Candor about taxes is rare in Washington, so when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admits that Democrats may have to impose a huge new tax on the middle class to fund their spending ambitions, believe her.
Speaking with PBS's Charlie Rose on Monday, Mrs. Pelosi mused publicly about the rising possibility of enacting a value-added tax, or VAT, as part of broader tax reform. "Somewhere along the way, a value-added tax plays into this," she said. "Of course, we want to take down the health-care cost, that's one part of it. But in the scheme of things, I think it's fair to look at a value-added tax as well."
The allure of a VAT for politicians is that it applies to every level of production or service, rakes in piles of money, and is largely hidden from those who ultimately pay it—namely, consumers. With a $9 trillion 10-year budget deficit, $4 trillion in spending in fiscal 2010 alone, and a $1 trillion (at a minimum) health-care entitlement in the wings, Mrs. Pelosi knows that not even the revenue from the expiration of the lower Bush tax rates in 2011 will cover the bills. Nearly every European country that has passed national health care has also eventually imposed a VAT, and it's foolish to think the U.S. will be different.
Mrs. Pelosi is the second prominent Democrat to call for a VAT in recent weeks. John Podesta, an adviser to President Obama and president of the very liberal Center for American Progress, called in September for a "small and more progressive" VAT. Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Podesta argue a new tax is necessary to address the nation's exploding financial liabilities, as if those liabilities exploded on their own. Of course, VATs always start "small" and get bigger. The bills for the Democratic spending blowout are coming due even sooner than advertised, and the middle class will pay, whatever Mr. Obama's campaign promises.
With American or should I say, Chicago politician arrogance at its finest, President Barack Obama with wife Michelle visited Copenhagen to pitch their bid for the 2016 Summer Olympic games to be held in Chicago.
Many say the President should not have left amidst discussions on the most controversial bill facing American citizens sense the 1930's. But he did anyways, and Chicago lost in a shocking defeat! Chicago wound up with the fewest votes of the four cities in the first round, partly it seems due to a late sympathy surge for Tokyo, which had widely been expected to drop out first. Considering the Brazilian city's strong and passionate case for taking the Olympics to South America for the first time, they deserve it!
This irrational decision by the US President underscores critics skepticism of Obama's in-ability to make sound priority decisions.
IOC Australian member, Kevin Gosper stated "I can only believe that it was an accident or a mishap of group voting. I honestly don't think there was a group that would deliberately seek to insult the U.S. president and first lady in the first round."
Really Kevin? Obama's been bouncing around as the savior of the free world for better than 8 months as President, and didn't begin there, remember the trips during his campaign? Stick to America and our interests Mr President, we now more than ever need sound leadership decisions rather than the 2016 games. Granted, they would have been nice, and economically helpful for the city of Chicago, still not exactly that "pressing" matter we'd expect our President to address. How about Afghanistan?
