JOHN BOEHNER

House Democratic Leaders are reportedly seeking to ditch the budget process this year to avoid more "tough votes" on their budget that spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much - but even as they seek to distance themselves from the 25 tax increases, totaling nearly $700 billion, they've already enacted, out-of-touch Washington Democrats are scheming to impose a European-style value added tax (VAT) on the American people.   Without fundamental tax reform, the VAT tax would be yet another tax hike that would hammer small businesses and undermine job creation at a time when the American people are asking "where are the jobs?"

Democrats will try to argue that a value-added tax is necessary to rein in the massive deficits that they've run up since last January.  But as the following chart from the Heritage Foundation shows, Democrats have as much of a spending problem as they do a deficit problem:

A job-killing value-added tax would simply lock in higher government spending without attacking the growing national debt.  As Robert J. Samuelson wrote in today's Washington Post:

Almost every pro-VAT argument is exaggerated, misleading, incomplete or wrong. The VAT is being merchandised as an almost-painless way to avoid deep spending cuts. The implicit, though often unstated, message is that a VAT could raise so much money it could eliminate future deficits by itself. This reasoning, if embraced, would create staggering tax burdens and exempt us from a debate we desperately need.

Higher taxes are proven job-killers - but Democrats are in denial about that self-evident fact when it comes to their desire to spend more of other peoples' money, as economist Kevin Hassett noted in Bloomberg News today:

Democrats believe that incentives they like matter, while those they don't like, don't. Hence their inconsistent views that you can increase marginal tax rates and not cause economic harm, but you can enact a tax subsidy for hybrid automobiles and save the environment....Their policies were never meant to make sense. What's absent is an economic conscience. 

Democrats never seem to consider that perhaps the American people are fed up with their never ending cycle of higher spending and higher taxes.  In fact, today's Los Angeles Times reported that the American people are yelling "stop" at the top of their lungs, but Democrats are refusing to listen:

Only 22 percent of all Americans surveyed said they trusted the government in Washington almost always or most of the time -- among the lowest measures in half a century....Growing numbers of people want government's power curtailed, Pew reports of a March and April survey that found ‘less of an appetite for government solutions to the nation's problems -- including more government control over the economy -- than there was when Barack Obama first took office.'

Instead of listening to the American people, out-of-touch Washington Democrats have doubled down on their job-killing agenda.  After jamming a government takeover of health care down Americans' throats, pushing a European-style value-added tax would simply add insult to injury.

As Americans scramble to meet today's tax filing deadline, the Democratic Congress will miss its own deadline for one of the most basic acts of governing: passing a budget resolution. Worse, recent press reports have indicated that the House of Representatives may not consider a budget resolution this year.  If true, this would be the first time since the passage of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that the House would fail to craft a budget.  We believe that this would set a terrible precedent, and we strongly urge you to reject these reports and encourage the House to consider a budget resolution later this year.... The purpose of the Congressional budget is to create enforceable parameters within which Congress can consider legislation dealing with spending and revenue.  In the absence of a budget, there would be virtually no procedural enforcement mechanism to constrain spending in either the House or the Senate.  Especially in an election year, this would be an open invitation for Congress to increase spending to unprecedented levels.

• It does not set priorities, as a budget does.
• It gives the Appropriations Committee the green light to spend.
• It does not establish other spending levels - such as those for entitlements, the biggest problem in the budget outlook.
• It provides no means of restraining uncontrolled entitlement spending.
• It makes no attempt to align spending, tax, deficit, and debt levels.

The executive order, which will become effective next month, is the latest in a series of moves by the administration that are favorable to unions, whose members could play a critical role in the upcoming midterm elections as Democrats try to hang on to seats in Congress. The rule doesn't mandate that federal agencies require contractors to bargain with unions on all jobs, but it clears the path for government agencies to make such agreements a requirement for contractors on jobs costing $25 million or more....Building trade groups said pushing contractors to agree to such agreements with unions could drive up the costs of public construction by nearly 20% and discriminate against what they said are more than the 85% of the U.S. construction workforce members who choose not to join a union.... This is the latest win for unions in their tug-of-war with employers. Unions recently welcomed Mr. Obama's recess appointment of former union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board after the nomination failed to win enough Senate votes.

Project Labor Agreements reduce competition, increase costs for taxpayers, and add layers of bureaucracy and red tape to federal construction projects.  Creating a formal federal process for imposing these Depression-era mandates on construction projects may be a win for special interests, but it's a loss for workers, taxpayers, and small businesses hoping to compete for federal jobs.  PLAs are an antiquated approach to federal contracting designed to favor large, unionized contractors at the expense of smaller employers. The likely consequence of this new federal regulation will be higher costs for taxpayers and far less competition among job creators trying to get the American economy back on track.

