Last year at this time, voters were swarming the polls, anxious to show dozens of leaders the door. In the 11 months since the moving trucks pulled away from Capitol Hill, a lot has changed. But, as Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) points out, not all of it is positive. While the House tugs at the Senate for tougher reforms, members of both parties can’t seem to kick their worst habit: congressional spending. “Just last week,” Sen. DeMint writes, “Democrats and Republicans in the Senate passed three new spending bills to increase 2012 funding above 2011 funding levels… In the spring fight to avert a government shutdown, Republicans promised $100 billion in real cuts,” he fumes, “but then compromised for $38.5 billion in future savings. In reality, the Congressional Budget Office found the deal still resulted in an increase of more than $170 billion in federal spending from 2010 to 2011. The ‘largest spending cut in history’ ended up being a spending increase.”

He goes on to sum up the other disappointments–the debt ceiling. Cut, Cap, and Balance. And the worrisome signs from the Super Committee. According to reports, there seems to be a growing tolerance for tax hikes among the Committee’s six Republicans. Hopefully, the rumors of Republicans backing tax increases are just that–rumors. But even Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), one of the conservative hard-liners, said yesterday that he’d be “willing to take some tax increases,” even after signing a letter refusing to consider them. “If we could have our way,” Sen. Coburn told Politico, “that’s what we’d get, but we’re not going to get our way, are we? We’re going to have to have revenue increases to get entitlement reform.” Not according to Sen. DeMint. If Congress were serious about cutting spending, the $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions would be a cinch. “I can find $1.5 trillion of budget savings in my sleep!” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas). Instead, Democrats are coaxing the GOP to take less than $1 of spending cuts for every $1 in new taxes, which, as Steve Moore points out, is more liberal than the recommendations of the President’s own fiscal committee. Fortunately, nothing–including these tax proposals–is final until the Committee releases its report.

Until then, Democrats will try to box Americans into higher taxes in the Senate, where the Left is pushing to limit charitable deductions again–a favorite agenda of this administration. Like us, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) understands what a mistake this would be. In a column for his hometown paper, he argues that taking away 20% of some families’ charitable deductions isn’t attacking the deficit, it’s attacking the needy. If the Left succeeds, nonprofits stand to lose about $10 billion in donations a year. Any money “saved” by capping these deductions, Sen. Hatch insists, would only “fund more government bloat and government jobs.” Washington needs a lot of things–but our charity isn’t one of them!

The State Department has bought more than $70,000 worth of books authored by President Obama, sending out copies as Christmas gratuities and stocking “key libraries” around the world with “Dreams From My Father” more than a decade after its release.

The U.S. Embassy in Egypt, for instance, spent $28,636 in August 2009 for copies of Mr. Obama’s best-selling 1995 memoir. Six weeks earlier, the embassy had placed another order for the same book for more than $9,000, federal purchasing records show.

About the same time, halfway around the world, the U.S. Embassy in South Korea had the same idea and spent more than $6,000 for copies of “Dreams From My Father.”
One month later, the U. S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, spent more than $3,800 for hardcover copies of the Indonesian version of Mr. Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope,” records show.

A review of the expenditures in a federal database did not reveal any examples of State Department purchases of books by former Presidents George W. Bush or Bill Clinton. The purchases of Mr. Obama’s literary work mostly, but not always, took place in the months after Mr. Obama captured the White House.

Leslie Paige, a spokeswoman for Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group, said if the federal government is looking to cut costs, eliminating purchases of Mr. Obama’s books is a good place to start.

“It’s inappropriate for U.S. taxpayer dollars to be spent on this,” she said. “This sounds like propaganda.”

But State Department spokesman Noel Clay said the book purchases followed regular government procurement rules. He said diplomats have long used books as a way to help broker talks on important foreign-policy matters.

“The structure and the presidency of the United States is an integral component of representing the United States overseas,” Mr. Clay said. “We often use books to engage key audiences in discussions of foreign policy.”

