a free-spending family careening toward bankruptcy that announced that it was giving a gigantic new gift to charity.

You admire the act of generosity, but you wish they had sold a few of the Mercedes to pay for it. (Fresno Bee)

Unfortunately for the people’s interests, the trickery appears to be getting worse. Nothing exemplifies the contempt that Speaker Pelosi has for the public and everyone outside her little circle of intimidated puppets better than her arrogant assertion that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” What she calls the fog of controversy is actually the process of painstakingly deciphering 2,700 pages of arcane obfuscation. The bill contains one simple reality that Pelosi and team desperately want to conceal: it will dramatically expand government’s reach into the private sector of our economy and dramatically reduce individual liberty. (Colin Hanna)

And that was best exemplified by Pelosi arrogant walk with over-sized gavel in hand through protesters with a smile on her face to pronounce the bill passed.

In your Face!

And now that they have had a taste of this sweet nectar they want MORE!


Recession is when your neighbors loses Their job. Depression is when you lose yours as well. And recovery is when Barack Obama and The Democrats loses theirs.

Petition: http://novemberiscoming.com/confirm.php#ffStart

The Car War Begins

Liberals hate your car.

It pollutes the environment.

It causes accidents.

It gives you freedom to go where you want to.

It eats up gas and oil, which they REALLY hate.

And hate is what a Liberal does best.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has announced a “major policy revision” that aims to give bicycling and walking the same policy and economic consideration as driving.

“Today I want to announce a sea change,” he wrote on his blog last week. “This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of nonmotorized.”

At a House appropriations committee hearing last week, Congressman Steven LaTourette, Republican of Ohio, brought up the new policy and asked a Transportation Department official to clarify what Mr. LaHood means by “equal treatment.”

“If we’re going to spend $1 million on a road, we’re not going to have half of it go to a bike lane and half of it go to cars?” he asked, according to a transcript of the hearing.

“My interpretation of that would be equal in the eyes of policymakers as what is the expenditure you make, what is the benefit you get,” responded Roy Kienitz, D.O.T.’s under secretary for policy. “And if the freight project offers the best bang, great, but if the bike project offers a good bang, great for them.”

“I don’t even understand how you get a bang for the buck out of a bicycle project,” Mr. LaTourette subsequently commented. “I mean, what job is going to be created by having a bike lane?”

It’s not the bike lane they really want, Congressman.

They want you out of your car. By hook or by crook.

That freedom to go anywhere has to be stopped.

And they have to force you onto government subsidized Mass Transit.

Where they control you.

And besides, with all the taxes coming down and the fact that your car is evil and Gasoline is evil they will make it too expensive for the average joe to afford a car.

Think London.

Where Mass Transit is what most use.

Having a car is expensive.

A Privilege. :0

That’s one Entitlement they won’t push.

Not with the Liberal mad on for Oil Companies.

And besides bicycling to work will be good for your Health, especially in a few years when the Government owns that too.

The Bike is the New Hybrid.

Embrace the Bus or Light Rail.

The Government says you’ll love it.

LaHood told reporters at the National Press Club that the “Partnership for Sustainable Communities’ his department had formed with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Housing—sometimes known as the “livability initiative”–was designed to “coerce” people out of their cars.

“Some in the highway-supporters motorist groups have been concerned by your livability initiative,” said the moderator at the National Press Club event. “Is this an effort to make driving more torturous and to coerce people out of their cars?”

“It is a way to coerce people out of their cars,” said LaHood.

The moderator later asked: “Some conservative groups are wary of the livable communities program, saying it’s an example of government intrusion into people’s lives. How do you respond?”

“About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people’s lives,” said LaHood. “So have at it.”

And they will gleefully do so.

Drowning in a VAT of Debt

President Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation’s economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president’s budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

“An additional $1.2 trillion in debt dumped on [GDP] to our children makes a huge difference,” said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “That represents an additional debt of $10,000 per household above and beyond the federal debt they are already carrying.”

The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it’s headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO’s deficit estimates.

But ask a Liberal or the Fifth Column/MSM/Ministry of Truth and they’ll say it was George W. Bush’s fault and they are “fixing it”.

This like the plumber that comes over to fix your toilet and ends up flooding your house.

It’s not his fault.

God helps us all.

If the president opts to continue with the biggest ideologically based spending spree in history — risk to the economy be damned — federal spending for 2009-2020 will as a percent of GDP increase by an enormous 23% (or more) compared to the Bush/Clinton years, the government’s gross debt (public plus internal) will as a percent of GDP equal or exceed Greece’s, and catastrophe will follow.