Congress is poised to miss its April 15 deadline for finishing next year's budget without even considering a draft in either chamber.  Unlike citizens' tax-filing deadline, Congress's mid-April benchmark is nonbinding. And members seem to be in no rush to get the process going.... The practical consequences of failing to produce a federal budget for next year are about the same as they are for a family that doesn't set a plan for income and spending: Congress doesn't need a budget to tax or spend, but enforcing discipline is harder without one. And, like a family that misses out on efficiencies because it hasn't taken a hard look at its finances, Congress can't use reconciliation rules to cut the deficit if the House and the Senate don't adopt the same budget.

Spending other than that for the TARP and deposit insurance was $187 billion (or 11 percent) higher in the first six months of this year than during the same period last year....Outlays for net interest on the public debt grew by $26 billion (or 31 percent) compared to the first six months of fiscal year 2009.

The pillars of Americans' financial security - jobs and home values - will stay shaky well into 2011, according to an Associated Press survey of leading economists.  The findings of the new AP Economy Survey, released Monday, point to an economic recovery that will move slowly and fitfully this year and next...The unemployment rate will stay stubbornly high the next two years. It will inch down to 9.3 percent by the end of this year and to 8.4 percent by the end of 2011.

‘I think the term 'cap-and-trade' is not in the lexicon anymore,' [Interior Secretary Ken] Salazar, a former senator, said during an interview on CNBC when asked if the climate change regulation system would be abandoned....'We're hopeful we will be able to see an energy and climate change agenda move forward,' he said.

Ok, so the Obama administration is going to allow some offshore drilling.  The surprise decision is being couched in language about creating jobs and reducing dependence on foreign oil.  Yeah yeah.  The real story is that Cap & Trade is back on the table, as Ken Salazar is stating on CNBC right now.  Obama gives a gift to oil drillers, and in exchange he gets the equivalent of an energy tax....with some corporate support.  Actually, cap & trade has already enjoyed significant corporate support from the likes of Goldman Sachs (GS) and GE (GE), which are eager to make a market in carbon offsets. Now, presumably, we'll see more corporate support.

It's long past time for this Administration to stop delaying American energy production off all our shores and start listening to the American people who want an "all of the above" strategy to produce more American energy and create more jobs.  Republicans are listening to the American people and have proposed a better solution - the American Energy Act - which will lower gas prices, increase American energy production, promote new clean and renewable sources of energy, and encourage greater efficiency and conservation.

The health care overhaul will cost U.S. companies billions and make them more likely to drop prescription drug coverage for retirees because of a change in how the government subsidizes those benefits. In the first two days after the law was signed, three major companies - Deere & Co., Caterpillar Inc. and Valero Energy - said they expect to take a total hit of $265 million to account for smaller tax deductions in the future.  With more than 3,500 companies now getting the tax break as an incentive to keep providing coverage, others are almost certain to announce similar cost increases in the weeks ahead as they sort out the impact of the change....analysts said as many as 2 million could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers, leaving them to enroll in Medicare's program.

The Oklahoma Senate also gave preliminary approval Tuesday for House Joint Resolution 1054-a constitutional amendment protecting a patient's right to pay directly for medical care, and prohibiting penalties for failing to purchase health insurance-to appear before voters on the November ballot. The resolution passed with strong bipartisan support, with 20 Oklahoma House Democrats and 11 Oklahoma Senate Democrats backing the legislation.

Taking into account the changes included in the federal legislation, as well as the recently enacted state budget for FY 2011, the updated analysis shows that the costs to the State of Arizona of these unprecedented federal mandates total a staggering $11.6 billion over the next 10 years. Despite claims of 'savings' due to increased federal funding, maintenance of effort requirements obligate Arizona to spend over $1 billion annually to access those increased federal funds.

Gov. Gary Herbert blasted Congress' efforts to impose health reform Thursday, saying it would be a ‘budget buster' and insisting it is unconstitutional to require citizens to buy health insurance.... Herbert is supporting Utah's efforts to join with 12 other states in an attempt to challenge the Democratic health reform legislation that President Barack Obama signed on Tuesday.  ‘The states have got to stand up,' Herbert said of the 2,562-page bill that he said is a ‘typical, one-size-fits-all approach.'

The Tar Heel State's GOP congressional delegation drafted a letter to Attorney General Roy Cooper asking him to join 14 other states whose attorneys general have filed or are in the process of filing lawsuits opposing the new law.  The letter, which is dated March 24, is signed by Reps. Virginia Foxx and Patrick McHenry - whose 5th and 10th districts, respectively, cover Iredell County - as well as representatives Walter Jones (3rd District), Sue Myrick (9th District) and Howard Coble (6th District).

This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office...The problem...is that payments have risen more than expected during the downturn, because jobs disappeared and people applied for benefits sooner than they had planned. At the same time, the program's revenue has fallen sharply, because there are fewer paychecks to tax.

Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent.) It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.