Pelosi, House Democrats Re-Take All Americans Hostage, Deny Vote on Obama's Tax Compromise

The Democrats in the House won't even entertain the idea of passing Obama's tax compromise. It was strongly rejected by the Democrats in a House vote, today:

Defying President Obama, House Democrats voted Thursday not to bring up the tax package that he negotiated with Republicans in its current form.

"This message today is very simple: That in the form that it was negotiated, it is not acceptable to the House Democratic caucus. It's as simple as that," said Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen.

"We will continue to try and work with the White House and our Republican colleagues to try and make sure we do something right for the economy and right for jobs, and a balanced package as we go forward," he said.

The vote comes a day after Vice President Biden made clear to House Democrats behind closed doors that the deal would unravel if any changes were made.

"Wow did the [White House] mishandle this," a senior House Democratic Source told CNN. "Breathtaking. Members have major substantive concerns and they should have gently guided people to the finish line."

This has been mishandled very badly by the president. Why in the world did Obama not get the Democrats in a room and explain to them why this is a good deal for them and the country? Could he not set aside sometime to sit Pelosi and Reid down and convince them to back this deal? This whole left-wing revolt could have been avoided, if he would have made a little effort to do that.

It is also interesting that, after years of labeling the Republicans as the party of no and uncompromising their ideals to appease their base, it is now the Democrats that are taking this hardline stance to appease their hard-left base.

This will be a disaster for all, if some sort-of compromise isn't reached in time and everyone's taxes go up in January.

Six "Gems" From Deficit Commission Including: ObamaCare Savings a Myth, Millions Government Workers Have Privatized Social Security, ETC

The deficit commission that was just released has quite a few goodies in it. AOL’s John Merline wrote about his six favorites in his op-ed, today:

1) The federal government is horribly managed. (I hope that this doesn’t come as a shock to anyone.)

2) Health reform's cost savings apparently were bogus.-(Imagine that.)

3) Millions of workers don't pay into Social Security.-(Apparently, certain government workers can opt-out of the federal social security and privatize it, but the rest of America can’t. What’s wrong with that picture?)

4) The tax code is a hopeless, loophole-riddled mess. (That is why the rich don’t pay as much into the system as they’re supposed to pay. If you can afford a legion of lawyers and accountants, you can pay very little taxes, too. The loopholes should be filled before we should even entertain the idea of raising the tax rate.)

5) Obama is a big spender.(Again, I hope that this doesn’t come as a shock to anyone.)

6) It's actually not that hard to cut the deficit.(Not hard, unless you consider getting the left admit that they were wrong all along and go with what’s ultimately necessary hard.)

Here’s what he had to say about those six “gems”:

1) The federal government is horribly managed. The commission report cites just a few examples, but they are doozies. Did you know, for example, that there are 44 separate federal job-training programs across nine federal agencies? Or that there are 20 different programs all studying invasive species? And 105 programs meant to encourage participation in science, technology and math? Or that few of them can show they are achieving their goals? There are thousands of examples like this, according to the report.

2) Health reform's cost savings apparently were bogus. Remember how Democrats boasted that health reform would cut the budget deficit by $170 billion over the next decade and far more after that? The deficit commission must not have gotten that memo. It says health spending projections under the new law "count on large phantom savings" and the reform law's new long-term care program that the report calls "unsustainable." As a result, Congress will still need to enact "a number of other reforms to reduce federal health spending and slow the growth of health care costs more broadly."

3) Millions of workers don't pay into Social Security. One of the reform ideas is to require newly hired state and local workers to start paying into Social Security. Wait? Isn't Social Security mandatory? Turns out, almost 10 percent of workers don't pay in, since "a small share of states and localities exclude their employees from Social Security" and instead operate their own retirement systems. (Given Social Security's dire financial forecast, one wonders how those workers would feel about that reform.)

4) The tax code is a hopeless, loophole-riddled mess. How else can you explain the fact that, according to the report, you can lower the top marginal rate by 20 percent and still collect an additional $112,533 from the richest 1 percent of taxpayers, simply by closing loopholes?

5) Obama is a big spender. Although President Barack Obama has talked about fiscal discipline -- and set up this deficit commission -- his own budget plan would spend $350 billion more on so-called discretionary programs over the next decade than if the government were just left on autopilot, according to the report.

6) It's actually not that hard to cut the deficit. The report talks loudly about the "painful" choices ahead and how there's "no easy way out." But what the report really shows is that a comprehensive package of relatively modest and reasonable policy changes can bring deficits under control.

This was an all-too rare moment from a government commission. Too bad that it confirms and brings to light all of the conservatives assertions about Obama and the Democrats’ ill-advised policies.

