"Fat tax" could "save lives"?

Those crazy Euros are at it again. From al-Reuters:

A "fat tax" on salty, sugary and fatty foods could save thousands of lives each year, according to a study published on Thursday.

Researchers at Oxford University say that charging Value Added Tax (VAT) at 17.5 percent on foods deemed to be unhealthy would cut consumer demand and reduce the number of heart attacks and strokes.

The purchase tax is already levied on a small number of products such as potato crisps, ice cream, confectionery and chocolate biscuits, but most food is exempt.

The move could save an estimated 3,200 lives in Britain each year, according to the study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

"A well-designed and carefully-targeted fat tax could be a useful tool for reducing the burden of food-related disease," the study concluded.

The team from Oxford's Department of Public Health said higher taxes have already been imposed on cigarettes and alcohol to encourage healthy living.

...and those taxes have been failures at that for which they were intended. We have cig and booze taxes here, too, with similar results: millions of people still smoke and drink. All these silly "sin taxes" do is line the pockets of Big Guvmint. Besides, if that 20 oz. cold one at AJ's Sports Bar costs $3.00, would you order fewer if the suggested 17.5% tax were added, bringing the total to $3.53? Me neither.

Aside from the obvious "Nanny State" argument, there's another argument to be made here. Whenever government gets it mitts on our money through taxes on cigarettes or alcohol, they almost always say that they will use the tax money on health insurance government programs, usually for kids. Well, what if the purported desired effect is achieved, i.e. more people finally quit smoking or drinking? That would, by default, mean less money would be available to fund these new health insurance programs! Gasp! Why, how could you former smokers and former drinkers be so selfish as to deprive children of their health care? Do your patriotic duty, by God (insert deity of preference here) and get out there and destroy your own health so you can fund the programs that preserve the health of others!

I work out and eat healthy foods because I choose to do so. If you don't live similarly, then who in the Sam Hill would I be to demand that you do? I would be Big Guvmint, that's who.

Rudy gets booed in Jax for endorsing current income tax system

This alone could cost him my vote. From My Way News:

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani ran into a buzz saw of opposition Saturday when he explained his opposition to a flat federal income tax.

Giuliani addressed a group of about 500 people in a standing-room only crowd at a town hall meeting at the University of North Florida, answering questions for about 30 minutes on a variety of topics from Iraq and Iran to Social Security and his plan for tax cuts.

Several dozen people jeered when Giuliani, in response to a question, said he would not be in favor of a flat tax.

"I have to study it some more," the former New York City mayor said. "I don't think a flat tax is realistic change for America. Our economy is dependent upon the way our tax system operates."

Giuliani emphasized he supported a simplified tax system and cuts in federal taxes, including elimination of the so-called death tax, but his response to the flat tax question brought some cat calls and jeers. "I have a real question whether it would be the right transition for our economy," he said.

Actually, Rudy, anything that does away with that leviathan of a tax code we have right now would be fantastic. Anywho, in a little display of irony:

... Businessman Steve Forbes, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination twice, based his campaign on a flat tax. Forbes has endorsed Giuliani.

"I'm endorsing the guy who thinks my idea sucks!" Whatever, Steve.

I wonder if anyone has even bothered to ask Rudy about the Fair Tax?

Tax revenue at highest levels...as is government spending

According to the MSM, Bush gets no credit for the tax revenues, but he gets blamed for the record spending. From the AP:

Federal revenue collections hit an all-time high in April, contributing to a further improvement in the budget deficit for the year.
Releasing its monthly budget report, the Treasury Department said Thursday that through the first seven months of this budget year, the deficit totals $80.8 billion, significantly below the $184.1 billion imbalance run up during the first seven months of the 2006 budget year.

So far this year, tax revenues total $1.505 trillion, an increase of 11.2 percent over the same period last year. That figure includes $383.6 billion collected in April, the largest monthly tax collection on record.

Tax collections swell in April every year as individuals file their tax returns by the deadline.

Note the little disclaimer there? Tax collections "swell every April", so don't read anything into it, right? Well, they still "swelled" to record highs, right?

Before I get accused of leading some Dubya cheerleading brigade here, this also needs to be pointed out:

For the first seven months of this budget year, which began Oct. 1, revenue collections and government spending are at all-time highs.

However, the spending total of $1.585 trillion was up at a slower pace of 3.2 percent from the previous year.

The spending total may be up at a slower pace, but it's still up...and way too high, too. The feds are still spending about $80 billion more than they're taking in. If I tried that, I'm pretty sure my bank would be calling me up post haste.

The AP ends up contradicting itself in this paragraph:

...But the 2001 recession, the cost of fighting a global war on terror and the loss of revenue from President Bush's tax cuts sent the budget back into the red starting in 2002.

Didn't they just get done telling us that revenues were at an all-time high? They didn't attribute the revenue increase to the tax cuts, but they darned sure attributed the red ink to the tax cuts, now didn't they? Economic ignorance or media bias? You be the judge.

