The Value-Added Tax (or VAT) is some expert's solution to our national budgetary and fiscal woes.  Here's a pithy description of what the term "VAT" even means, as well of some its immediate implications for society:

A VAT, used in 100 countries around the world, is essentially a sales tax but one collected at every stage of production.

Take bread, for instance.

“When the farmer grows the wheat, sells it to the baker, there's value-added tax on that. When the baker makes something and sells it to the grocery store, there's value-added tax. When the grocery store sells it to the individual, there's value-added tax,” said William Gale of the Brookings Institution.

But a VAT is regressive, meaning the poor and the wealthy pay the same tax on every product, which is why liberal analysts say a VAT would have to be on top of the current income tax.

“You would not want the value-added tax to replace the income tax. If you did that you would have huge tax increases on middle income people and on the working poor and massive tax cuts for the richest people in the country, ” said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

But others say adding VAT on top of the income tax, rather than replacing the income tax with it would make the total tax burden far too great and put a dent in economic growth.

“You don’t want a value added tax on top of the income tax otherwise the total tax bite of the government is huge. You'll have individuals who are paying tax rates on their income of 25 and 28 and 30 percent and then going to the grocery store and paying a 20 percent tax on whatever money's left over,” said Brian Reidl, lead budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Many impressive writers/thinkers of our day have weighed in on the matter.  George Will, of The Washington Post, and Robert Samuelson, writing in Newsweek, are two worthy examples.  Both men foresee a necessary national dialogue regarding the appropriate (and desired...and Constitutionally-allotted) size of government that MUST occur before we take drastic measures to fix the mess we're most certainly in.  

Will adds:

When liberals advocate a value-added tax, conservatives should respond: Taxing consumption has merits, so we will consider it -- after the 16th Amendment is repealed.

A VAT will be rationalized as necessary to restore fiscal equilibrium. But without ending the income tax, a VAT would be just a gargantuan instrument for further subjugating Americans to government...

Money is time made tangible -- the time invested in the earning of it. Taxation is the confiscation of the earner's time. Although some taxation is necessary, all taxation diminishes freedom.

Adding a VAT without subtracting the income tax would constrict Americans' freedom much more than the health care legislation does. Because the 16th Amendment will not be repealed, adoption of a VAT would proclaim the impossibility of serious spending reductions, and hence would be the obituary for the Founders' vision of limited government.

I doubt I could agree more. 

Samuelson, with whom I often disagree, hits the nail on the head as well this time out:

The value-added tax has become the designated panacea for massive federal budget deficits. It's touted by think-tank economists and mentioned by congressional leaders. A VAT could, it's said, raise stupendous amounts of money, which, Lord knows, are needed to cover projected deficits. A VAT is likened to a "national sales tax," so once in place, most Americans would barely notice it -- just as they barely notice state and local sales taxes. How's that for friendly politics? A VAT would also discourage consumption and encourage saving and investment, making America richer in the future. What's not to like?...

The basic budget problem is simple. For decades, the expansion of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- programs mostly for the elderly -- was financed mainly by shrinking defense spending. In 1970, defense accounted for 42 percent of the federal budget; Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were 20 percent. By 2008, the shares were reversed: defense, 21 percent; the big retirement programs, 43 percent. But defense stopped falling after Sept. 11, 2001, while aging baby boomers and uncontrolled health costs keep retirement spending rising.

Left alone, government would grow larger. From 1970 to 2009, federal spending averaged 20.7 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). By 2020, it could reach 25.2 percent of GDP and would still be expanding, reckons the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of President Obama's budgets. In 2020, the deficit (assuming a healthy economy with 5 percent unemployment) would be 5.6 percent of GDP. To cover that, taxes would have to rise almost 30 percent.

A VAT could not painlessly fill this void. Applied to all consumption spending -- about 70 percent of GDP -- the required VAT rate would equal about 8 percent. But the actual increase might be closer to 16 percent because there would be huge pressures to exempt groceries, rent and housing, health care, education and charitable groups. Together, they account for nearly half of $10 trillion of consumer spending. There would also be other upward (and more technical) pressures on the VAT rate.

Does anyone believe that Americans wouldn't notice 16 percent price increases for cars, televisions, airfares, gasoline -- and much more -- even if phased in? As for a VAT's claimed benefits (simplicity, promotion of investment), these depend mainly on a VAT replacing the present complex income tax that discriminates against investment. That's unlikely because it would require implausibly steep VAT rates. Chances are we'd pay both the income tax and the VAT, making the overall tax system more complicated.

