« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama’s National Sales Tax

President Obama is vetting a new national sales tax (commonly referred to as a VAT) to extract more wealth from the private sector to sustain his insatiable hunger for more government spending.  Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke have commenced a vetting strategy to convince Americans that they need to give more and more money to an every-expanding and bloated federal government.  Congress needs to just say no to a VAT — and increased taxation — as part of any pitch by this Administration to balance the budget.

Volker and Bernanke have used a two pronged strategy to vet the VAT.  First is fear mongering.  Bernanke argues that Americans need to choose between higher taxes or massive cuts in critical government programs.  He mentioned Social Security, Medicare, Education and Defense as areas of government spending that would be targeted if we don’t raise taxes. This is a false choice.  The federal government needs to reform entitlement programs, needs to root out waste fraud and abuse and should eliminate programs like the National Endowment for the Arts.

The deficit incurred by the federal government has reached about $12.8 trillion and next year’s projected deficit is record breaking at $1.6 trillion.  Obama’s solution?  Not cutting government, not ending bailouts, not entitlement reform, and not stopping the Stimulus.  Instead, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke yesterday commenced a debate on higher taxes yesterday, see the Washington Post:

To avoid large and ultimately unsustainable budget deficits, the nation will ultimately have to choose among higher taxes, modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above.

White House economic advisor Paul Volcker, and former Chairman of the Fed, urged the United States to follow Europe and impose a Value Added Tax (VAT).  The Washington Examiner has this description of a VAT:

A VAT is a national sales tax that would be collected by retailers. But it can also be imposed on products as they make their way through the manufacturing process. That is, the tax for a single product is paid by manufacturers, producers, and business that add value to the product, as well as by the consumers. Critics argue that the VAT is a regressive tax that unduly places the burden on the poor.

The reason why elites in Washington would look to a VAT before increasing income taxes (and, believe me, higher income taxes are coming) is because not enough of the population even pays income taxes to make it worthwhile for the government to use the income tax structure to balance the budget.  According to the Tax Policy Center, only about 47 percent of Americans will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009.  Meanwhile, the government can extract the most amount of your wealth from a national sales tax (VAT) and Volker’s statement yesterday evidences a will on the part of this Administration to start the fear mongering process to tee up higher taxes.

Don’t be fooled by the rhetoric on the part of the agents of President Obama when they try to downplay the effort to impose higher taxes on all Americans.  Volker and Bernanke would not be messaging for higher taxes if this Administration did not want them to.  A VAT, national sales tax, would be the end of economic freedom as we know it, because the federal government would then have the power to tax all aspects of our lives.  Until Washington can restrain spending, we should not entrust it with the power to create a brand new tax.

COMMENTS

  • nc_progress

    when Republican Presidents (see Reagan, Ronald and Bush, George), tear a great big hole in our budget, and democrats (Clinton, Bill and Obama, Barack) have to put humpty dumpty back together again. Spare me the collective bed wetting people. Taxes aren’t inherently “evil”. We see what happens when the massively wealthy get tax cuts….it doesn’t help anyone in the long run

    • Brian Darling

      With the exception of government bureaucrats. NC_Progress is clearly a partisan when he/she blames all of our fiscal poblems on Rs. Both Republicans and Democrats can share the blame for our looming fiscal crisis and President Obama is not different from other Presidents who spend too much of the average American’s wealth. I don’t like an ever expanding government that takes more and more of my money to waste, nor should you.
      I would hope that we can agree that increased taxation is inherently evil. The federal government should not live beyond the means provided by taxpayers.

      • nc_progress

        No, I don’t consider myself “partisan”, as both sides clearly shoulder blame for this. My point is that I only see hand wringing about deficits and spending when a Democrat is in power. A touch of hypocrisy, don’t you think? I am in complete agreement that government should not live beyond it’s means, and that spending, overall, is out of control. I will however, respectfully disagree with most people here, on what spending we should cut. I think it’s disingenuous to talk about spending cuts, and not mention the nearly $1 trillion a year we spend on “defense” (read: Haliburton, KBR, etc), Corporate Welfare, etc, etc

        • Tbone

          from people like you?

          • nc_progress

            Good one. That’s what I would expect here. I don’t believe any of you are truly “conservative”, if you feel we should continue spending $$ like drunken sailors on an incredibly bloated military, farm subsidies, etc. I apologize to the Ron Paul fans out there, who I believe is a true conservative, but the rest of you are in denial

        • Brian Darling

          is me responding to you — just kidding. I am in favor of spending some time cutting spending before President Obama raises taxes for yet another scheme to expand government.
          10 items off the top of my head to cut:
          1. Eliminating all corporate welfare including TARP;
          2. Eliminating all Farm Subsidies and earmarks from the federal buget;
          3. Waste in Medicare and Medicaid;
          4. Assessment of redundancy in the over 70 means tested welfare programs;
          5. National Endowment for the Arts – Eliminate;
          6. Waste in Defense Department (McCain and Coburn are concerned about this important issue);
          7. Freeze on all new federal hiring and start firing people who are not efficient;
          8. Stop spending Stimulus monies, because it has been proven not to create jobs other than state, federal and local ones;
          9. Cease wasting monies on “Green Jobs” and “Green Technology,” if they are efficient then they shall be supported by private dollars and the free market; and,
          10. Comprehensive Entitlement Reform so that these programs can be reformed to save money.
          Do you disagree with any of these cuts???

          • nc_progress

            btw, I agree with most of these, though I do think stimulus funds, in the short term, help local communities, particularly with the hiring of teachers, cops, etc. However, I haven’t seen any Republican leaders come out and talk openly about

            1. Cutting Defense Spending in a real way, not just around the edges
            2. Eliminating corporate welfare

            And give me a break about things like ‘earmarks’. That John McCain bit is a joke, it is tiny when compared to defense, corporate welfare, and entitlements

          • penguin2

            Nice temporary PR opportunities for the Dems. The monetary support goes away at the end of 18 months. The states and local governments used the funds to shore up their own deficits, so they wouldn’t have to lay off municipal employees. Other jobs created are strictly temporary, when the government cash cow dries up, it will be obvious what went on.

            When all is said and done, their deficits will rear it ugly head, and the U.S. financial obligations and deficit, is certainly bigger in one year under Obama than any blame you can put on the Republicans. In fact, expect it to grow, your Dems aren’t done yet.

          • http://sandysalt.blogspot.com/ sandysalt

            It isn’t only defense that needs serious cutting. Why are so many people on the public teet to include federal, state and local. I understand that we need teachers and cops, but do we really need a 15 member school board or ten directors on the highway board? I think the military is an easy target because we all know that Generals suck down huge dollars, but spill very little of their own blood, but the same goes for all government programs where you have six layers of leadership when three would be more than enough. If you look at the current employment numbers you will see that the public sector is the only one with job grow, but that equals greater spending. I have to ask are we truly getting our money’s worth from stimulus if all we are doing is further bloating the government machines.