At any rate, let's not ignore the obvious here: tax cuts have increased the money coming in to the government, and the spend-happy Bush and Republican Party (when they ran the legislature) spent all that money and then some. Republicans they are, conservatives they are not.

That's like your boss giving you a Christmas bonus of $10,000 and you go spend it on a down payment on a $50,000 car. You had an extra $10k that you managed to turn into a $40k debt. Of course, if you're a liberal, you blame the debt on the Christmas bonus (or your boss for giving you the bonus) instead of how you spent it.

Dems to push massive tax increases

Don't act like you didn't see this coming. From Bob Novak:

The new Democratic majority today begins dancing the next phase of the tax-and-spend minuet in the House of Representatives. Following the example of their Senate brethren last Friday, House Democrats will adopt a budget resolution containing the largest tax increase in U.S. history amid massive national inattention.

Nobody's tax payment will increase immediately, but the budget resolutions set a pattern for years ahead. The House version increases non-defense, non-emergency spending by $22.5 billion for the next fiscal year, with such spending rising 2.4 percent in each of the next three years. To pay for these increases, the resolution raises taxes close to $400 billion over five years -- about $100 billion more than what the Senate passed.

It had been assumed the newly majoritarian Democrats in Congress would end President Bush's relief in taxation of capital gains, dividends and estates. What came as a surprise was the simultaneous rollback in Bush-sponsored income tax cuts. This represents Democrats' belief they can politically survive this long-term commitment to bigger government. Here is an audacious effort to raise the banner of fiscal responsibility while increasing spending and taxes.

This Democratic strategy is encapsulated in what Harry Hopkins, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's main man, is alleged to have told a friend at New York's Empire Race Track in August 1938: "We will spend and spend, and tax and tax, and elect and elect." While Hopkins denied ever saying that, those words represented successful Democratic government and political strategy for the next two decades.

John F. Kennedy, reclaiming the White House for the Democrats for the first time in eight years, altered the party's pattern in 1961 with massive tax cuts. However, Bill Clinton, taking power in 1993 after 12 years of Republican rule, returned to the Hopkins formula by proposing and passing what then was the biggest tax increase ever. It was "tax" and "spend," but not "elect." The Clinton tax contributed to the 1994 Democratic loss of control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

Why, then, having just regained congressional control, are Democrats going down this dangerous path again? (Because they're Democrats, i.e. they're not very bright. - Ed.) Indeed, while President Clinton in 1993 had to twist arms for a one-vote margin in each house. Democrats now obediently fall in line for tax increases. Their conduct is explained by faith in the March 20-25 Democracy Corps poll that voters associate Democrats more than Republicans with "fiscal responsibility," 44 percent to 36 percent.

The architect of that impression is Sen. Kent Conrad, the austere Democratic chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. "It restores fiscal responsibility by balancing the budget by 2012," he said of his resolution in Senate debate last week.

Conrad claimed: "We try to keep taxes low." In fact, Conrad is the consummate tax collector who spent the 12 formative career years prior to his 1986 election to the Senate as an assistant tax commissioner and then tax commissioner in North Dakota. His most recent liberal ratings are 90 and 85 percent by the liberal Americans for Democratic Action. The National Taxpayers Union put him at 17 and 16 percent in 2005 and 2006.

The breakdown of the bill on the House floor today (resembling the Senate version) raises taxes an average of $1,795 on 115 million taxpayers in 2011. Some 26 million small-business owners would average $3,960 more in taxes. The decreased number of Americans actually subject to income taxes will all be paying higher taxes, and 5 million low-income Americans will be returned to the rolls.

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the 37-year-old fifth-termer who is the House Budget Committee's new ranking Republican, has proposed an alternative resolution. It not only retains Bush tax cuts but also proposes deep reductions in spending, protects Social Security payments and runs down the national debt.

Why was no such budget resolution proposed during 12 years that the GOP was in the majority? Would the party's leadership support the Ryan resolution if it were in control now? That those questions must be asked undermines Republican credibility and explains why Democrats dare return to tax, spend and elect.

It was asserted over the last few years that the Republicans were turning into Democrats with their "borrow and spend" philosophy while the Democrats were turning into socialists with their "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" philosophy. Most of today's Republicans, both those still serving and those who were vanquished at the polls last November, have largely themselves to blame. So, too, do the voters who were tired of the Republicans and wanted to give the tax-happy Democrats control also shoulder the blame.

It's quite simple, which I suppose is why politicians have a tough time grasping the concept: if you cut taxes, you should cut expenses. Yes, tax cuts have always (without fail) increased revenue coming into the government. No question. However, also without question is the fact that politicians spend all that extra money and then some! Republicans had the "cut taxes" part down pat, and America's economy has rebounded nicely as a result. However, long-term economic growth cannot be sustained with unbridled spending...nor with unbridled taxing. Democrats have the "unbridled taxing" part down pat.

Man, when are ever gonna get anyone other than functional economic illiterates to run the show in DC?