The reality is this: we have some tough decisions ahead of us in this country.  We've been putting them off for too long, and allowing our emotions to be manipulated by people and policies that count on Americans NOT knowing the facts and the options.

Don't let our leaders sell you a bill of goods (i.e. "Taxing the rich will solve everything", or "Big Brother will always be able to bail you out").  It is because of a pervasive lack of personal responsibility and fiscal discipline, at every level of the government, and in far too many homes and businesses, that we are where we are today.

There is no quick fix.  There is no free lunch.

President Obama, the Feel-Good-In-Chief, has recently signed a meaningless "reduce your nukes" agreement with a corrupt regime in Russia.  But that hope-filled gesture to the Russians was just the political face to the bigger change the Obama administration announced last week.  The Nuclear Posture Review, or NPR for short, states that the United States will no longer even threaten countries with nuclear retaliation if they don't have nukes themselves.

There are two voices of reason and sanity that you must hear on this issue.

The first is from Charles Krauthammer.

Under President Obama's new policy, however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is "in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," explained Gates, then "the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it."

Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up-to-date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.)

However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT noncompliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come.

This is quite insane. It's like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections.

The other is from Chuck Colson's daily "Breakpoint" commentary that can be heard on radio stations all across the nation every day.  Listen to it here.

An excerpt from Colson:

The administration’s new Nuclear Posture Review states that the United States will not use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have nuclear weapons and that comply with the UN treaty on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Now, that may sound good on paper, but what would happen if a country, or terrorist organization based in a certain country, launched a massive attack on the United States with biological or chemical weapons? Or even a cyber attack that could paralyze America for weeks or months, leading to massive starvation?

Well, astonishingly enough, the Nuclear Posture Review specifically renounces a U.S. nuclear response to a mass biological or chemical attack.  The administration took this position as a “carrot” approach to convince non-nuclear nations to give up their dreams of obtaining nukes.

But folks, you can offer a rat a carrot, and he’ll eat it. The problem is, he remains a rat.

As you’ve heard me say before, the role of government is to preserve order, do justice, and restrain evil. Well, this of course presupposes that there is such a thing as evil, and that humans do evil things. Obviously, we Christians know the root of this evil is original sin; it’s part of our fallen human nature. And we see it displayed on our TV screens every single night.

Any nuclear policy that fails to recognize the human propensity for evil endangers the country and flies in the face of a biblical worldview—not to mention common sense.  It is, plain and simple, utopian thinking. And Christianity, recognizing man’s fallenness, always rejects utopianism—the idea that mankind can build a paradise on earth. It inevitably leads to tyranny.

I don't want to be someone who only sees the negative in what President Obama does, but he's making it very hard on those of us who care about the safety, security, and stability of the country more than what sounds good in a University of Chicago faculty meeting.

Dennis Prager reflects on the passage of Obamacare in his weekly column yesterday:

The country took its biggest step ever down a road diametrically opposed to its original intent of keeping the state small so that the individual can be free and great.

I listen to Prager on podcast nearly every single day, and the man is not a reactionary by any means.  He chooses his words carefully.  What I hear in his voice and read in these words is a man who has reached an important level of clarity in regards to the cultural battle that is currently taking place over the future of this country.

Here are the six things Dennis wants Center-Right Americans to think about going forward:

1. Know and teach America's core values.

2. Recognize that we are fighting the left, not liberals.

3. Democrats should be referred to as Social Democrats.

4. Work tirelessly to repeal the bill.

5. Our motto: "The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen."

6. Do not let other matters distract.  Neither Republicans nor conservatives are united on every issue facing America. Immigration is one example. But we are united on the big government vs. free individual issue, which, more than anything else, has defined America. If we allow any other domestic issue to divide us, we will lose.

I do not know if it is possible for me to agree more with these sentiments.  PLEASE read the full article here, and begin to contemplate what ideas, ideals, and values matter most to you.  What is taking place in Washington and in state capitals across the nation is much bigger than politics or Sarah Palin's accent or Glenn Beck's sweaty forehead.

Get off the sidelines.  Go to church.  Read.  Pray.  Vote.  Stop living like personal liberty, personal responsibility, and civic duty don't matter.

I've posted this video before, perhaps a year or two ago, but I think it's worth a second go-round.