He also said books are purchased to stock the State Department’s “information resource centers,” which he said are located around the world and provide books about U.S. coverage of issues such as culture, history and values.

“We also provide key library collections with books about the United States,” he said.

Pete Sepp, vice president of the National Taxpayer’s Union, said there could be value in distributing books about American politics and the people who make up political institutions.

“Compared to big-ticket items like embassy construction, buying books may not show up as a huge warning on taxpayers’ radar screens, but there is always room for improvement and making sure programs like this are serving a good, intended purpose,” he said.

There’s no indication the White House knew about the purchases, which overall represent just a fraction of the nearly quarter-million dollars Mr. Obama donated to charities last year and his more than $1.7 million in overall income. Mr. Clay said book orders are normally made directly by embassies based on “their experience and knowledge on the ground of the intended audience.”

A White House spokesman did not respond to email messages.

The records show a mix of English and foreign language purchases of Mr. Obama’s books.

The U.S. Embassy in Indonesia spent more than $4,800 in September 2009 for copies of “Dreams From My Father” and “The Audacity of Hope,” though the title of the latter book is spelled “Authority of Hope” in the federal spending database. The embassy spent $3,885 for additional Indonesian copies of “The Audacity of Hope,” records show.
The U.S. Embassy in Turkey spent more than $3,700 in December 2009 for what purchasing records describe as “Copies of Barack Obama’s book in Turkish.”

In March, the U.S. Embassy in Paris spent more than $8,300 for French language copies of “Dreams From My Father.” The embassy also spent more than $11,600 for French language copies of Mr. Obama’s children’s book, “Of Thee I Sing,” though any royalties he receives for purchases of that children’s book will be donated to charity, according to Mr. Obama’s financial disclosure forms.

Mr. Obama has earned far more writing books than he has earned holding government office. He reported from $1 million to $5 million in royalties in 2010 for “Dreams From My Father,” and between $100,001 and $1 million in royalties for “The Audacity of Hope.”

If he earned 10 percent royalties on roughly $60,000 in purchases of his books by the State Department, excluding the children’s book, he could expect to pocket $6,000. It’s a tiny slice of Mr. Obama’s overall earnings, though still a sizable chunk to most Americans, whose median household income in 2009 was just over $50,000.

According to financial-disclosure forms, Mr. Obama earns royalties of 15 percent of the U.S. price for hardcover sales for “The Audacity of Hope” and 7.5 percent for trade paperback book sales. He reported between $100,001 and $1 million in royalties for “The Audacity of Hope.”

Mr. Obama’s and first lady Michelle Obama’s joint 2010 tax return showed overall income of just under $1.8 million, with more than $240,000 donated to charity. The Obamas reported about $1.5 million from book-related income. Overall, they donated about 14 percent of their income to charity.

Royalties for Mr. Obama’s children’s book, “Of Thee I Sing” are being donated to the Fisher House Foundation for a scholarship fund for children of fallen and disabled soldiers, disclosure forms show.

Mr. Obama also has a deal to write another book after his presidency.

© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC.

I have never viewed taxation as a means of rewarding one class of taxpayers or punishing another. If such a point of view ever controls our public policy, the traditions of freedom, justice and equality of opportunity, which are the distinguishing characteristics of our American civilization, will have disappeared and in their place we shall have class legislation with all its attendant evils.  The man who seeks to perpetuate prejudice and class hatred is doing America an ill service.  In attempting to promote or to defeat legislation by arraying one class of taxpayers against another, he shows a complete misconception of those principles of equality on which the country was founded.  Any man of energy and initiative in this country can get what he wants out of life. But when that initiative is crippled by legislation or by a tax system which denies him the right to receive a reasonable share of his earnings, then he will no longer exert himself and the country will be deprived of the energy on which its continued greatness depends.

