Obama's budgetary formula: Take total revenues and multipy by 1.42% and, Wala, you have the Obama Economic Scheme.

Read that headline again.

Not your typical headline but what I am getting at is this: we are now borrowing 42 cents of every single dollar we spend. We borrow to support our military. We borrow to complete funding for Social Security and Medicaid. When Obama touts continued "investments" in research and education and healthcare, he is telling us he has no intentions of backing off spending.

So, why not tax the rich? Their tax rate is around 35%, up from Reagan's 28% but, still, a "doable" tax. Could they afford a 38% rate, and then a 42% and then a 45% and then . . . . back to 70% under JFK or 90% under Eisenhower?

Understand that there is no end for the need to tax the rich if the "poor" and lazy pay next to nothing. Half this nation's population pays less than 2% of the national tax burden. The top 2% ?? They pay 70% of the tax revenue burden. Obama loves to talk about "shared responsibility." What, pray tell, is 70% if not "shared responsibility?"

Our annual debt for 2011 will be 1.65 trillion dollars. That number, 1.65 trillion, is the 42% we are talking about in this post. In 2009, 4 million folks making more than $200,000 per year filed their tax forms (4 million out of a total of 138 million filers). If we taxed these folks at the rate of 100%, their assessed tax would pay for less than half of the annualized deficit. In other words, we could steal all of their income and we would still have to come up with 850 billion for the year, more than any of the eight deficits under Bush 43 ( if we do not count TARP and why should we since Obama is telling us that TARP has recovered all the money it spent?) .

PLUS, all of the rich would move to Canada leaving us regular folks with 15 dollar per gallon gas and no jobs.

Understand that out of this small group of "Americans" (this is what they are called before moving to Canada) come 70% of all private sector jobs. Taxes at whatever level, take money out of the economy. You say "no?" Think about it: "more taxes" means less money for corporate sponsored research, group health care plans, for wage increases, for hiring, for bonuses and private retirement funding. It means less money for risk management, insurance deductibles and attorney fees. And worst of all, it means that business owners and corporate heads will have to drive GM products rather than Lexus' or Jaguars. Let's not leave off less for recreation and food and clothing.

Raising taxes is "band aide" economics if these increases are not a one time circumstance, and with the Establishment crowd, whether Democrat or Republican, they are not.

Know this, band aides mean nothing when the patient is on a respirator.