I, also, loved what Nick Gillespie had to say regarding the tax issue. He had some good insight into the debate:

It's a simple, plain, and nearly universally unacknowledged fact that the feds haven't been able to raise revenue much past the 19 percent of GDP bar for any period of time since World War II. Doesn't matter the the top marginal rate is, or the bottom, or nothing. The government is going to pull in just under 19 percent maximum. Some years it might be a bit higher and some a bit lower, but it ain't budging over the long haul (defined as the last 60 or so years). That is the limit of what we can spend if we want to have a balanced budget. Obama's own budget projections have the feds spending more than 22 percent of GDP each year over the next decade. You do the math….

We are in debt because we spend too much, not because we make too little as a country. Let's say it again, this time in bold (I have to unbold): We are in debt because we spend too much, not because we make too little as a country.

Fareed Zakaria, who surely makes well north of $250,000 a year, is welcome to give all his income to a government that has only managed a nominally balanced budget a handful of times since we beat the Axis powers.

But can he have the generosity not to include the rest of us who make far south of a quarter-mil a year in his delusion that higher taxes will mean smaller deficits?

Like Paul Ryan said, “We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.” Our government has to learn to live within its means just like their constituents.



H/T to Ed Morrissey.

States With High Taxes Set to Lose Political Influence Due to Migration to Low-Tax States

There could be a ill-wind blowing over the next decade across states, like California and New York, as people are moving away from there to live, work, and start business in states with lower taxes:

Migration from high-tax states to states with lower taxes and less government spending will dramatically alter the composition of future Congresses, according to a study by Americans for Tax Reform

Eight states are projected to gain at least one congressional seat under reapportionment following the 2010 Census: Texas (four seats), Florida (two seats), Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington (one seat each). Their average top state personal income tax rate: 2.8 percent.

By contrast, New York and Ohio are likely to lose two seats each, while Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will be down one apiece. The average top state personal income tax rate in these loser states: 6.05 percent.

The state and local tax burden is nearly a third lower in states with growing populations, ATR found. As a result, per capita government spending is also lower: $4,008 for states gaining congressional seats, $5,117 for states losing them.

People fleeing California. I wonder why. Oh yeah, it is because of insane policies like this.

Considering that most of the states that have the highest taxes are also states that are dominated by Democrats, this could strengthen the GOP in the House and with the electoral votes during the presidential election and will make it increasingly difficult for Democrats, especially liberal Democrats, to get the majority in Washington. No wonder that they wanted to ram has much of their liberal wishlist through during these past two years, while that they had such a huge majority. I think that they may have seen the writing on the wall and took advantage now, even if it was to the detriment of the them this election, because they don't know if they'll get this kind of power again, at least not anytime soon.

I love the this exit quote:

Imagine that: Americans are fleeing high tax, union-dominated states and settling in states with lower taxes, right-to-work laws and lower government spending. Nothing sends a message like voting with your feet.

If only, we had warned them. Oh wait! We've seen this before.

Conservative Tax Foundation Releases a 10 Worst States For Businesses List

A new list has been released by the conservative Tax Foundation identifies what they consider the worst states to run a business. Would it shock anyone that 8-out-of-10 have leaned to the left over the past few years and 6 of them are hardcore Democratic states? Me neither:

New York
California
New Jersey
Connecticut
Ohio
Iowa
Maryland
Minnesota
Rhode Island
North Carolina

All the Tax Foundation used to come up with this list is taxes. So, basically, this just a list of the states with the highest taxes. There is no doubt that taxes have huge impact on all kinds business, but this not, by far, the only issue that can negatively affect business. Therefore, this list does need to be taken with a grain of salt, but it is still very telling.

Pelosi and Dems Raise Taxes on the Poor in Order to Help the Poor

Obama’s recession remedy: Tax the poor! By Michelle Malkin  •  January 14, 2009 04:43 AM

It’s baaaack. Remember S-CHIP? The Democrats are racing their universal health care Trojan Horse through the House today and in the Senate by Friday. Yesterday evening after I filed my syndicated column (printed below) on Obama and the Democrats’ first massive tax increase of 2009, the 285-page text of the proposed S-CHIP expansion went online. It’s H.R. 2 and something a significant number of congressional members will not do before voting for the behemoth bill.

Every legal tobacco product from premanufactured cigarettes and cigarette papers to cigars to roll-your-cigarettes, pipe tobacco, and smokeless tobacco will be taxed out the wazoo. Take roll-your-own tobacco. It’s currently taxed at $1.0969/lb. The Obama/Democrat S-CHIP plan would hike that to $24.62/lb. Cigarette taxes would rise from $19.50 per thousand to $50.00 per thousand for small cigarettes and from $40.95 per thousand to $105.00 per thousand for large cigarettes.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refuses to have an open debate on the bill. House GOP leaders lodged a protest. (But remember that 42 Republicans sided with Pelosi last January in a failed attempt to override President Bush’s veto.)