This condition has already begun to make itself felt as a result of the present unsound basis of taxation.  The existing tax system is an inheritance from the war.  During that time the highest taxes ever levied by any country were borne uncomplainingly by the American people for the purpose of defraying the unusual and ever-increasing expenses incident to the successful conduct of a  great war.  Normal tax rates were increased, and a system of surtaxes was evolved in order to make the man of large income pay more proportionately than the smaller taxpayer.  If he had twice as much income, he paid not twice, but three or four times as much tax.  For a short time the surtaxes yielded a large revenue.  But since the close of the war people have come to look upon them as a business expense and have treated them accordingly by avoiding payment as much as possible.  The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid.  The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income.  The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

Earlier this week I traveled to Washington to testify before the House Ways and Means Committee about the FairTax—which would do far more to stimulate the economy and get jobs back than continuing to spend trillions redistributing wealth.

The FairTax would eliminate all taxes on income, savings, dividends, capital gains, and inheritance and every worker would get his or her entire paycheck—nothing taken out of it. Tax would be collected at the point of retail sale or consumption. It would make manufacturing competitive to bring jobs back, and empower people at the bottom of the economy rather than punish them for doing better.

My thanks to Ways and Means Chairman Congressman Dave Camp of Michigan, for giving a forum to a discussion of the FairTax. Of course some of the members of Congress used their time not to ask question on the merits of the fair tax, but to pontificate on the politics of the debt ceiling. I was tempted to ask some of them who voted against increasing the debt ceiling when GW Bush was President why it’s now so crucial this time….I’d love to ask the President himself that question….but I minded my manners and didn’t say something that I’d regret.

Most children balk at eating anything green, whether peas, green beans, spinach or any other kind of green vegetable. It’s difficult for them to understand that eating something that appears unappetizing on the surface (but , may in fact be very tasty) is important for nutrition’s sake. They simply lack the maturity to understand the concept of doing something potentially distasteful merely for the health benefits.

President Barack Obama is a big fan of peas. Or, maybe he isn’t (more likely, he likes them when talking to one group and dislikes them when convenient politically). At the moment he wants us to eat them. Lots and lots and lots of them:

“It’s not going to get easier, it’s going to get harder. So we might as well do it now; pull off the Band-Aid, eat our peas.”

In this instance, it’s clear that the term “eat(ing) our peas” is White House code for “raising taxes to make our base happy”.

In case the significance of 2013 is lost on you, it’s the beginning of what the president expects will be his second term. One wonders if anyone will have the courage to ask him about his John Kerry-esque stance on raising taxes during an economic down turn.

Barack Obama, August 2009:

“Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”

Barack Obama, July 2011:

“Nobody is talking about raising taxes right now…we’re talking about 2013.”

Obama, like most liberals, believes increasing taxes is the same thing as increasing revenue, which is easy to believe if you accept that economics is a zero-sum game. If you believe that, you’re more likely to believe that banning guns eliminates gun crime and perhaps you even believe that the Earth is flat. Don’t laugh, all three statements are equally logical.

Real leadership isn’t telling people to eat their vegetables. Real leadership is about setting a course based on your core principles and influencing people to follow you. That takes more than reading from a teleprompter or voting “present” in the Illinois Senate.

“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.”

What Founding Father Thomas Jefferson so eloquently refers to here is the American dream: the ability to profit from the sweat of our brow, control our freedom, and to pursue happiness. But “the American dream is in jeopardy,” writes Heritage’s Mike Brownfield in April 19th’s Morning Bell.

The American dream depends in large part on economic freedom. But economic freedom in America has taken a severe beating from big-government policies and unbridled government expansion. This has led to trillion-dollar deficits and an unfavorable business climate that drives more and more companies overseas.

As a result, the United States has dropped from the rankings of the most economically free countries in the world for the second year in a row. America now ranks as only mostly free, according to the Heritage’s 2011 Index of Economic Freedom.

“That disturbing trend,” Brownfield writes, “points to a serious problem in the United States: the Land of the Free is not the attractive place to do business that it once was.”