          • sta46

            leaving the UN and ending our financial participation in any/everything to do with it or its insidious global government policies.
            we could still be the first line of aid in the event of a crisis like haiti but we could save BILLIONS annually by withdrawing from a ridiculous group which simply wants us to subsidize the entire planet.
            also feret out the approximately 60 billion per year in Medicare/medicaide fraud.
            I feel certain there is are equal amounts of fraud in welfare and SSDI… that would save us 180 billion per year right there.
            but noooooooo… leave the fraud and raise the taxes… typical marxist/socialist/america hating dems. i hope there is a special circle of hell for all of them

          • nc_progress

            ummm, cutting medicare/medicaid fraud is a huge priority for democrats, and part of the HCR bill. Maybe you should read it

            btw, and enough of the “america hating” crap. We can disagree and all love our country.

          • Aaron Gardner
          • Praying

            11. Eliminate Department of Energy (and drill baby drill)
            12. Eliminate Department of Education (put the STATES back in charge of education)

          • http://sandysalt.blogspot.com/ sandysalt

            We need to stop allowing the federal government to fleece us and then bribe us with our own money. We need to let the community decide education issues.

        • ascrowe

          NC-progress wrote: ?I will however, respectfully disagree with most people here, on what spending we should cut.?

          I?d say most folks will agree the only spending should be what is constitutionally empowered. Since that has been ignored, both parties have fed at the trough unlimited to the point, or soon to the point, that it will collapse of its own weight. The safety net will be the enumerated powers. Increasing taxes will only delay the evitable day of reckoning.

          We have a choice, we can move to stop the economic calamity by phasing out all spending not constitutionally justified, while maintaining our current commitments (e.g. keep social security for those in it now, but don?t add to it), or; we can continue to ignore it until the government has no other choice but to decide to pay the soldier in the field, and tell us to take care of our own family, and national parks, and highways, etc.

          Samuel

    • penguin2

      It seems clear that you have an adverse view of Republicans and certainly the opposite of what we think of the Dems. I don’t think I need to say much more, you do not seem to be here to promote Republican/conservative causes. I don’t think Obama is going to be able to put anything together again; he doesn’t want to. I think you forgot which party likes the people dependent, living in a state of welfare dependency.

      • nc_progress

        Really? Do you still think it’s 1990? Take a look at the billions we spend every year on corporate welfare (farm subsidies, airlines, etc, etc). I would counter that the health care bill, while far from ideal, is finally promoting subsidies to people, rather than corporations

        • conservativecounsel

          Finally promoting subsidies to the people…? 47% of the American populace pays not income tax at all. What in the blazes do you call that?

          • nc_progress

            http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812

          • conservativecounsel

            What is your point? Corporations pay people who pay taxes. You want it all?

          • jackbenimble

            Actually 100% of corporations pay no taxes.

            Corporate taxes are just a tricky way for politicians to pretend like they are sticking it to somebody else when really they are sticking it to people.

            When a corporation is taxed, the pain is not felt by a souless legal entity. It is felt by real people. The corporation is just the tax collector. The tax is passed on to one or more of three groups of people: the shareholders (many of whom are ordinary working people who own stock in their 401k); the employees because the money is not there for raises and benefits and some of whom may find themselves no longer employees, and the customers through higher prices.

            Corporate taxes are a fiction. Corporations don’t pay taxes, they just collect them from people. Everybody with a brain understands that. By definition, that excludes liberals.

        • Achance

          nc_idiot. Half this Country is nothing more than a parasite living off the other half and I suspect strongly that you’re a member of the parasite half.

          • nc_progress

            Ha, yes, the “parasites” live in the Red States, living off the dole of the work done in the blue states. Not to mention the wealthiest 1% who have been shoveled $ by BOTH sides

          • Brian Darling

            Do you support a national VAT that will tax all Americans at a higher rate? If so, you should rename your ID to France_Progress so you can emulate our European friends who are experiencing economic stagnation and a huge welfare state. I don’t think the residents of North Carolina want to have the lower standard of living of your average European.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Because only a partisan would make the argument that all the Red States are the ones living on the dole of the Blue States.

          • RedBeard

            You mean those in the top 1% who pay 39% of all federal income taxes? THAT 1%?

        • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

          corporations, recipients of transfer payments, countries paid not to develop, is a good thing?

        • penguin2

          That would be a good place to start to get government out of the habit of propping up and then taking them over. The other side to the coin, is the dependency on the State that the Democrats foster and are fully committed to achieving.

          No, you are partisan. Your very first comment was a slam against the Republicans and you promoted the Democrats as rescuing. Your words:
          “when Republican Presidents (see Reagan, Ronald and Bush, George), tear a great big hole in our budget, and democrats (Clinton, Bill and Obama, Barack) have to put humpty dumpty back together again.”

        • Brian Darling

          I think we have bipartisan agreement that corporate welfare, farm subsidies, airline subsidies, TARP, et al. need to be eliminated. Also, we don’t need to expand government by raising taxes with a VAT.

          • jackbenimble

            I don’t see any bi-partisan agreement for ending corporate welfare. While I have slightly more hope for Republicans then Democrats in this respect, I suspect that there would be major knashing of teeth at any serious effort to end say ethanol subsidies or any of the other farm subsidies.

    • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

      Reagan’s tax cuts doubled receipts to the treasury. Clinton had the luxury of the peace dividend of the end of the Cold War.

      How are massive tax increases working out in California and New York?

      • nc_progress

        Under Reagan, however, the federal deficit expanded from 2.6% of GNP to 5.3% in 1986 (before falling somewhat in 1987), adding more than $1 trillion in red ink to our national accounts. Worse, this growth took place not during wartime or depression but in a period of peace and prosperity. That’s when the national debt is supposed to shrink.

        http://www.inc.com/magazine/19881001/5989.html#

        Really, enough of the lying. Clinton balanced the budget, and “trickle down” does not work. California and NY? Really? Do your homework

        • Brian Darling

          Balanced the budget – get your facts correct. The left can’ t blame Republicans for all the ills of the world, as much as they may try. Facts tend to get in the way of those assertions.
          I challenge any lefty to explain how vastly expanding government is going to help our economy get better. We have a federal government running almost $13T in debt, yet the left trusts the government to be the most effecient allocator of resources for our auto industry, health care and financial services.

        • tcgeol

          You might want to take another look at your history books on that one. We forced him to do so.

        • XOT

          Perhaps the key word in the phrase “cold war” escapes you?? While not a traditional/conventional war in that sense, make no mistake that it was a war, and one that Reagan led us to victory in, and he did so with his adminstration’s defense policies (spending contributing a great deal towards this end) as well as foreign policy.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          nc_progress is banned but Reagan is a standout among postwar presidents in cutting government.

          Clinton is #2 in cutting the *budget*, but that’s because he gutted our military.

          Reagan cut across the board even as he won the cold war.

        • ihateliberals

          a cold war stupid. This spending is what crushed the soviet block and caused it to collapse besides Obama boy has more red ink that is more than all of the presidents combined in the 20th century and he did this in just one year.

