____________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 9-21
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
____________________________ BUSINESS & ECONOMY
Income Redistribution: National Sales Tax ConsideredThe federal government faces a $1.8 trillion deficit this year and not less than $500 billion each year for the next 10, according to White House estimates. Meanwhile, the IRS reported April tax revenues were down $138 billion, or 34 percent, compared to last year. Of course, rather than cut spending, the Obama administration is considering new taxes.
"With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage," reports The Washington Post, "some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax." The sales tax is common around the world, though it is most often implemented as the slightly different value-added tax, or VAT, which taxes the value added at each stage of production or distribution.
When conservatives have proposed the national sales tax, it has always been as a replacement for income and payroll taxes. Radio talk-show host Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder (R-GA) have written extensively on the subject. Naturally, however, when liberals in the administration discuss the idea, it is in addition to the current tax system. After all, the idea for them is to generate more revenue in order to cover health care. And higher taxes always equal more revenue, especially in a bad economy, right?
Fed Unaccountably Loses $9 TrillionWe have to believe that Elizabeth Coleman has a newfound respect for the wisdom of Will Rogers, who once quipped, "A Congressman is happiest when he is asking questions, knowing none can be asked in return." Coleman, Inspector General of the Federal Reserve Bank, had the displeasure of answering the inquiries of Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) with regards to $9 trillion of off-balance sheet transactions at the Fed. Her answers, verbose in the manner of Alan Greenspan, were lacking in substance. Quite simply, she doesn't know what happened to the $9 trillion. Grayson concluded, "I am shocked to find out that nobody at the Federal Reserve, including the inspector general, is keeping track of this."
The "assets" in question appear to have been created between the third quarter 2008 and the first quarter 2009. Given the bailout frenzy of that time, we appreciate how some minor details may have been missed, although nothing excuses incompetent accounting of the people's money. Still, the source of our current economic distress was the reckless and utterly irresponsible spending by Congress in a few fleeting months. While Grayson's questioning elevated the issue, it did not resolve any concerns. Grayson would do well to remember the attorney's axiom never to ask a question if the answer isn't already known.
We hope that Coleman will return to Congress in the near future with a satisfactory explanation as to what the Fed did with the equivalent of three times the 2010 federal budget. After all, $9 trillion isn't exactly a minor detail.
Regulatory Commissars: The Trouble With Gov't AutosAs the government forces General Motors into bankruptcy, the auto giant received last week yet another $4 billion of federal funding. This is in addition to the $15.4 billion already funneled its way, courtesy of the beleaguered American taxpayer. Technically, GM had requested "only" the additional sum of $2.6 billion by 1 June to pay its suppliers and dealers -- oh, and a mere $9 billion more after 1 June to meet working capital expenses. In the real world, the leap from $2.6 to $4 would be called an increase, but in the la-la-land of government bailouts, GM said the request signals not additional funding but rather "updated timing of when certain expenses would be incurred." The outcome notwithstanding, Uncle Barack -- who is poised to own as much as 69 percent of GM -- is thrilled to oblige.
Meanwhile, politics could be playing a role in the closure of some Chrysler dealers. Blogger Doug Ross notes that there seems to be a trend developing: Chrysler dealers who contributed to the GOP are the first to be shut down. "I took all dealer owners whose names appeared more than once in the list," Ross writes, "And, of those who contributed to political campaigns, every single one had donated almost exclusively to GOP candidates. While this isn't an exhaustive review, it does have some ominous implications if it can be verified." It's worth noting that most car dealers are small-business owners, a group that is overwhelmingly Republican. It is also notable that Obama's "auto task force" is making the decisions about closures, not Chrysler. Predictably, the mainstream media isn't interested.
Yet, even as the feds seize greater control of the auto industry, they are simultaneously aiming to create "livable communities" where bicycles and mass transit trump autos. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood confessed, "It is a way to coerce people out of their cars." Too much government intrusion, one might say? LaHood didn't even try to hide it: "About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people's lives." Just another day in Obama's America.
CULTURE & POLICY
Around the Nation: CA Supremes Uphold Prop. 8Tuesday brought the latest installment of the same-sex marriage drama in California, where the state Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8. Article 1 of the California constitution was amended by Prop. 8 with Section 7.5, which reads, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The 6-1 decision rejected arguments that the measure amounts to an illegal constitutional amendment and that it affects an "inalienable right."
The justices were unanimous in holding that the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed since June 2008 will remain valid. They did not decide, however, whether California must recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages -- an important issue given that several states now allow same-sex couples to marry, and several more are considering it.
In pointing out that domestic partnership creates a legal relationship comparable to marriage in protecting the rights of same-sex couples, Justice Ronald M. George said that the measure does "not entirely repeal or abrogate same-sex couples' right to privacy and due process or the constitutional right of same-sex couples to choose one's life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship." [emphasis added]
Another, Justice Joyce Kennard, took pains to assure us all that they had made their decision not because of their personal views, but because they are bound to follow the state constitution and legal precedent of the court. Isn't that what judges are always supposed to do?
Their attitude is not surprising. Just last year these same justices overturned the state same-sex marriage ban. But then the issue went back to the voters in the form of a constitutional amendment. Homosexual activists have already declared their intention to ignore the will of the voters and try again to repeal the ban.