Bullspit a place to spit your bull!

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.

Original seen here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574457512007010416.html

And Reuters chimes in:
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/10/06/obama-and-the-vat-now-its-pelosis-turn/

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?

I support the Israeli people

Where's the Bush song for striking back and keeping us safe?

President Obama made his rounds Sunday and pressed the point, a health-care tax is not a tax if it is for your own good.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Mr. Obama was asked by host George Stephanopoulos about the "individual mandate." Under Max Baucus's Senate bill that Mr. Obama supports, everyone would be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty as high as $3,800 a year. Mr. Stephanopoulos posed the obvious question about this kind of coercion when "the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't [buy insurance]. . . . How is that not a tax?"

"Well, hold on a second, George," Mr. Obama replied. "Here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average—our families—in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's . . ."

"That may be," Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, "but it's still a tax increase." (In fact, uncompensated care accounts for about only 2.2% of national health spending today, but that's another subject.)

Mr. Obama: "No. That's not true, George. The—for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore . . ." In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy—don't call it a tax—is for your own good.

Mr. Stephanopoulos tried again: "But it may be fair, it may be good public policy—"

Mr. Obama: "No, but—but, George, you—you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."

"I don't think I'm making it up," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. He then had the temerity to challenge the Philologist in Chief, with an assist from Merriam-Webster. He cited that dictionary's definition of "tax"—"a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."

Mr. Obama: "George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. . . ."

Mr. Stephanopoulos: "I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase."

Mr. Obama: "My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but . . ."

Mr. Stephanopoulos: "But you reject that it's a tax increase?"

Mr. Obama: "I absolutely reject that notion."

Whatever side of the health-care debate you happen to be on, you have to admit President Obama is pulling on thin strings here.