    • romans12n2

      Is that you? How’s that job search coming?

    • ihateliberals

      you aren’t very smart either. Reagan got this country back on it’s feet after Jimmy dam near destroyed it. the only mistake that Reagan ever made was selecting George Bush for VP. Bush I was some of the first recognized RINO. It is a proven fact that the more money people have in their hands to spend the better the economy is. Bill Clinton is the direct cause of the 2008 meltdown. It takes about ten years for those mistakes of Clinton to show up. When you let people buy houses that they can’t afford sooner or later they will have to start paying for it. That’s what happen in 2008. The interest only ARM’s ran out and the full house payments became due. Most of the people were just barely able to afford the interest only payments. The first thing we have to do when we take the country back is cut TAXes and then repeal most of the entitlements that Obama and crew put into place. Then slowly dismantle the lesser entitlements. SS should be stopped and a law passed that a person must put money aside to retirement or modify SS to do that. don’t mess with the people that are are ready on the SS retirement. Same goes for medicare.

    • novacalif

      On 04/08/2010 I wayched an interview on the Greta Van Susteren program with, I believe, a Steve Moore from the Wall Street Journal. At the beginning of the interview, Greta made the comment about tax being added at every layer where value is added, but that seemed to get lost during the rest of the interview.

      While all of Obama’s programs are disastrous for free enterprise, unfortunately, if a VAT tax (i.e., National Sales Tax) passes or anything similar to it, it will be even more disastrous for this country than even the health care debacle. For nearly 20 years I have spoken out against a VAT, and in favor of a flat tax. Following is a portion of what I sent to one “Fair Tax” advocate.

      “While I believe Tax Reform is necessary, I don’t think you truly understand the implications of the “Fair Tax”.

      Without exception, the Fair Tax system either is or will become “multi-layer” or VAT tax scheme, with taxes being levied at each level of the distribution chain.

      However, most people in the U.S. are unaware that 92% of all products in the United States flow through a multi-layer distribution chain.

      For example, most industries are a minimum of 7 layers deep (from raw materials to finished goods to end user). If each layer is taxed at 2.0% per layer (it will be compounded) and each layer adds only $100 of “value,” the tax collected is $58.30. Therefore, a hidden tax of $43.43 is collected from the six layers below the end user.

      In addition, the onus to collect the tax is placed on the backs of every business, with enormous penalties for underpayment. In California, it takes most small businesses operating at the retail level one to two business days per month to prepare the sales tax returns. What you propose will be amplified 1,000,000 fold for a VAT Tax.

      For example, in the printing industry, you have (1) the company, which owns the forests, who sell to (2) a logging company, The logging company sells timber to the (3) saw mill. The saw mill sells wood chips and scrap to (4) the pulping mill, which sells the pulp to (5) the paper mill. The paper mill sells to an (6) up-line distributor who sells through a distribution channel to (7) another wholesaler. The paper wholesaler sells to (8) the printer. In a vast majority of cases, the printer will sell to (10) a broker who sells to (11) the end user!

      And it isn’t just printed goods, but food, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, everything!

      Please do your homework and then decide if a Flat Tax is a fairer Tax System! As a former division manager for a fortune 500 printing company, a small business owner and a currently a CEO of a company, I can tell you that many small businesses pay the state and local sales taxes last, and then only if funds are available. Payments first go to payroll, rents, leases, loan payments, benefits, etc. Too, the added burden of having to collect taxes for many companies who now are wholesalers (i.e., 10 of the 11 layers above), will raise additional costs for the end user.

  • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

    is how long the confiscated profits from health insurers would run Obamacare. Once. Health insurers would close their doors after that.

    • nc_progress

      btw, health insurers, the brain child of Nixon, are a cancer on society, and I don’t believe they have a place. I would gladly bid them farewell. They make $ by denying claims. period. end of story. Let’s get back to the old days when patients saw doctors. I don’t want government running everything, but it would be an improvement over these leeches

      • Brian Darling

        Good point. A better system would be to have patients directly pay doctors and get rid of the third party payer system that causes massive distortions in the market. The irony in your point is that you want to replace a privately run third party payer system with a government run third party payer system. You logic is not correct.

      • XOT

        Why does everyone want to treat symptoms but not deal with the actual problems – enact tort reform and health care costs would go down drastically!

      • XOT

        Why does everyone want to treat symptoms but not deal with the actual problems – enact tort reform and health care costs would go down drastically!

      • azred

        the feds running healthcare? The largest DENIER of health claims by pct of claims is Medicare. And it’s not even close.

      • littlehouse18

        will then be doing the same thing for the government. Except they won’t have to worry about trying to keep a customer. They’ll have no incentive to help you.

        • izoneguy

          And the insurance companies will have no incentive to keep those people working. They won’t need them. All the insurance companies will need is a way to cash your check and a way to point you to a government bureaucrat. This was the plan all along – the government & the insurance companies will split the money and deny you healthcare, because the government can……

  • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

    government spent $20,000 per household. Under Obama it will be $32,000 per household.

    It ain’t the tax receipts.

  • Hugh

    in the EU. Government spending as a percent of GDP has increased. In addition the VAT has been to the EU an economic killer in the process.
    I have attached a CATO Institute Report for you readin enjoyment.

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11668

    • Brian Darling

      “The VAT ? on top of all the other taxes Washington imposes ? is a terrible idea. Imposing it would pretty well finish the transformation of our country into a European-style slow-growth nation. The right way to close Uncle Sam’s gaping deficits is to reverse the continued explosion of federal spending.
      The VAT is a type of national sales tax, levied on the value-added at each stage of production. Consider a piece of furniture: The VAT would be imposed when the raw timber is sold, when the sawmill produces lumber, when the manufacturer builds a chair, a tax at the wholesaler level and then when a retailer sells the chair to a consumer.”

      • izoneguy

        Terrible ideas have not stopped Obama.

        It was a terrible idea for Obama to run for President – that did not stop him.

        The Stimulus was a terrible idea – that did not stop him.

        Most of Obama’s Cabinet picks were terrible ideas – that did not stop him.

        Healthcare reform was a terrible idea – that did not stop him.

        Signing a nuclear treaty with Russia is a terrible idea – that did not stop him.

        Being a lawyer for ACORN was a terrible idea – that did not stop him.

        • http://sandysalt.blogspot.com/ sandysalt

          All this talk of VAT is just a way for the Joker and his Clowns to stop the talk on health care. It will never happen in an election year and it sure and a heck won’t happen after the elections in November. This is one of their typical change the subject red herrings. I am all for a Fair Tax which dumps corporate taxes, income tax, and investment tax, but a VAT if enacted would be on top of all of those because that is how the Dumocrats work. They never truly reform anything, they just add crap atop crap. They could have truly overhauled health care, but instead they just added lots of extra layers of crap to the process. We need to unite against implementation of the extra layers and dump the dummies in Washington.

  • jackbenimble

    Not that Obama, the Democrats and the rest of the left care, but would a VAT be constitutional?

