
<p>No where in Government are there more schemes to fool the American people than in legislation that has to do with spending and taxing.</p>



<p>The evergreen con comes in projecting the cost of a program and the anticipated revenues to pay for it. ; In that game the Democrats are Lucy, of “Peanuts” fame, and we the people are Charlie Brown at the beginning of football season. ; Lucy makes a promise to tee up the ball every year only to snatch it away at the last moment – sending Charley flat on his back as he goes to kick the ball.</p>



<p>Once again, the Democrats tell us that the HUGE Infrastructure Bill and the even Huge-r Reconciliation Bill will be paid for. ; And like a bunch of Charlie Browns, too many people believe them – when, in fact, the ultimate cost of the legislation will surpass the initial projections by a LOT and the anticipated revenues will fall far short of the estimate. ; ;</p>



<p>Democrats will tell us that most of the new money will come from taxing corporations – even though they know that we the people will wind up paying those taxes in the form of increased prices for goods and services.</p>



<p>Then there is this scam.</p>



<p>The proposed Biden legislation is given a price tag of $3.5 trillion dollars over the next ten years. ; That is $350 billion dollars per year. ; That is an enormous amount of money to add to the federal budget. ; Too much, in fact.</p>



<p>In an effort to reach a compromise, some Democrat leaders are suggesting that they pass a 5-year bill for half that amount – or a mere $17.5 trillion price tag.  ; That amounts to … what? … $350 billion per year.</p>



<p>If you follow what West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin calls the “acceptable” amount of $1.5 trillion dollars, that comes to $150 billion per year. ; That is still an enormous amount to add to the federal budget each year. ; Still too much.</p>



<p>The annual expenditure is the most critical number. ; Why? ; Because that is how we tax. ; That is how we budget. ; That is how we spend. ; Simply reducing the number of years while keeping the $350 billion annual expenditure is a distinction without a difference. ; It is a ruse designed to fool the American public.</p>



<p>Whether it is a ten-year expenditure or a five-year expenditure, Democrats are betting that once their menu of socialistic welfare programs are in place, they will never be cancelled. ; In other words, if they get their $350 billion per year for five years or ten years makes no difference. ; They will continue ad infinitum.</p>



<p>And even worse, the cost of those programs will continue to increase – meaning that future Congresses will have to appropriate more and more money to keep them going. ; If you do not understand that dynamic, just check out the cost of Medicare, school loans, food stamps, unemployment compensation and every other federal program over the years.</p>



<p>Do not be fooled. ; The Biden “Build Back Better” scheme will break the bank, increase the National Debt by trillions of dollars and trigger inflation. ; But Biden and the Democrats do not care because most of the poop will hit the propeller long after these reckless reprobates are long gone.</p>



<p>There are various levels of proposed spending. ; Vermont’s self-proclaimed socialist Senator Bernie Sanders would like to make the figure $6 trillion. ; The Biden package is said to be $3.5 trillion. ; Manchin sees the ceiling at $1.5 trillion. ; It is all too much.</p>



<p>The most responsible number? ; Zero – and it does not matter if you project that for ten years, five years or until the end of the millennium. ; We can only hope that there are enough responsible members of Congress to kill off Biden’s insane Build Back Broker proposal.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis</p>



<p></p>



<p>Correction: Kudos to Joseph S. Bruder for finding the typo in the math – the misplaced decimal point. ; It should have been $1.75 trillion instead of $17.5 trillion. ; However, the point still stands. ; Cutting the years from 10 to 5 to get to a $1.75 trillion dollar Bill makes no difference in the annual spending. ; It is a scam. ; Mr. Bruder chooses a picayune criticism over a refutation of the major point – as usual.</p>

Are Democrats going to fool us … again?