Mark Steyn discussing the disastrous results of "multiculturalism" in Europe:

The Heritage Foundation is the standard for conservative think-tanks.  Heritage is involved in everything from Foreign Policy to Health Care Reform to Economic Freedom.  Today Heritage posted "Ten Steps to a Free Iran", an abbreviated list of ten things the US and Europe can (and should) be doing to help the millions of freedom-loving citizens of the Sharia-dominated nation.

Here are three of the ten:

1. Impose and enforce the strongest sanctions. The U.S. should push other concerned countries to enforce targeted sanctions on the Iranian regime and its internal security organs; ban all foreign investment, loans and credits, subsidized trade, and refined petroleum exports to Iran; and deny visas to its officials.

2. Drop opposition to U.S. gasoline sanctions. Both houses of Congress voted by large bipartisan majorities to impose sanctions against firms that export refined petroleum products to Iran. Yet the White House is dragging its feet, arguing such sanctions will impede diplomatic efforts at the U.N., even though the U.N. is unlikely to approve crippling sanctions.

3. Target public diplomacy to expose the regime's human rights abuses. Such a campaign should document the abuses and aid victims, step up broadcasting and support for independent Iranian broadcasters outside the country to expose corruption of officials and the regime's aid to terrorists, and educate Iranians about genuine representative democracy.

The Chicago Tribune is anything but a bastion of conservative opinions, but today's opinion from the editorial page is something all Americans ought to be able to get behind.

Last fall, Washington, D.C., schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee laid off 229 teachers. Here's what was unusual about that: She chose who would stay and who would go based on the competence of the teachers.

That's a radical departure for public education. Most schools across the country make personnel decisions largely or entirely based on seniority. Last in, first out. Illinois law requires that teacher layoffs be based on seniority unless a school district and its local union negotiate different rules. Result: seniority is the deciding factor everywhere, according to the Illinois State Board of Education. So law and custom protect older teachers — whether they're good teachers or bad teachers.

What a shock to learn that the Peoples' Republic of Illinois has such a backwards, ineffective system for hiring and firing teachers!

Many cash-strapped Illinois school districts face the prospect of layoffs in the coming months. Unless outdated rules are scrapped, the schools will have to fire some of their best teachers because they happen to be younger teachers.

They also will have to fire more teachers. Younger teachers have lower salaries, so when schools operate strictly on seniority, they have to let more teachers go to achieve a certain dollar savings.

Yes, there is value in experience. But the National Council on Teacher Quality reports that "teachers in their third year of teaching are generally about as effective as long-tenured teachers."

Seniority can be considered, but along with such factors as competence, drive, classroom performance and willingness to learn new skills. Younger teachers, for instance, may be more computer-savvy and thus more capable of teaching the tech skills children need to succeed.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that almost everyone has a teacher who impacted their life in a positive way.  We want to honor teachers, and we want the best possible teachers in our school systems.  But tax dollars aren't charity to be doled out based on a general feeling of good will towards people who enter the teaching profession.  People must earn those dollars, same as any other job.

And it is the constitutional duty of those running these bloated bureacracies at the state and federal level to do everything in their power to see that the best possible people are hired in the most efficient way.

All governments have to find ways to lure and keep the best and brightest in their work force. Where is that more important than in the classroom?

School vouchers, anyone?  Real change requires real change.   Enough talk.  If we're serious about education, then let's put our votes where our mouths are and let our elected officials know that changes like the ones the Tribune is talking about matter to us.

You simply cannot explain the scope and breadth of the Obamacare debacle in one column...unless your last name is Krauthammer.

As an aspiring writer and commentator, I spend a great deal of time reading the books and articles and speeches of the people I feel effectively communicate the ideas I believe in better than anyone else.

Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post and Fox News Channel is one of those people.

Every night of the week, at roughly 6:40 p.m. (Eastern Time), Dr. Krauthammer is a member of the "All-Star Panel" on Special Report With Brett Baier.  (You should be watching or DVR-ing this every day).  And each Friday, his nationally syndicated column is read in newspapers all across the country.

Today he treated his reading audience to this gem on the current state of the Pelosi-Reid-Obama health care plan:

After 34 speeches, three sharp electoral rebukes (Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts) and a seven-hour seminar, the president announced Wednesday his determination to make one last push to pass his health care reform.

The final act was carefully choreographed. The rollout began a week earlier with a couple of shows of bipartisanship: a Feb. 25 Blair House "summit" with Republicans, followed five days later with a few concessions tossed the Republicans' way.