    The Income Tax is authirized by the 16′th Amendment which says:

    “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

    A VAT would not be a tax on income. A person who had no income but who was subsisting solely by spending savings (previously taxed income in most cases) would be subject to the VAT.

    It seems to me a VAT would require a Constitutional Amendment.

    • IJB

      It’d be a hugely winning issue, and I think it would be one Amendment that would actually have a good chance of passing Congress and the States.

      It’s one plank that should absolutely be in a new ‘Contract With America’…

      • jackbenimble

        Do we need an amendment to ban it? That seems redundant and perhaps sets the precedent that anything not specifically banned is fair game.

      • chipbennett

        A repeal of the 16th amendment, and institution of a flat, national sales tax.

        The required bureaucracy would be a fraction of the current size of the IRS, the tax code would be a fraction of the current code, and all consumers would pay taxes equitably (and would be rewarded – rather than penalized – for saving).

        Plus, repealing the 16th amendment would remove from the federal government the current, primary means of confiscatory taxation and redistribution of wealth.

        • Praying

          We simply must eliminate the “progressive” income tax. If you don’t pay money for something, you don’t value it. Apparently, 47% of the citizens in this country don’t pay ANY income tax – which explains why we’re in the state we’re in. Our people no longer value our country.

      • merryj1

        Republicans should campaign on a repeal of the 16th Amendment, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and replacing the current federal income and payroll taxes with the Fair Tax Act.

        This entry into the public dialogue of 16,500 new IRS hires as an enforcement arm to collect health insurance premiums from hapless citizens should be treated as the giant red flag it is: A giant step toward all-controlling, tyrannical government intrusion.

        • http://sandysalt.blogspot.com/ sandysalt

          We need need to put an end to class warfare by implementing one of these two tax plans. You either tax everyone equally with a national sales tax or make each citizen pay a flat tax for living in America. I believe a fair tax would bring in more revenue, so it is more likely to pass. A flat tax could be agreed upon in the new tax amendment, which would require constitutional ratification. This would set the federal budget and put an end to out of control spending because it would take another amendment to change the amount. This is very appealing so it is the least likely to happen.

  • cabanon

    Start by with a 20% reduction in budgets across the board for every single Government program, initiative or whatever. Absolutely NO exceptions and this means the Military too. Once you start prioritizing programs then the game’s over already, this is about budgets and expenditures. Give it a year and then review which programs have been able to adapt and still be an overall benefit, the ones that couldn’t…eliminate them.

    Politically, you could use this to counter any VAT movement. They want to propose an across the board tax increase, then counter it with proposal for an across the board spending reduction of equal percentage.

    • http://sandysalt.blogspot.com/ sandysalt

      Great idea, remember how McCain got pummeled by the MSM for suggesting such heresy.

    • rickindenver

      At reasonable intervals make them justify there continued existance.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    The Federal budget is what under Obama- about $6.5 trillion worth of debt? What did we spend in agriculture subsidies- like about $33 million? Sure there’s a place to start trimming. Somebody will need to define the term corporate welfare and put some numbers/categories to it. Then we can compare it against the trillions of dollars Obama and Democrats are putting into “health care” and God only knows what else. I will work against the cause which wastes more of my tax money.

    The VAT? Yes, after all it has done so much for Europe and other countries that adopted it. That is why over the past several years they are trying to tinker with it around the edges and Eurozone countries are fighting over collections. Since the late 1960′s (I believe), the aggregate tax burden in Europe has increased about 50%. It has stifled their production, growth, created disincentives for productivity, shifted resources from the private sector to government and bloated the public sector. No thanks, we already have a economically destructive, Democrat controlled government out of control. And please, spare me the Bush rhetoric (not that I agree with his spending), what he did was a drop in the bucket compared to this economic chaos.

    Finally, Ronald Reagan’s defeat of the Soviet Union produced what is probably more than a half-trillion dollar peace dividend. Defense spending was cut because we could dismantle legacy programs aimed at the Soviet Union (not counting some of Clown in Chief Clinton’s military misadventures). That is a fact (lower defense spending rates) that outlived Reagan’s presidency and well into the Clinton years. Furthermore, Reagan;s fiscal programs of lower taxes (remember egregious tax rates in the 1970′s of 70%- yeah that helped the economy), decreased inflation, decreased interest rates, etc. that led to a strong dollar (and all the other positive financial effects) and a string of employment growth (take note, those of you up thread saying Obama and Democrats are awesome!) unparalleled to this day brought our country into fiscal order well beyond his years. By the way, we need to go back there, not off the cliff we have been driving towards since- which Obama and his Congress have finally pushed us off.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    the 16th amendment were repealed?

    serious question

    • aesthete

      Is it the fact that a VAT would run concurrently with the income tax scheme? (To put it another way, is the implicit tax hike what is objected to?) Or is there some other objection I’m not seeing?

    • Hugh

      in the end result. The problem with the VAT in Europe is that the governments have added so many exceptions, exemptions, and different tax rates that it has become a nightmare just like our current tax scheme. The VAT adds a tax all along the way to the end consumer which is different than the Fair Tax. The problem here is that the VAT proponents are thinking to add it in addition to the
      existing tax scheme.
      The basics of the Fair Tax is a single tax rate paid by the end user of goods. Each end user would receive a monthly check in an amount equal to the tax on poverty level spending. It would replace all other income taxes including social security and medicare. It is very simple in execution in that states already have in place the means to collect sales tax. That means NO IRS needed.

      • jackbenimble

        I would be happy with either the Fair Tax of a VAT if the 16′th Amendment were repealed and the Income Tax went away. That is a big “if” and I am not holding my breath.

        They are pretty similar taxes. The biggest difference that might cause some to argue that the Fair Tax is more ‘fair” is because of the pre-bate where everybody gets a refund of taxes up to the poverty level. This makes the Fair Tax somewhat progressive whereas a VAT would clearly be regressive.

        Personally I like regressive taxes. If taxes are not painful for the vast majority of the population there is no incentive to keep them, and the spending they support, low.

        President Bush didn’t do us any favors when his taxcuts removed vast numbers of people from the bottom end of the tax base. These people don’t suffer any direct consequences when the government over-spends.

        • aesthete
    • cwilson

      1) The VAT is assumed to be in addition to the income tax.
      2) The VAT is “hidden”. It’s a favorite game of leftist governments in Europe: raise some VAT surcharge on “aluminum sheet stock,” which you defend as “Stickin’ it to Alcoa!”. And…hope nobody notices that the price of every can of soda and tin of tuna fish just went up 5 cents. And you know what…they never do. It’s a great scam.

      The Fair Tax — or a flat tax, but we’re discussing consumption taxes here — is right out there in front: here’s the rate: 27% inclusive (or 18% exclusive). If the @#^!#$ politicians want to raise the rate…every body sees it, and every body feels the immediate pain. Hence: raising a VAT rate is easy. Raising the Fair Tax rate is hard.

      I like that.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        recognize that I don’t like any tax for many reasons but also know we must raise funds for necessary govt functions.

