Hey, guess what?  The IRS is not producing per expectations.  IRS tax revenue falls along with taxpayers’ income

Federal tax revenue plunged $138 billion, or 34%, in April vs. a year ago — the biggest April drop since 1981, a study released Tuesday by the American Institute for Economic Research says.

…Big revenue losses mean that the U.S. budget deficit may be larger than predicted this year and in future years.

So of course the next question is, what does Congress want to tax next?  One idea is a national sales tax:

Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax — called a value-added tax, or VAT — has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.

At a White House conference earlier this year on the government’s budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama’s policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.

Why doesn’t Congress want us to know they’re looking at this?

A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American — a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.

No wonder their interest is “furtive.”  Add the effects of this to the effects of cap and tax on the price of everything if it passes, and you’re well on the way to pricing most people out of the market of everyday living, definitely not a tangible benefit.

Proponents extol its virtues by pointing out how, theoretically, it will pay for nationalized healthcare.  Nowhere, in this article at least, is any mention made of how it would reduce the budget deficit.

Which echoes the President’s strategy.  Have you noticed how he ties his spending increases to healthcare?  Every increase will generate the money to institute “reform” (read government stranglehold) of the system, which will in turn lead to huge taxpayer savings in the indeterminate future, somehow.  He asserts–he doesn’t explain, and Republicans let him get away with framing the debate that way.  They need to call him on it, loudly.  Congress has accepted it, too.  We need to call them on it, loudly, as well.