Some analysts say that America’s AAA bond rating is already in jeopardy and may be lost by 2014 at the latest.

If one uses the Congressional Budget Office’s more realistic forecasts of interest rates, revenues and GDP growth, adding the president’s extra spending and debt is even more risky: The public debt in 2020 will be 91% of GDP. The gross debt will be 123% of GDP (compared with 115% to 125% in Greece today) and greatly in excess of the “tipping point” identified by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff in their recent landmark study of worldwide data.

On the other hand, the president could decide not to put America at such great risk and, therefore, to forgo adding the additional spending and debt. In that case, the public debt would be 56% of GDP and the gross debt would be 85% (or, according to CBO data, 68% and 100%).

As the night follows the day, the VAT cometh. With the passage of ObamaCare, creating a vast new middle-class entitlement, a national sales tax of the kind near-universal in Europe is inevitable.

We are now $8 trillion in debt. The Congressional Budget Office projects that another $12 trillion will be added over the next decade.

ObamaCare, when stripped of its budgetary gimmicks — the unfunded $200-billion-plus doctor fix, the double counting of Medicare cuts, the 10-6 sleight-of-hand (counting 10 years of revenue and only 6 years of outflows) — is at minimum a $2 trillion new entitlement.

It will vastly increase the debt. But even if it were revenue-neutral, ObamaCare pre-empts and appropriates for itself the best and easiest means of reducing the existing deficit. ObamaCare’s $500 billion of cuts in Medicare and $600 billion in tax hikes are no longer available for deficit reduction. They are siphoned off for the new entitlement of insuring the uninsured.

This is fiscally disastrous because, as President Obama himself explained last year in unveiling his grand transformational policies, our unsustainable fiscal path requires control of entitlement spending, the most ruinous of which is out-of-control health care costs.

ObamaCare was sold on the premise that, as Nancy Pelosi put it, “health care reform is entitlement reform. Our budget cannot take this upward spiral of cost.” But the bill enacted last Tuesday accelerates the spiral: It radically expands Medicaid (adding 15 million new recipients/dependents) and shamelessly raids Medicare by spending on a new entitlement the $500 billion in cuts and the yield from the Medicare tax hikes.

Obama knows that the debt bomb is looming, that Moody’s is warning that the Treasury’s AAA rating is in jeopardy, that we are headed for a run on the dollar and/or hyperinflation if nothing is done.

Hence his deficit reduction commission. It will report (surprise!) after the November elections. What will it recommend? What can it recommend?

Sure, Social Security can be trimmed by raising the retirement age, introducing means testing and changing the indexing formula from wage growth to price inflation. But this won’t be nearly enough. As Obama has repeatedly insisted, the real money is in health care costs — which are now locked in place by the new ObamaCare mandates.

That’s where the value-added tax comes in. For the politician, it has the virtue of expediency: People are used to sales taxes, and this one produces a river of revenue. Every 1% of VAT would yield up to $1 trillion a decade (depending on what you exclude — if you exempt food, for example, the yield would be more like $900 billion).

It’s the ultimate cash cow. Obama will need it. By introducing universal health care, he has pulled off the largest expansion of the welfare state in four decades. And the most expensive. Which is why all of the European Union has the VAT. Huge VATs. Germany: 19%. France and Italy: 20%. Most of Scandinavia: 25%.

American liberals have long complained that ours is the only advanced industrial country without universal health care. Well, now we shall have it. And as we approach European levels of entitlements, we will need European levels of taxation.

Obama set out to be a consequential president, on the order of Ronald Reagan. With the VAT, Obama’s triumph will be complete. He will have succeeded in reversing Reaganism. Liberals have long complained that Reagan’s strategy was to starve the (governmental) beast in order to shrink it: First, cut taxes — then ultimately you have to reduce government spending.

Obama’s strategy is exactly the opposite: Expand the beast, and then feed it. Spend first — which then forces taxation. Now that, with the institution of universal health care, we are becoming the full entitlement state, the beast will have to be fed.

And the VAT is the only trough in creation large enough.

As a substitute for the income tax, the VAT would be a splendid idea. Taxing consumption makes infinitely more sense than taxing work. But to feed the liberal social-democratic project, the VAT must be added on top of the income tax.

Ultimately, even that won’t be enough. As the population ages and health care becomes increasingly expensive, the only way to avoid fiscal ruin (as Britain, for example, has discovered) is health care rationing.

It will take a while to break the American populace to that idea. In the meantime, get ready for the VAT. Or start fighting it.(IBD)

So add to that the “Universal Retirement” where you are forced to fund the National Debt through Treasury bonds and all the Taxes for the Health Care Bill that will not drive you into the hands of the government but your employer as well.