Show is the operative noun. Among the few Republican suggestions President Obama pretended to incorporate was tort reform. What did he suggest to address the plague of defensive medicine that a Massachusetts Medical Society study showed leads to about 25 percent of doctor referrals, tests and procedures being done for no medical reason? A few ridiculously insignificant demonstration projects amounting to one-half of one-hundredth of 1 percent of the cost of Obama's health care bill.

The Health Care Summit last week was a dog-and-pony show, meant to portray the Republicans as obstructionists and big old meanies.  But the president was confronted by the likes of Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), and the fact-based disagreements conservatives have with Obama's brand of "reform."  Republicans DO have ideas, and many key members of the GOP on the state and national level have been promoting them all year.

Unfortunately for Democrats, that seven-hour televised exercise had the unintended consequence of showing the Republicans to be not only highly informed on the subject, but also, as even Obama was forced to admit, possessed of principled objections -- contradicting the ubiquitous Democratic/media meme that Republican opposition was nothing but nihilistic partisanship.

Republicans did so well, in fact, that in his summation, Obama was reduced to suggesting that his health care reform was indeed popular because when you ask people about individual items (for example, eliminating exclusions for pre-existing conditions or capping individual out-of-pocket payments) they are in favor.

Yet mystifyingly they oppose the whole package. How can that be?

And now, in what can only be described as the most brilliant summation of the American peoples' opposition to Obamacare, please enjoy the wit and wisdom of Charles Krauthammer in its rarest of forms:

Allow me to demystify. Imagine a bill granting every American a free federally delivered ice cream every Sunday morning. Provision 2: steak on Monday, also home delivered. Provision 3: A dozen red roses every Tuesday. You get the idea. Would each individual provision be popular in the polls? Of course.

However (life is a vale of howevers) suppose these provisions were bundled into a bill that also spelled out how the goodies are to be paid for and managed -- say, half a trillion dollars in new taxes, half a trillion in Medicare cuts (cuts not to keep Medicare solvent but to pay for the ice cream, steak and flowers), 118 new boards and commissions to administer the bounty-giving, and government regulation dictating, for example, how your steak was to be cooked. How do you think this would poll?

Perhaps something like 3-1 against, which is what the latest CNN poll shows is the citizenry's feeling about the current Democratic health care bills.

Late last year, Democrats were marveling at how close they were to historic health care reform, noting how much agreement had been achieved among so many factions. The only remaining detail was how to pay for it.

Well, yes. That has generally been the problem with democratic governance: cost. The disagreeable absence of a free lunch.

That's it, folks.  Everything the Left promises sounds nice on an individual level, which is how they present their collectivist policies.  The problem is, of course, that all of their policies are implemented on a national level and cannot possibly succeed.  This is the heart of the debate between Right and Left: can the few rule, and provide for, the many?  Can "experts" in Washington "control" the expenses and costs of 300 million-plus liberty-loving Americans?

The good intentions of liberals are heart-warming and bone-chilling, all at the same time.

Chuck closes out his devastatingly informative column with the following:

The time for debate is over, declared the nation's seminar leader in chief. The man who vowed to undo Washington's wicked ways has directed the Congress to ram Obamacare through, by one vote if necessary, under the parliamentary device of "budget reconciliation." The man who ran as a post-partisan is determined to remake a sixth of the U.S. economy despite the absence of support from a single Republican in either house, the first time anything of this size and scope has been enacted by pure party-line vote.

Surprised? You can only be disillusioned if you were once illusioned.

In today's Times of London we read this:

Pakistani forces have taken control of a warren of caves that served until recently as the nerve centre of the Taleban and al-Qaeda and sheltered Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second-in-command to Osama bin Laden.

“It was the main hub of militancy where al-Qaeda operatives had moved freely,” Major-General Tariq Khan, the Pakistan regional commander, said as he gave journalists a tour of Damadola yesterday.

The village, nestling among snow-capped peaks in the Bajaur region along the Afghan border, has been fought over for 16 months. It is the first time that the Pakistani Army has set foot in the village, which had long been dominated by the insurgents operating on the both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Pakistan is by no means a stable nation, but we ought to praise our allies in the War on Terror when they score a victory for our "side".  There is REAL change in the attitude of the Pakistani military in terms of their willingness to help our efforts in Afghanistan. 

Here is more on Pakistan's role from The Heritage Foundation.