        I’m going to try and write a column analyzing these two taxes and and the relative merits of all typs of taxes as well (though the latter will take a few weeks). Suffice to say for now that I don’t like the inflationary and hidden aspects of both VAT and FAIR, and also, to the shock of some, to the obvious retardant effect of both on consumption in an economy that has been comsumption driven for much of its economic history.

        more later

        • aesthete

          Ditto on the consumption-reducing aspects of sales taxes. I wouldn’t mind seeing a reimposition of at least a perfunctory tax for all Americans, though (which would be one positive aspect of a regressive tax); the situation where ~47% of our population is unaffected by increased government’s associated burdens is a hazardous one, IMO.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
        • davesinsanantonio

          consumer spending. Because every living person is a consumer, you cannot take away any of their money and not have it affect consumption. So, the trick is to find out which one has the least effect and pick that one. Unless you are a libtard whose goal is to control everything. Then you want either an income tax or a VAT, because you can tweek either of those to reward your friends and punish your enemies. Now those slime balls want both!!!. So, our job is to put the brakes on the VAT until November, then put the brakes on their careers.

          • cwilson

            the difference in power accrued to government is extreme. ALMOST everyone wants to maximize their income; very few try to maximize their spending (we’re not politicians). Thus, without a “Go Galt’ epidemic, you can campaign on “stickin’ it to the rich” — secure in the knowledge that the ignorant masses will vote for it, unaware that they’re voting to tax themselves or others like themselves — in 20 years.

            With broadbased consumption taxes, everybody is already motivated to pay the least amount possible for the most return — we call that savvy shopping (except for certain vanity purchases where the value IS the price paid). Hence, any increase in the tax — as it will hit every purchase — is opposed by EVERYONE. There’s no such thing as “stickin’ it to the rich” or “to Alcoa”.

            Now, targeted consumption taxes — otherwise known as excise taxes — are the plaything of a powerful Washington. (See: Clinton’s yacht tax).

            Mike’s right that any consumption tax will — in the absence of other changes — reduce consumer spending. However, this ignores the argued OTHER changes that are included in the FAIR tax proposal. Its proponents claim that by eliminating the income tax on both individuals AND corporations (as well as cap gains taxes?), the “base” price of all goods will fall due to competitive pressure by a substantial amount. If you believe the claims of revenue neutrality, then this amount — plus the increase in net income of most consumers, thanks to the elimination of the personal income tax — the buying power of the net disposable income of most consumers will see a slight increase (the difference being the gains in efficiency by putting a lot of CPAs and tax preparers, out of work, administering the current income taxes and related paperwork).

            Now, ordinarily this would be a “regressive” change: those that currently pay no income taxes wouldn’t see their net income rise, but without that, then the drop in prices + the FAIR tax itself would result in a reduction of THEIR buying power. (Personally, I think that’s a good thing: almost everybody should pay some taxes; the fact that a family of 4 earning $50k pays no tax is just…wrong). However, that’s a political non-starter, so to address this, the FAIR tax guys have come up with the “prebate”. ‘Nuff said.

            So…returning to the main point, while Mike is right about the usual effect of consumption taxes on…well, consumption. However, the FAIR tax guys make a decent argument that the other changes in their proposal largely or completely mitigate that.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
        • jackbenimble

          I look forward to reading your analysis. But it seems like you may be starting from some pre-conceived and not necessarily accurate prejudices.

          The FairTax is a sales tax whichI agree at first glance seems inflationary because the tax would add to the cost of goods and services. But, it is not at all clear that it would have that effect. You need to remember that the FairTax is predicated on the repeal of the income tax. Of course corporate income taxes are built into (embedded) in the prices of the goods that are sold. When this huge cost item is removed, competition should force prices much lower. The sales tax would then be calculated on and added to that lower price Removing the imbedded income tax cost might well completely offset the inflationary aspect of the sales tax and leave price levels relatively the same.

          Also recall that consumers will no longer be subject to the income tax so they will have more gross pay in their wallets to pay for goods. If, the net effect of removing the embedded income tax coupled with adding a sales tax leaves price levels relatively the same, then the effect of taxpayers having more dollars in their wallets should stimulate consumption rather than retard it. But it would also reward people who saved rather than spent because savings would be tax free.

          I don’t know the answer to this question but since you made the assertion, how much of our history has our economy been driven largely by consumption? I was under the impression that this is a shift that has perhaps come about in the last 20 years. I think we were at our strongest economically when we were the world’s primary producer. I’m not sure that a tax structure that encouraged savings and investment orver consumption would not be a positve development for our economy. I’ve often heard that our national savings rate is too low. And the only way our population will build the kind of wealth that turns them from being welfare recipients into tax contributors is savings and investment. This also turns them into Republicans.

      • Finrod

        Part of the FairTax law would be that on every receipt you get whenever you buy something, the amount of money that goes to the FairTax would be printed right there where you can see it every time. VATs on the other hand are easily hidden, and easily justified as ‘just another 1 percent here’ and ‘just another 1 percent there’ and before you know it, you’ve got massive taxation.

      • skorrent1

        The VAT in application, because it is hidden, lends itself to all sorts of exemptions and differential rates (in Ireland, I’m told, from 3.5 to 20%). lots of room for political favors and social engineering.

        Both VAT and the Fair Tax (in the absence of payroll and income taxes) unburdens exports (good) and taxes imports (even better). As most of our trade partners have some form of VAT, this is a giant leveling of the trade playing field.

    • merryj1

      (Assuming the 16th Amendment is repealed):

      The VAT adds “value” at every stage, essentially from conception of a product idea to marketing of the item; each step of added “value” is then taxed, raising the customer’s cost of a product to include taxes added for each step of production and each step of handling. Example: In building a better mouse-trap, a company cuts the raw wood supply into little rectangle slips of wood for the trap base; a “value added” tax is added to the cost of the raw wood & stage in the production process. The company then cuts pieces of wire to size and shape for the trap; a “value added” tax is added to the cost of the wire & process. The company then attaches the wire and a pre-sized spring (which had the VAT added twice – first to their cost via the spring manufacturer’s “value added” taxes, then to the “added value” the spring brings to the product) to the wood slips, and a tax is added to the increased value of the wood, spring and wire because it’s now a (more valuable) mouse-trap. The finished traps are sent to a wholesaler, and a tax is added. The wholesaler ships trap orders to merchants, and a tax is added. All of those added taxes, of course, are included in the final retail price to consumers.

      The Fair Tax is a flat, single-rate sales tax, imposed only at the point of final sale. The suggested rate (Google “Fair Tax Act”) is quite high, 23%, BUT the Act eliminates the present 22% embedded tax on all US product production, leaving retail prices considerably lower so that addition of the sales tax would be roughly the same as current prices without the tax.

      • cwilson

        The “22% embedded tax” includes, I believe, an imputed amount due to the personal income tax already paid by the purchaser (you and me). So, the prices won’t fall by 22%; they’ll fall by some amount less than that, reflected the embedded tax due to everything BUT the personal income tax. Then, the FAIR tax raises that price by 23%, so the net result is higher prices.

