ATR: Obama's VAT Trial Balloon Dusts Off Bill Clinton's 1993 Playbook

/PRNewswire / -- When it comes to finding a way to finance government-run health care, the administration of Barack Obama is floating a VAT trial balloon echoing that of President Bill Clinton in 1993.

The Obama administration's VAT trial balloon is being floated by Kenneth Baer, spokesman for Obama Budget Director Peter Orszag, who was quoted in the Washington Post on Wednesday as saying a VAT is "unlikely to be in the mix" but did not rule it out, despite Obama's central campaign promise not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000: "While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers."

In April of 1993, newly inaugurated President Clinton was exploring ways to pay for his government health care plan, including a VAT, as noted at the time in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Trial balloons wafting over Washington say the administration may be considering a value-added tax -- VAT for short -- to fund universal health care coverage. And President Bill Clinton himself is keeping the balloons aloft. "There are all kinds of arguments for it on policy grounds," Clinton said Friday at a press conference. Clinton said he hadn't decided to include a VAT in his health care plan. But he said he didn't mind the fact that two top administration officials said they liked the idea.' We've had a lot of people from business and labor come to us saying they thought that that tax would help make their particular industries more competitive in the global economy," Clinton told a reporter, who implied that the aides were speaking out of turn. (Gallagher, J. (1993, April 25). Clinton Stirs a VAT; New Tax Enters Health Debate. St. Louis Post-Dispatch.)

"The people closest to Obama seem to believe he wasn't telling the truth when he promised not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "Otherwise they would have outright rejected the mere mention of a VAT, a tax that would be paid by all Americans."

-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use

Hillary Clinton 2006 FEC Immunity Deal May Be Voided, According to D. Colette Wilson, Attorney

/PRNewswire/ -- Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and the Hillary Clinton for Senate Committee, Inc. have become the subjects of a new Federal Election Commission Complaint filed today.

An original FEC complaint filed against Senator Clinton and her agents, President Clinton, Finance Director David Rosen and Treasurer Andrew Grossman, in July 2001 exposed the false reporting of more than $1.2 million expended by Hollywood dot-com millionaire Peter Paul at the request of Senator Clinton and her agents. Clinton Finance Director David Rosen was indicted and tried for FEC fraud in 2005 as a result, and a Conciliation Agreement with Andrew Grossman Treasurer of NY Senate included a fine of the Clinton campaign and an immunity agreement protecting Senator Clinton from further investigation of illegal acts.

The January 2006 "confidential" FEC immunization of Hillary Clinton as in the Senate campaign, was subject to the filing of a fourth corrected FEC Report on January 30, 2006, to legally report the $1.2 million plus expenditure contributed by Peter Paul to underwrite Event 39, and hidden in previous reports.

The new FEC complaint presents new evidence that the latest FEC Report by Hillary Clinton and her campaign violates the Conciliation agreement compelling the FEC to void its grant of immunity. It states:

"The false reporting of [Paul's 1.2 million] expenditures as nonfederal contributions to New York Senate 2000 was and is a violation of the reporting requirements of 2 U.S.C. Section 434(b). The activities of [Hillary Clinton and the other Respondents] in making false statements which resulted in such contributions' being improperly reported as nonfederal contributions to New York Senate 2000 violated 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 (false statements) and/or 18 U.S.C. Section 2 (aiding and abetting)."

When the FEC decided to close its file as to Hillary Clinton in 2006, it stated that, "Any potential liability of Senator Clinton would be based on whether she knowingly accepted prohibited or excessive in-kind corporate contributions." Such evidence was lacking then, but not now, according to D. Colette Wilson, attorney. Ironically, in defending against Peter Paul's fraud complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, Hillary Clinton and her agents David Rosen and James Levin filed sworn declarations that prove Mrs. Clinton knowingly accepted prohibited, excessive contributions in underwriting Event 39, by soliciting, directing and coordinating Mr. Paul's in-kind contribution.

Attorney D. Colette Wilson, on behalf of Clinton 's "unreported" donor, Peter Paul stated:

"The filing presents new evidence -- out of the mouths of Hillary herself and her agents -- proving that Hillary lied when she said her largest campaign fundraising event -- Event 39 -- wasn't a Hillary Clinton for Senate event. That's ALL it was. This new evidence proves it was a sham to claim that it was a Democratic party event, in order to get away with claiming that Peter Paul's expenditures were soft money donated to her Joint Fundraising Committee, New York Senate 2000, rather than federally proscribed, hard money to Hillary Clinton for Senate, the intended beneficiary."

-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use