Doom is coming over the horizon.

And the only thing we can do is REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!

Bend Over

“After I signed the bill, I looked around to see if there were any asteroids falling, some cracks opening up in the earth,” Obama said, adding it turned out to be a nice day and “birds were chirping, folks were strolling down the mall.”

You’ve officially been Mocked by The President of the United States.

Congrats, he has complete contempt for you.

Isn’t that Special?

Coming Up, Your 401k.

You’re an idiot.

You can’t manage it properly.

So the government is going to have to do it for you.

Or so says a “think tank” at retirement-usa.org funded by Retirement USA has been convened by five organizations – the AFL-CIO, the Economic Policy Institute, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Pension Rights Center, and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

The SEIU, if you didn’t already know is a Union for Government Employees, and the their President is the single most frequent guest at The White House since Obama was elected and the man who single-handledly carved out the Union exemption from the “Caddilac” tax until 2018.

So they have your best interests at heart. 😦

Retirement USA is a national initiative that is working for a new retirement system that, along with Social Security, will provide universal, secure, and adequate income for future retirees.

“Our goal is to involve all workers and all employees in a government-mandated retirement program, with the government putting up the difference for lower-paid employees,” Nancy Hwa, a spokewoman for the participating Pension Rights Center said.

They want your retirement, to pay for Obama’s massive spending.

Retirement USA would require by law employers and employees to contribute to a retirement account for every employee and demand that a portion of that contribution go into a federal-government-created annuity that would be funded by purchasing Treasury debt.

Their Principles:

Universal Coverage. Every worker should be covered by a retirement plan. A new retirement system that supplements Social Security should include all workers unless they are in plans that provide equally secure and adequate benefits.

Secure Retirement. Retirement shouldn’t be a gamble. Workers should be able to count on a steady lifetime stream of retirement income to supplement Social Security.

Adequate Income. Everyone should be able to have an adequate retirement income after a lifetime of work. The average worker should have sufficient income, together with Social Security, to maintain a reasonable standard of living in retirement.

This would be the Social Security that just announced it’s insolvency.

This year, the system (SocSec) will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office. (NYT)

Timing is everything for Liberals, isn’t it.

The worse possible time is when you go for it!

Now here’s the fun part of your next “right” , retirement:

Shared Responsibility. Retirement should be the shared responsibility of employers, employees and the government.

Which means you get to invest in the governments debt and the government pays you a stipend.

“Retirement USA is basically an effort that amounts to nationalizing 401(k)s and IRAs,” David John, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Well, Obama does have Trillions in debt to pay off so why not make you pay for it, but not as a tax.

Just like the Health Care Reform where you have a Fine that is enforced by the IRS because it’s a Tax, but it’s a Tax that’s called a Fine.

Congress has broad taxing authority, but not fining authority.

So the Fine is a Tax and the Tax is a Fine.

Orwell would be proud.

Required Contributions. Employers and employees should be required to contribute a specified percentage of pay, and the government should subsidize the contributions of lower-income workers.

As if FICA and all the other mandatory taxes on your paycheck aren’t enough, the government wants more. But they won’t call it a tax, even if it is one.

Pooled Assets. Contributions to the system should be pooled and professionally managed to minimize costs and financial risks.

In case you don’t know, this  concept is called INSURANCE.

Government Annuity Insurance to manage your Guaranteed Government Run, Government Paid, Mandatory Retirement Entitlement.

And it will be for your own good.

Meanwhile, the government can steal your retirement income so they can spend it. Obstensively, it will be to pay down the debt, but since when would any leftist do that!

So the IOU’s will pile up in a short amount of time.

And it doesn’t stop there folks…

The Obama administration on Friday announced broad new initiatives to help troubled homeowners, potentially refinancing several million of them into fresh government-backed mortgages with lower payments.

Isn’t this how we got here?


But, the pandering of the left and your “right” ‘s are just beginning.

I can’t wait for owning a home is a right.

Actually, I can, but the Liberals will get around to it eventually.

Because, everything is a “right” when it come to the Liberals wanting to take your freedom away in order to grant it.

Another element of the White House’s housing program will require lenders to offer unemployed borrowers a reduction in their payments for a minimum of three months.

An administration official declined to speak on the record about the new programs but said they would “better assist responsible homeowners who have been affected by the economic crisis through no fault of their own.”

But let’s not talk about the complete lack of interest in Job Creation by the Administration.

Let’s just throw more money at  these problems.

It’s not like we’re in debt or anything… 😦