        However…

        Once you and I stop paying income taxes, our net income goes up enough that the difference in buying power of our new net income remains more-or-less unchanged. Actually, it’s supposed to be SLIGHTLY higher, due to the increased efficiency of collecting all taxes only at the point of sale by retailers, rather than the annual April 15th madness affecting every citizen.

        • rickindenver

          The inclusion of the underground economy, drug dealers, hot dog vendors construction for cash, would increase revenue to the treasury. The cost of administering the current tax code would disapear (reducing the cost of each new item taxed) and it would encourage folks to recycle and repair before purchasing new items. I would prefer the APT Tax.

          http://apttax.com/index.htm

          Either one of these taxes eliminate all other taxes. Investment dollars would poor into this country from around the world by eliminating the corporate tax alone!

  • johnt

    And all we need is a VAT, & perhaps a few other taxes. What the hell.
    We shan’t concern ourselves with the proceeds of said increases funding other worthy endeavors and thereby leading to a cycle of other tax increases, right nc progress?
    Our government would never do that ! That’s progress, right nc? But do explain how. And while you are at you eloquent fellow you, do tell me how a VAT will only hit the rich, assuming that’s a moral thing to do. Surely you’re not asking for others to pay for what you want.

    But if you are, with equal sureness how can you refuse to pick up my tax tab. I’ll bill you monthly. And I charge for bounced checks.

  • aesthete

    between cutting government programs and taxes isn’t far off. There is, unfortunately, not enough in government waste/bailouts to balance the budget on, and it’s doubtful that entitlement reform that would provide the same utility as current government offerings would have enough effect to, on their own, cut the budget. Unfortunately, both conservatives and progressives are stuck with their own unrealistic projections: Conservatives contend that they can cut enough government to reverse the course of our receipts, when the general public generally approves of our entitlements, while leftists insist that if we raise their allowance, they’ll pay off their debts instead of spending on their pet projects, when there’s no proof to show that they have ever done this, or that they are capable of such a feat. The Republican solution is preferable, for two reasons: 1) the Laffer Curve means that tax hikes would lose their effectiveness the higher up one goes, and 2) it would be much easier to persuade the general populace to rid themselves of their entitlements than to convince politicians to abandon spending that can help them win elections or otherwise peddle influence.

    In any case, any realistic solution to spending would entail drastic cuts in our entitlements.

    • cwilson

      you say that like it’s a bad thing.

      • aesthete

        at least, not for me. In The World According to Aesthete, current entitlements would be the province of state governments, be present in cut back/privatized forms, or be completely cut. The only reason that it is unfortunate is that it makes solutions to our budgetary issues much, much more difficult to resolve.

        I was simply pointing out that we can’t just pretend that “waste” and corporate welfare are the only things that would need to be cut to solve our budget woes.

        • yoyo

          I mean, all these entitlements are entitlements because …?

          How are any of us entitled to ANYTHING? No one is.

          I guess that I could argue that I am entitled to my money, that I made, and my family (kids, wife) are entitled to it also. But YOUR family is not entitled to my money.

          “Entitled” just makes me sick. It is lazy. It becomes a mentality.

    • 6eorge Jetson

      Sure, while present and past recipients of Soc Sec & Medicare have gotten more out of it than they have paid into it. What a deal!

      Unfortunately, when the ratio of active workers to retirees supported falls from 3:1 to 2:1 and there is no other choice but broad swaths of drastic cuts, what do you think will happento these programs popularity?

      ” What, I’m getting far less than I put in? That sucks! “

      • jcincy

        After paying taxes for more than 5 decades, you can’t convince me the money my father and mother receive in social security payments will ever exceed the wealth they would have created by investing that money on their own. They could have passed that wealth on to their heirs. Now their heirs are paying for their parents/grandparents retirement through the Federal government.

        Let my family keep this 15%. My siblings and I could easily care for our parents out of this money and still save quite well for our own retirement.

      • jackbenimble

        Worker to retiree ratios may have made sense back in the 1930′s but they are a completely bogus measure of our ability to fund retirement programs today. I hate seeing these ratios used because they just provide ammunition for those who would import vast numbers of poverty stricken immigrants with the pretense that it will somehow prop-up the entitlements ponzi schemes when really all it will do is suck the Treasury dry.

        Far more important than the ratio of workers to retirees is the quality of the workers. One worker who earns $50,000 per year is worth at least 20 workers that earn $25,000 per year. One is a net contributor to the Treasury and the other is a net consumer from the Treasury.

        The $50,000 worker actuallly pays a little income tax, a fair amount of employment taxes (social security and medicare go directly to the general fund) and qualifies for very few social benefits. Most workers at this level are net contributors to the Treasury.

        On the other hand the $25,000 worker pays zero income taxes, very little employment taxes and when he files his tax return at the end of the year, in addition to getting back all of his income tax withholdings he probably also gets back an EITC that wipes out any contribution that he made with payroll taxes. His total taxes (Income + Social Security + Medicare – EITC) are net negative. And on top of that he likely qualifies and uses a bunch of social services like foodstamps and Medicaid and CHIPS that consume even more from the Treasury. Even though the $25k worker counts in the worker to retire ratio he contributes nothing to funding entitlements and in fact is a drain on the Treasury.

        It just doesn’t make sense to talk about the worker to retire ratio any more because too many workers are of the sort that contribute little or nothing. It is just a formula for importing more poverty stricken cheap immigrant labor that the rest of us get to support.

        • 6eorge Jetson

          3:1 to 2:1 is an apples-to-apples ratio reduction spread out evenly across the entire income distribution.

          Anyone that argues that the solution is to bring on more negative revenue flows at the bottom of the income spectrum needs to go back to take some remedial math courses. Of course, the Democrats think all Americans are that stupid to fall for it, as making things worse while espousing fiscal arguments a 5th grader could see through is the MO.

  • dajeeps

    You know how Obama says we can’t drill our way out of the energy problem? Well, we can’t tax our way out of the deficit problem either. We have between 12-14T in public debt now and taken with unfunded liabilities the debt will be hovering around 500% of GDP by 2025. Even if they could enforce taxation of 100% of everyone’s income without negative economic consequences until then we still cannot pay it — we will still default. No new tax of any flavor will pay for all of the debt incurred thus far plus all of the unfunded liabilities even if congress does not spend another dime. It was that way before the stimulus and HCR passed and I assume the problem is just that much worse after.

    47% of every dollar outlay now is borrowed so spending has to be cut by at least that much to keep the debt from growing, maybe more depending on debt service cost. Entitlements are around 40% of the federal budget, even if we repealed every single one (and I am not advocating it here, it?s just an example) we would still have a problem. Maybe a VAT would solve the residual over time but not unless spending is cut that much whether it be specific cuts or across the board.