So much for transparency and openness. And so much for those promises to provide tax relief to “ordinary Americans.” As usual, Barry O was just blowin’ smoke:

Obama’s recession remedy: Tax the poor!
by Michelle Malkin Copyright 2008

“Everybody’s going to have to give,” President-elect Barack Obama warned over the weekend. And some people will have to give more than others – starting with low-income smokers. Democrats are rushing this week to impose massive tax hikes of at least 61 cents on every cigarette pack sold in America, in addition to new increases on other tobacco products. The money will fund a long-plotted federal expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP).

Yes, this is Dr. Big Nanny’s prescription for recession: Punitive tax increases on the poor to feed a universal health care Trojan Horse.

Obama and his liberal Democrat colleagues sure have a funny way of demonstrating “progressive” values, don’t they? Health surveys show that smokers are more likely to be blue-collar workers, minorities, and have less than a high school education. The National Taxpayers Union noted that tobacco taxes take a 50-times-larger share of income from those earning less than $20,000 than those earning more than $200,000. Put another way: Families making less than $30,000 per year pay more than half of all taxes paid on cigarettes, while families making more than $60,000 pay only 14 percent.

That’s the dictionary definition of “regressive,” not “progressive.”

And what will that money buy? S-CHIP, you’ll recall, is the joint federal-state program that covers health insurance for children and families at or near the poverty line. Over the past two years, President Bush and the Republicans took a rare, fiscal conservative stand against widening eligibility criteria far beyond the working poor. Democrats wanted to be able to enroll families with incomes at 300 or 400 percent of the poverty level – adding an estimated $35 billion over five years to the existing S-CHIP funding costs.

Opponents of this Hillarycare-esque push were lambasted as cruel child-haters for arguing that the program should not be extended to include well-off families, illegal aliens, and single adults. They were attacked as heartless penny-pinchers for questioning the wisdom of subsidizing the S-CHIP expansion with a dwindling and unstable funding source (smoking is on the decline and cigarette tax revenues are shrinking). Left-wing comedienne Joy Behar called me a “b*tch” on national television for reporting that the Democrats’ poster family for S-CHIP expansion to cover the “poor,” the Frost family of Baltimore, owned middle-class assets including two properties and three cars.

But if these do-gooders truly cared about The Children, they’d be cursing mightily over the squandering of current S-CHIP funds and the cheating of the very children the program was intended to help. State data analyzed by the Department of Health and Human Services reveal that 13 states spent more than 44 percent of their S-CHIP funds in 2008 on people who are neither children nor pregnant women. Michigan topped the list with more than 70 percent of its federal children’s health insurance funds earmarked for adults who have no kids.

In New Jersey, people earning as much as $295,000 were enrolled in its S-CHIP program dubbed “NJ FamilyCare.” Like many states, New Jersey failed to check eligibility for all program enrollees and refuses to do stringent assets tests. As I’ve noted before, the refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. After an audit found that the program had paid $43.1 million to participants without knowing if they were eligible, Assemblyman Richard Merkt, R-Morris observed that it “called into serious question the state’s competence to run health insurance programs.” Multiply that by 50 states.

How will the Democrats prevent such fraud? I’d give you more details about the Obama/Democrat tax hike on the poor to expand children’s health care coverage for the non-poor and non-children, but as of Tuesday afternoon, there was no legislative text available. And no hearings are planned before the expansion is rushed through for Obama to sign. The Wall Street Journal did report that Democrats plan to lift decade-old restrictions to allow legal immigrant children to tap into S-CHIP. (Open-borders activists hope it’s the camel’s nose under tent for illegal alien applicants.) But there’s no word on whether (or how) citizenship eligibility requirements will be strengthened. The Democrat leadership hasn’t responded to Republican entreaties on that issue, either. Hurray for the deliberative process.

What I can tell you for sure is that the S-CHIP expansion is a rest stop on the road to a universal health insurance entitlement, built on the backs of overtaxed, low-income workers. (Listen to Democrat Tom Vilsack admit it openly here.) Welcome to the era of “shared sacrifice.”

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/14/obama%e2%80%99s-recession-remedy-tax-the-poor/
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

This is just the beginning of the tax hikes on the poor that the Democrats will try to sneak past us. They claim that they only want to raise taxes on the poor, but this show that in reality they want to raise it on everyone.