Greece is bankrupt and counting on Germany to bail them out.  Sound familiar?  The United States is moving closer to European-style socialism with every government annexation of power.  THIS is why something like the health care debate matters.

Mark Steyn, writing for National Review Online, breaks down the broken-down economy (and collective mentality) of the Greeks.

While Barack Obama was making his latest pitch for a brand-new, even-more-unsustainable entitlement at the health-care “summit,” thousands of Greeks took to the streets to riot. An enterprising cable network might have shown the two scenes on a continuous split-screen — because they’re part of the same story. It’s just that Greece is a little further along in the plot: They’re at the point where the canoe is about to plunge over the falls. America is farther upstream and can still pull for shore, but has decided instead that what it needs to do is catch up with the Greek canoe. Chapter One (the introduction of unsustainable entitlements) leads eventually to Chapter Twenty (total societal collapse): The Greeks are at Chapter Seventeen or Eighteen.

He continues:

We hard-hearted small-government guys are often damned as selfish types who care nothing for the general welfare. But, as the Greek protests make plain, nothing makes an individual more selfish than the socially equitable communitarianism of big government: Once a chap’s enjoying the fruits of government health care, government-paid vacation, government-funded early retirement, and all the rest, he couldn’t give a hoot about the general societal interest; he’s got his, and to hell with everyone else. People’s sense of entitlement endures long after the entitlement has ceased to make sense.

Read the rest of his latest column here, and ask yourself this: "What worth having in this life does not come with sacrifice?"  There really is no such thing as a free lunch, and we're going to have to make the tough, unpopular decisions if we want to preserve economic, personal, political, and religious liberty.

What are you willing to do for those things?

Steyn closes his piece with a wake-up call to those who think "It can't happen here."

Think of Greece as California: Every year an irresponsible and corrupt bureaucracy awards itself higher pay and better benefits paid for by an ever-shrinking wealth-generating class. And think of Germany as one of the less profligate, still-just-about-functioning corners of America such as my own state of New Hampshire: Responsibility doesn’t pay. You’ll wind up bailing out anyway.

The problem is there are never enough of “the rich” to fund the entitlement state, because in the end it disincentivizes everything from wealth creation to self-reliance to the basic survival instinct, as represented by the fertility rate. In Greece, they’ve run out Greeks, so they’ll stick it to the Germans, like French farmers do. In Germany, the Germans have only been able to afford to subsidize French farming because they stick their defense tab to the Americans. And in America, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are saying we need to paddle faster to catch up with the Greeks and Germans.

What could go wrong?

President Obama and the Democrats have been trying for a year to get their brand of health care "reform" passed.  They had overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, yet nothing happened.  The American people have shown up at town hall meetings, called and emailed their representatives, and the people of the most liberal state in the Union (Massachusetts) turned out in droves to vote for a Republican whose sole campaign promise was to vote against the president's health care package.

Today he is holding what seems to be his 54th "summit", this time on health care.  Liberals love talking about things when they could have just been doing them.  But why pass up a chance to try and make the Republicans look like the overly-used cliche "Party of No"?  Why pass up an opportunity for a photo-op that makes un-informed Americans think you are really trying to reach across the aisle?

This is all you need to know about the White House's true intentions:

From Politico.com

After a brief period of consultation following the White House health reform summit, congressional Democrats plan to begin making the case next week for a massive, Democrats-only health care plan, party strategists told POLITICO.

A Democratic official said the six-hour summit was expected to “give a face to gridlock, in the form of House and Senate Republicans.”

Democrats plan to begin rhetorical, and perhaps legislative, steps toward the Democrats-only, or reconciliation, process early next week, the strategists said.

After the summit, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid planned to take the temperature of their caucuses.

“The point [of the summit] is to alter the political atmospherics, and it will take a day or two to sense if it succeeded,” the official said.

"We're going to have a health care summit to look like we're listening to the people, but you can go jump off a bridge for all we care America 'cause we're not really listening anyway.

You republicans never listen...and oh, btw, we're not listening to what you say in this meeting we called to show how much more we listen to our political enemies than you.  Meanies!"

Wait until you get home tonight and watch how ill-tempered President Obama was with Republicans like John McCain (AZ) and Eric Cantor (WI).

I smell another Beer Summit to mend some fences!

This is the Left's attempt to give the federal government control over health care permanently, and create a new and eternal entitlement.  The president has said so himself, in his own words. It is about ideology (progressivism) and it is about politics (buying voters).  It stands against everything the Founders envisioned.