    I have very little confidence that our political system will do anything meaningful to prevent an economic collapse from debt. At present it doesn’t even seem willing to nibble around the edges, but rather exacerbates the problem. Perhaps the 112th congress will be willing to do some nibbling, but really we need a complete overhaul of how our government does business from regulation and taxation to all forms of spending. Bernanke said one thing, at least, that I agree with. He said, “Our situation is untenable. And if something is untenable it will stop.” I’m not entirely sure how it will stop, but I hope that it doesn’t have to stop the way the subprime lending frenzy did.

    • dajeeps

      What I described in the above comment would be a way to balance the budget, in general terms. I wrote it with the idea that adding new taxes and raising existing ones is pure folly, except if the goal is not to balance the budget, but sustain the ability to borrow for a little while. I haven’t done the math so I don’t know how long it would work if at all. Congress wants to have its cake and eat it too.

      It’s my opinion that only so much can be taxed out of any economy, however it is derived, before more of it becomes counter productive, inflation and financial crashes included, and we’ve surpassed that point (although it probably isn’t necessary to restate the obvious). I suppose tenured bureaucrats don’t really understand what’s it like to live through it, but there is no real excuse for killing the golden goose and expecting it to keep laying eggs. It can’t and it won’t.

  • mavericktime

    Is that what Krauthammer is doing too? Or is he just warning us to get ready to fight?

    Someone at Brookings wrote about it yesterday too.

    How do we stop it??!!

    Agree with you also that we need to see some spending restraint before we even think about higher taxes.

    And, Chris Edwards at Cato wrote that the VAT would not solve our problems because our government, like the Europeans, would just increase spending over time to match increased revenues.

  • drfredc

    The GOP should take the VAT and double down…

    The VAT only takes effect only AFTER the 16th Amendment is repealed.

    It also should take 2/3 vote of each House to pass any exceptions to the VAT (with no emergency exceptions) and any bill that raises the VAT or provides exceptions should be limited to that one issue with no earmarks, bundling, or add-ons of any sort.

    • holystone

      Sales vs. VAT ….. Tax product or service at the consumer level only. Rebates to up to poverty level with receipts. Agree with 2/3 of each house to change rates and no exceptions period to tax. Every product or service pays the tax or collects the tax at point of sale. The sales tax appears progressive to me because the more your consume, and the rich consume more, the more you pay. With a simple tax collection system we can eliminate the hours of energy spent on tax returns, consultants and collectors and put this to productivity. The tax rate should be set at a percentage of GDP and the federal government should have to balance its budge just like states do with the possibility of exceptions passed by 2/3 in case of war or disaster however, I think we could also set aside a percentage as an emergency fund that could be invested. Eliminate all subsidies except at the state level to bring such decisions to a level closest to the voter and to state and regional interests as opposed to lobbyist interests at the federal level. Eliminate all action Departments in the federal government that do not deal with defense interstate commerce and turn them into information agencies that inform the public as consumer. Let the free market pick the winners and losers not government. If any action by federal, state or local government exceeds the simple mandate of maximum individual responsibility and minimum government intrusion should be eliminated or turned into an information gathering, analysis and dissemination activity. The savings from the elimination of the enforcement powers for all affected federal, state and local agencies would pay off in massive re-employment of the current government drones in these departments with positive private and productive employment and catapult this nation to the forefront again in international competition. The time for this 60 year death slide into the socilist morass must stop now.

      • davesinsanantonio

        The definition of regressive taxes are those that take a higher percentage of the incomes of the poor. The poor have to spend all, or almost all, of their incomes to survive, or at least have a bit of a comfortable life. The rich only consume a portion of their incomes, and save or invest the rest, and therefore pay no sales tax on the portion saved. But, that having been said, with our current system some poor pay no income taxes, and others actually received money “back” that they never paid in! The rich can afford to high tax lawyers and accountants who help them avoid some of the income taxes, and the libtards have a long history of cheating (see many of Obama’s appointments). The Fair Tax seems the best answer, and is much to be desired rather than the VAT. Don’t be misled, the two are not the same.

  • ihateliberals

    that liberals don’t understand that Tax cuts equal more revenue for the Fed’s? It has happened time after time. When you raise taxes people spend less and there is less revenue. cutting taxes is like a volume discount. The more money people have the more they spend and put back into the economy.

    • jackbenimble

      A lot of conservatives seem to think that you can keep cutting taxes indefinately and that revenues will keep rising indefinately but they are currently missing the point of the Laffer Curve.

      There is a point on the Laffer Curve below which if you cut taxes more, tax revenues would fall. Obviously for example, if you cut the tax rate to zero, tax revenues would be zero. If you cut them to 1% they would only be slightly higher than zero and while either a 1% or a 0% percent tax rate would almost certainly stimulate the economy into huge growth the growth would probably not be enough to offset the revenue lost from say a 33% tax rate.

      I’m not sure where we are with tax rates in relation to the sweet spot. My guess is that the sweet spot shifts over time and is impacted by other economic factors. When the economy is booming, it will probably tolerate a higher level of taxation and still grow. When it is sucking wind, high taxes further suck like out of it.

      This is further complicated by progressive taxes. We have cut the tax rate to zero on 47% of our population and obviously they are not contributing any revenue. We are clearly on the low side of the sweet spot with them. I think the point of a VAT is to bring them back into the tax base. I am against it because it also has the effect of raising taxes on the other 53%. At least the upper end of this 53% is probably over-taxed and raising taxes on them would be counter-productive because it would push them to the other side of the sweet-spot if they are not already there. Raising taxes on the rich might very well result in lower tax revenues.

      • mavericktime

        He’s even written about what you call the “sweet spot.” Reagan tax cuts on the wealthy did increase revenues but the broad-based tax cuts were money losers.

        http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html#ixzz0kiYbACm9

      • Common_Cents

        Raise your price too high and your total revenue falls. Same on lowering price too far.

        Democrats version of this is when you want more tax revenue you just raise your prices. Ummm not.

        Dems always solve by looking at raising prices. They never have a sale, nor do they EVER look at their expenses.

        How bout having a sale!

  • ihateliberals

    aren’t making money then NO ONE is making money. It’s called the trickle down theory and guess what? It works!

  • tlhanger

    Her first act should be abolishing the IRS and installing the Fair Tax. Dismantling the IRS and repealing Obamacare. Then putting Social Security in the hands of the private sector. Dismantle Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and put in a legal housing help. Make all frauds like ACORN taken off any Federal spending. Look at who are friends are and readjust foreign aid. That should help America for the working man or woman.

    • mbecker908

      We really don’t give individuals the ability to do those things. I’d deconstruct this piece of crap, but you’re not worth the time or the effort.

  • txharleyman

    The Dinner Roll

    Once upon a time I was invited to the White House for a private dinner with the President.

    I am a respected businessman, with a factory that produces memory chips for computers and portable electronics.

    There was some talk that my industry was being scrutinized by the administration, but I paid it no mind. I live in a FREE country. There’s nothing that the government can do to me if I’ve broken no laws. My wealth was EARNED honestly, and an invitation to dinner with an American President is an honor.

    I checked my coat, was greeted by the Chief of Staff, and joined the President in a yellow dining room.

