Dems Playing "Chicken" With Taxpayers

From the Washington Post:

"After 18 months of runaway spending, bailouts and takeovers, Washington Democrats are poised to allow the largest tax increase in American history to take effect next year," Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.), a member of the GOP leadership, said Saturday in the party's weekly radio address. "House Republicans will oppose this tax increase with everything we've got."

The Democrats are more interested in playing the class warfare card in the upcoming elections than doing their jobs.

This blows a hole in their argument that they're deficit hawks. They're not deficit hawks; they're deficit chickens," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is tasked with defending the party's House majority.

Political posturing aside, the difference between extending all the Bush tax cuts and just those the Dems claim apply to the "middle class" is $600 billion over ten years. This is hardly chump change, but when Democrats are running up a deficit of $1.47 trillion this year alone they can hardly sell themselves as competent stewards of our nation.

Besides, lost in the dems demogogic rhetoric is the fact that many of the "rich" they are planning to soak are small business owners:

Republicans say the tax cuts are critical to bolstering a feeble economic recovery. And with unemployment at 9.5 percent, even some Democrats are queasy about raising taxes on high earners -- a category that includes many small-business owners -- when policymakers are trying to encourage them to create jobs.

When the Democrat who chairs the Senate budget committee, Conrad (D-ND) isn't drinking the class warrior Kool-Aid, President Obama has a messaging problem.

When you add the Democrats willingness to see taxes rise and their promise to address the recommendations of the president's deficit commission in a lame duck session taxpayers are about to be hit with a one-two punch:

Obama debt commission member, Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, launched a scary trial balloon on ABC News. Gregg suggested the debt commission will likely recommend a massive $26.7 trillion tax increase.

"We're broke"

President Obama used those words not that long ago. The reason he dropped all the hopey changiness.

“Is the U.S. Government Bankrupt?” which was asked by Pete Morin in his article published today in American Thinker.
Here are some exerpts:
Before we continue to debate the merits of any Obama health care plan, we need to consider a few important facts.
“By any rational means, we must consider the present condition of our Government’s financial situation. An honest look at those finances would have a prudent person conclude that our government is tacitly bankrupt. Our unfunded liabilities far exceed our assets. Adding up all unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Government sponsored pension funds gives us a figure slightly in excess of $100 TRILLION dollars. That’s TRILLION with a ‘T’. The Federal budget deficit for fiscal 2009 will be approximately $1.84 TRILLION. That’s TRILLION with a ‘T’. Over the next ten years the projected deficit will be $9 TRILLION +. That’s TRILLION with a ‘T’. Of course, this projected deficit comes from the Congressional Budget Office and has to be considered a conservative estimate. In 1966 the feds estimated that the cost of the Medicare program by 1990 would be approximately $9 billion dollars/year; the actual cost was $67 billion dollars/year.

Yup. The U.S. government already has 100 trillion dollars worth of bills that it has no ability to pay. I'm sure the president must be thinking that another trillion to nationalize health care is a drop in the bucket. And the benefit to the democratic party of making people dependent on the government is well worth the measley 1% increase in our unfunded liabilities.

The problem for the American taxpayer is that our government's current solution to our deficit problem of printing money to buy our own debt is not sustainable. The dollar is already dropping in value in relation to other currencies. There are only two solutions: to rescind our promises to social security, medicare etc. or the largest tax increase the world has ever seen. While I'm not a gambler, I'd put all my money on the tax increase. Either way I lose.

Health care

The Washington Post has provided a chart of the proposals floating around D.C. and what they mean for you. (click to enlarge). Because this is the same Washington Post that was looking to sell lobbyists' access to members of the Obama administration for $25,000 and up, it's no surprise that they find more benefits than costs to nationalizing health care. For example, while President Obama has been amazingly forthright that his "public option" will require that health care will be rationed, I can't seem to find that as a cost in the chart. They do beat the administration in honesty points for pointing out that to pay for his plan President Obama is going to need to tax employer provided health benefits. During the late presidential campaign, candidate Obama ran 44 million in negative ads against John McCain on that very issue. If the President gets his way the vast majority of Americans will be paying more in taxes and waiting longer for medical care. America can't afford socialized medicine, it's just another boondoggle in the progressives' effort to make the public dependent on the government.