    We sat across from each other at a table draped in white linen. The Great Seal was embossed on the china. Uniformed staff served our dinner.

    The meal was served, and I was startled when my waiter suddenly reached out, plucked a dinner roll off my plate and began nibbling it as he walked back to the kitchen…

    “Sorry ’bout that,” said the President. “Andrew is very hungry.”

    “I don’t appreciate…” I began, but as I looked into the calm brown eyes across from me, I felt
    immediately guilty and petty. It was just a dinner roll. “Of course,” I concluded, and reached for my glass.

    Before I could, however, another waiter reached forward, took the glass away and swallowed the wine in a single gulp. “And his brother, Eric, is very thirsty,” said the President.

    I didn’t say anything. The President is testing my compassion, I thought. I withheld my comments and decided to play along. I don’t want to seem unkind or selfish.

    The plate holding my dinner was whisked away before I had tasted a single bite.

    “Eric’s children are also quite hungry.”

    With a sudden lurch, I crashed to the floor. My chair had been pulled out from under me.

    I stood, brushing myself off angrily, and watched as it was carried from the room.

    And their grandmother can?t stand for long.”

    I excused myself, smiling outwardly, but inside feeling like a fool. Obviously I had been invited to the White House to be sport for some game. I reached for my coat, to find that
    it had been taken.

    I turned back to the President with a quizzical look on my fact.

    “Their grandfather doesn’t like the cold.”

    I wanted to shout, “that was my coat, damn iit!” But again, I looked at the placid smiling face of my host and decided I was being a poor sport. I spread my hands helplessly and chuckled.

    Then I felt my hip pocket and realized my wallet was gone. I excused myself and walked to the phone on an elegant side table.

    I learned shortly that my credit cards had been maxed out, my bank accounts emptied, my retirement and equity portfolios had vanished, and my wife had been thrown out of our home.

    Apparently, the waiters and their families were moving in. The President hadn’t moved or spoken as I learned all this, but finally I lowered the phone into its cradle and turned to face him.

    “Andrew’s whole family has made bad financial decisions. ? They haven’t planned for retirement and they need a house. They recently defaulted on a subprime mortgage. I told them they could have your home. They need it more than you do.”

    My hands were shaking. I felt faint I stumbled back to the table and knelt on the floor.

    The President cheerfully cut his meat, ate his steak, and drank his wine. I lowered my eyes and stared at the small grey circles on the tablecloth that were water drops.

    “By the way,” he added, “I have just signed an Executive Order nationalizing your factories.

    I’m firing you as head of your business. I’ll be operating the firm now for the benefit
    of all mankind. There’s a whole bunch of Erics and Andrews out there and they can’t come to you for jobs groveling like beggars…we need to spread YOUR wealth
    around…”

    I looked up. The President dropped his spoon into the empty napkin which had been in his cr?me Brule.

    He drained the last drops of his wine. As the table was cleared, he lit a cigarette and leaned back in his chair.

    He stared at me. I clung to the edge of the table as if it were a ledge and I were a man hanging over an abyss.

    I thought of the years behind me, of the life I had lived. The life I had earned with a lifetime of work, risk and struggle.

    Why was I punished? How had I allowed it to be taken? What game had I played and lost? I
    looked across the table and noticed with some surprise that there was no game board between us.

    What had I done wrong?

    As if answering the unspoken thought, President Obama suddenly cocked his head, locked his empty eyes to mine, and bared a million teeth, chuckling wryly as he folded his hands.

    “You should have stopped me at the dinner roll,” he said.

    WAKE UP AMERICA !!!

    • dontremaine

      That was a wonderful story and quite fitting to this administration.

  • dontremaine

    Taxes like these hurt the poor more than anyone else. Sales tax, VAT tax, carbon tax, gas tax, these are paid by everyone equally. I believe that this administration is the worst in the history of the USA. This administration has violated the constitution more than any other one in USA history. He’s just getting started… This kind of “Change” will destroy the country completely. We will be relegated to a third world country.
    This country is great because of the so-called evil capitalists. Now that the really evil socialists are at the helm, we are doomed if we do not wake up and smell dung.
    I believe in fair taxes where everyone pays the same percentage no exceptions, but these new taxes are added above and beyond the extremely high levels we are already paying. Enough is enough; throw them all out, except for the ones who believe in the constitution. Punish everyone that violates the constitution as traitors.

    • izoneguy

      which will eliminate the VAT taxes they pay in.

      Of course that assumes they will be smart enough to understand how to wade through all the paperwork to get their money back.

      Most won’t and most won’t understand why the prices have risen.

      It will mean people will buy less and the economy will continue to shrink. More companies closing, more job losses.

      • dontremaine

        It seems most people are angry. I hope this translates into voting the bums out.

      • jackbenimble

        It will also mean they are totally dependent on the government for their daily bread.

        Guess who controls them. Guess who they vote for.

      • Common_Cents

        Kind of like EITC on income they thought about earning.

  • itrytobenice

    When I read the comments of nc_progress I feel somewhat helpless. That is the thinking of the 52% that got us into this mess. WTH are we going to do with them? Their arguments are nonsensical; they have no common sense; they are government educated and willing to give up freedom for a gov’t babysitter.

    I know we can’t take away their right to vote, but we can’t educate them either. It is like trying to explain the functions of a photocopier to a cat.

    I really do try to be nice, but if this goes on much longer, I’m going to develop anger issues.

  • http://sandysalt.blogspot.com/ sandysalt

    Why shouldn’t we arrive at a number say $2000 for each citizen to be paid annually. This would be a constitutional amendment and would prevent the Congress from voting themselves more money without a two-thirds majority. Everyone would be required to pay this amount regardless of standing. This would set the federal budget, so they could just spend wildly. This would force them back to their constitutional limits, which keep them from wasting our money. This would put this country back on track and promote growth. This would end corporate tax, it would end income tax, and end national social programs because they would not have the money to pay for them thus could just vote them in. I know this is a radical departure, but why the heck not. We need the feds to do what they are required to do and have to make tough decisions about what they are going to spend their limited budget on. It would also reduce government interference in a lot of other areas.

    It also forces every American to has skin in the tax scheme and how their dollars are spent. If every adult has to pay then maybe they wouldn’t be so quick to waste it on social programs or earmarks. The federal revenue would be $462 billion a year based on 230 million people over the age of 18. I would think that the feds could make due on about half a trillion a year.

    • http://sandysalt.blogspot.com/ sandysalt

      so they could not just spend wildly

      they would not have the money to pay for them thus could not just vote them in

  • snowshooze

    I hate it.

    It is a consumer targeted tax which will drink the life’s blood right out of our economy.

  • martyinaz

    Finally a tax that is Not according to your ability, but instead a tax according to your needs. Raise it high enough and you could repeal the personal income tax.

    • JSobieski

      Bankrupt unions, government workers, and environmental groups

      I would like a VAT if there was a chance in hell that the income tax would be lowered significantly.

      Embrace the VAT now at the risk of country.